Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:07, 16 July 2007

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—Talk to my owner:Online

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..

DNA FAR

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

Good article vetting

Hi, I'm writing to you for help by vetting Snake scales for GA.

I'm AshLin, an editor and contributor on Indian wildlife, mostly butterflies and sometimes snakes. I have worked extensively on article Snake scales under guidance of user:Jwinius. While I was offline in March 2007 the article was put up for GA but didnt make it. I've recently come online, polished the article by addressing the GA comments of reviewer User:Pete.Hurd. Unfortunately, he has left Misplaced Pages. Would you consider vetting User:AshLin/Snake_scales for GA comments please. Your cooperation would be highly appreciated.

In case you're wondering, I got your name from the GA reviewer's list. Thanks in advance, AshLin 19:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, just to inform you that I have since put up snake scales as a GA candidate. Thanks,AshLin 17:22, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Want to use your image...

Hi Tim, I really like your image for the induced fit hypothesis. I would like to reproduce it in a book I'm writing. You can contact me through mcatpearls.com and see how I intend to use it. Looking fwd to hearing from you, Alfa Diallo

All these diagrams are free to use through the GFDL licence. Tim Vickers 04:00, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction in Stem Cell article

From the Stem cell article, two sentences that I think are contradicting. The first is from Adult stem cells and the second from the lineage section.

"Adult stem cells, like embryonic stem cells, have pluripotent potential and can differentiate into cells derived from all three germ layers. Pluripotent stem cells can be directly generated from adult fibroblast cultures."

"Initial studies indicate that transformation of mice cells with a combination of these anti-differentiation signals can reverse differentiation and may allow adult cells to become pluripotent."

Do they contradict, and if so, which is correct? Thx. --Seans Potato Business 13:08, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Scholarly sources

Please see my recent addition to WP:V. I think this is much better. Buttressed by the Arb ruling, I think it appropriate on the policy rather than guideline. Marskell 15:49, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Branching in to policy

I noticed that you are putting some efforts into WP policy areas. I wanted to recommend an interesting essay to you. I have had a hand in trying to make some of the polices at Wikisource conform to the better ideas in that essay, but have always found policy editing here too frustrating to be worth my effort for very long. I hope you find it more rewarding than I did.--BirgitteSB 17:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Ditto that !!!! It still troubles me that RS has been de facto deprecated (not sure there was consensus for that, but whatever), and I learned the hard way to stay away from policy discussions to the extent possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Your edits

Tim, please stop changing the policies. You're editing in a way that shows confusion e.g. your claim that sources aren't people. Of course they are, which is why we're allowed to use certain blogs depending on who the author (source) is. A source can be the writer or the publication. SlimVirgin 01:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Can you keep an eye on Anabolic steroids for me? Tim?

Given the recent event with Chris Benoit a professional wrestler who slayed his family and supposedly had steroids in his home at the time, numerous people have been attempting to alter the Anabolic steroid article to remove any implication that steroids don't result in "roid rage". I wanted to ask if you could keep an eye on it and revert any major changes to it before they get adequate discussion in the talk page by all involved parties. Thanks. Wikidudeman 08:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Your edit aren't clarifying things — they're either making no difference, or they're introducing problems — and most of the people who agree with you are people who themselves don't understand the policies (one or two of whom have caused real trouble around them in the past). As an experiment, try inserting the most appalling writing you can force yourself to come up with; you'll find that most of the same people will still support you. SlimVirgin 21:03, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I don't want to spend time going through the minutiae of your edits. You and Marskell have turned up at policy pages you're not familiar with in order to edit war for a substantive change you discussed elsewhere, and which arguably violates NPOV, leading to page protection on one of them — and another editor ends up reverting to a months-old version in order to undo your change, which has caused further confusion. It isn't good behavior, whichever way you look at it.

Above all, these pages need to be stable because they're the core content policies, the pages everyone most relies upon. They're also Foundation issues, as we saw when we recently tried to summarize them (not change them) on a new policy page called WP:ATT; even though there was widespread approval of this, Jimbo personally turned up to undo the revision.

Please don't tinker around with the wording for the hell of it, and please think carefully about your attempt to prioritize scholarly sources over other professional sources. If you want to add that to V, you'll have to initiate a Misplaced Pages-wide discussion, because it's a fundamental and substantive change both of V and of NPOV. It's not something you and Marskell can force in.

I received an e-mail about you from an editor I respect, who spoke highly of your work elsewhere. I'm certainly willing to work with you, but please imagine how you'd feel if I turned up at Evolution (which I was told you've done a lot of work on), and started crashing around with my own ideas and reverting you, even though I knew nothing about it. SlimVirgin 18:01, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

1) Introduces a new theory is unnecessary; if it's introducing it, it's a new one; 2) Sources are people or publications, so saying "who" of a source is fine 3) "A journalist's analysis and commentary on a traffic accident is based on eye-witness reports ..." But what if it isn't? 4) Nothing wrong with his or her. 5) By a publisher, not in a source, because sources are sometimes people. SlimVirgin 19:04, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I had already said most of that to you, Tim. SlimVirgin 19:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroids

As expected a few people are attempting to get the Anabolic steroid article delisted from being a Good article because it doesn't conform to what the popular media says about anabolic steroids. You yourself passed it's nomination for being a Good article and it has done nothing but improve since then and is now at the criteria for a featured article. Nonetheless some people seem to want it delisted, So could you add some input? Here ]. Wikidudeman 23:19, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone article needs major work.

The discussion of Anabolic steroids has brought to my attention the Testosterone article. Currently it contains only 6 references and 2 external links. Most of the material is unreferenced and the prose and flow of the article is in sad shape. Since you've contributed to that article in the past I thought you might want to re-write it and update it references included. It's a very important article in the Chemicals project however it's quality is bad. I've rated it a "start" class article. The article has a good amount of content, but it is still weak in certain areas and lacks adequate references. If you decide to attempt to re-write it let me know so that I can start making contributions. I think some of the sources from the Anabolic steroid article can be used in this one. Wikidudeman 02:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone, great, a page with lots of text but little solid content. My least favorite! Tim Vickers 02:42, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it needs a major rewrite. I'd be willing to contribute some time to it if you decide to as well. It would take quite a while for me to do it alone. It's one of the key articles concerning chemistry and pharmacology and seems to be in terrible quality. Wikidudeman 02:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Policy wording debates

Hi, was looking up the discussions that you have been at on the policy wordings. It is very interesting and I am beginning to suspect that the nature of the problem, which I cannot see either, is perhaps hidden by a science POV! Anyways, I am also surprised that there can be so much dispute when all appear to be thinking alike in spirit at least. Have a good weekend. Shyamal 05:09, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Testosterone sources

Can you give me a good list of scientific studies or websites dealing with testosterone that you think might be good for the article? Just a list of links to studies that may be relevant to the testosterone article that you have saved somewhere. Thanks. Wikidudeman 13:33, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Good article review again for Anabolic steroids

It's been brought up again for good article review. Please show your support for keeping it listed as a good article. ]. Wikidudeman 15:37, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

The article was just erased by Adam Cuerden because he claims the history section was copyrighted from the source. Of course that's totally false and is proven on it's talk page. Is there anything you can do to bring the history of the article back? Wikidudeman 16:46, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything else, so let's call it provisionally safe, though I'm probably going to just go through and rewrite and clarify everything. It needs a dejargoning anyway, and that'll help squash any other potential Copyvios. Adam Cuerden 17:56, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

That said, the "Biochemical mechanisms" section is either copy-pasted from a scientific article, or the person who wrote it cannot write for laymen at all. Adam Cuerden 18:00, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I wrote it, It's taken from numerous sources and may contain terms from those articles however that's not the same as a copyright. It's very difficult, I would say impossible, to write about the biochemical mechanisms of synthetic hormones in laymen. Most of the terms used have no laymen equivalent and can't be rephrased so your average scientifically illiterate person understands them. Wikidudeman 18:03, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

For instance, Tell me how "promoting the commitment of mesenchymal pluripotent cells into myogenic lineage and inhibiting their differentiation into adipogenic lineage." can be rephrased into laymen. I don't see how it can be, which is why I had to copy the sentence directly from it's source due to being unable to convert it into laymen. Wikidudeman 18:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

I've dealt with that. Some of the detail is lost of course, but since most readers might have a chance of understanding the new wording, this is a simplification worth doing. Tim Vickers 18:27, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic steroid

Yup, I messed up. I've commented on the DRV and will revert my own revert if you haven't done so already. Cheers, Pascal.Tesson 17:21, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Quote from Anabolic steroid article

Why did you remove the quote from Harrison Pope? He is a highly respected researcher of performance enhancing substances who has authored dozens of relevant studies and who is a researcher for Harvard. I think his opinion is very relevant to that section even if he is stating his personal beliefs based on his research. Wikidudeman 22:30, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you the peace offering, which I happily accept, especially as it was such a pretty one.

Let me make it perfectly clear to you that I don't like the way the policies are written, and in fact I've been known to let out low, pained groans when reading them — especially given how many edits I've made to them, because it means I get blamed for the content. The problem is too-many-editors syndrome: either too many editors writing them, or a small number writing them while trying to accommodate the views of too many. Then once they've settled into something most of us can stomach, someone turns up with a little tweak, which encourages someone else to do the same, and before you know it, the thing is totally incoherent again. The wiki system may be good for articles (in the end), but it doesn't work so well with policies.

Bear in mind that even tiny changes can lead to chaos, because editors do rely on these pages, especially when edit-warring when they need to make a point. If a POV warrior happens to turn up during the five minutes that "unsourced edits will be removed" is on the page (instead of "may be removed"), the next thing you know, articles are being decimated, and there are dozens of complaints on various talk pages and on the mailing list about how the policies are encouraging disruptive editing, and it's probably SlimVirgin's fault. That's why when I see something like that, I remove it instantly, because I've seen the consequences of not doing so too many times.

The other thing is that omission matters in policy too — some things are quite deliberately not spelled out.

If you want to get involved in writing content policies, I'm quite happy to work with you, but I'd ask you please to step back a little until you're more familiar with the way they hang together, and the intention and consequences of the core points. I've mentioned elsewhere to you that some of us spent months trying to revamp them, and we came up with WP:ATT instead of V and NOR, which I thought was much more coherent (not sure about the current version though, because I've not checked all the recent changes). But it didn't get consensus in the end, so we're stuck with V and NOR for the foreseeable future.

Anyway, thank you again for reaching out. :-) SlimVirgin 01:03, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

Note

Things will work out well in due time; they always do :) It was unfortunate that events had to reach such a point, but I'd like to think all that happens happens for the best. By the way, SV is very reasonable IMHO—just takes a deeper look at her points for some of us to realize it! (SV, if you're reading this, that's a compliment :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:40, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

I happened across your work on WP:NPOV the other day, mainly because I noticed one of the worst POV warriors on Misplaced Pages is involved, which makes me laugh. My editorial opinion aside, I'm having the hardest time following the discussion to figure out exactly what is being attempted. Can you drop me a line about what you are attempting, so that I can make my comments on it. I've noticed that NPOV is abused by many, most people pushing a POV agenda. I like Slim Virgin's comments about WP:ATT. That makes a lot of sense as the "foundation" of good articles. Orangemarlin 01:36, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Falsifiability and evolution rough draft

Please take a look at the current version at and let me know what you think. I want to incorporate the comments we had accumulated and clean it up a bit more. --Filll 16:19, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Kitten

Heya - would you mind terribly moving your comment on the kitten article to the bottom of the page? I opened an RfC down there, and it's more likely to be seen down there. -Superbeecat 17:38, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

NPOV citations vs. acessibility of citations

I'm trying to improve the stem cell article and have been removing some of the politicized (not NPOV in my opinion) citations and finding journal articles and reviews to replace them. The problem is only the abstracts are available to most users. I was wondering if you had any thoughts on the balance between accessibility of information vs. the value of presenting the facts without slant, since they seem to be in conflict on this issue. -Id711 12:57, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see an accessibility issue here. Most good libraries will have access to these journals. David D. (Talk) 16:01, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Antioxidant layout

Sorry, then :) I thought it had happened inadvertently during the article's time on the Main Page. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:11, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Biology

In case you have forgotten :), I just wanted to give you a gentle reminder that one day, when you were totally bored, you'd help out in improving this core article. I haven't really taken a biology course since graduate school about 20 years ago, so I thought you could give it a jump start. I've tried to get some order to it by building a skeleton, but it really needs some more stuff. Orangemarlin 21:17, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Editor review

I often give comments on other's efforts at dispute resolution and discussion, and would love to do so on your editor review, as you requested at WT:3O. A few links to specific (long) discussions you wish me to look over would be great - wading through link after link, and your contributions page, is not very productive. --User:Krator (t c) 21:48, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I am writing now, but it is a long read, so be patient. --User:Krator (t c) 23:32, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Completed. --User:Krator (t c) 00:47, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tim - you said at your editor review that a conflict with SlimVirgin over some policy or another makes you question your dispute resolution handling skills. Surely someone with as many edits as you have has had other disputes over your time on Misplaced Pages - have those all gone smoothly? I don't want to say too much, but what you've said here doesn't strike me as any indication there's any problem with your dispute handling skills. Cheers, WilyD 22:56, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• Tim - I hope you're not beating yourself up over this. You stepped into a minefield and came out pretty much intact. Editing policies pages is dicey, and even simple stuff like correcting grammer can get hairy. I don't want to speak ill of any editors - so I won't. The problematic behaviour here really isn't yours. In general, you should proceed much more slowly and with more talking on policy pages - but even well reasoned uncontraversial edits with good talk page consensus beforehand run a real risk of being reverted - for "stability" or ownership issues or just as a reaction by editors who watch the policy page but ignore the talk page. All in all, if you consider this "handling yourself poorly" you're well ahead of the crowd. Heck, I'm involved in an "edit war" that's left a page locked for three months now - maybe I'm not the best person to ask. WilyD 23:31, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

• • I'll see what I can do tomorrow, but I don't think I'll have much to add; remember, I don't have much conflict experience :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:30, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Note: I haven't forgotten :) Have just been too busy off-Wiki for anything this demanding of attention. I don't want to just do a "drive-by" review! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 13:13, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
• Hi Tim, my own impression was that this conflict was just another great reason for that stable version feature for Misplaced Pages. If the policy articles were created by a committee which had given considerable thought, then it deserved to be blanket-protected by the system. I got the impression that SV was not really protecting it based on analysis of your edits, but as a kind of general protection policy when the people responsible for it were away. With this reading of the circumstances there was really no ownership involved there and I suspect that your edits might even have gone through if you had edited it in tiny bits over many days. Not worth mulling so much over. Cheers. Shyamal 02:00, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hello Tim, and thanks a lot for welcoming me here and for those useful links. I hope to become more useful here once I get to grips with things like the citation system. Oh, and thanks for adding those sources to kitten too! Peace Tree Kittens 02:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Response

Hi Tim. Can you link me to the discussions you were having with Slim? Just a few threads would be enough...or those that you feel the discussion became heated. I see all your featured work, on very difficult issues, and it is impressive. I imagine if you are able to shephard such difficult articles through the FAC process, you can achieve anything you desire here. Shoot me a few links so I can examine them. Frankly, I am flattered that someone of your skill level would consider my opinion on such matters to be worth reading. I am not exactly reknown for maintaining absolute civility, but I do edit some pretty tough areas at times, so I have seen most everything. Maybe I can learn how to improve myself by also helping you.--MONGO 06:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

Need help with catalyst induced artificial/natural photosynthesis. Applications in genetic engineering, biofuels, iron fertilization/ocean nourishment.

My RFA

Thanks for participating in my RFA. Hiberniantears 17:25, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi Tim,

I prefer to always start out a policy from the simplest possible verbiage, so as to not handcuff future users, while assuming they'll use common sense to apply it. In this case, I prefer to use a generic, merit based approach, and if there is an example where that could lead to trouble, then, and only then, make it more specific. So if you have an example where you think that using a report in the Washington Post (say) as a source can lead us astray, please let's evaluate it. I can tell you that in a case I (regretfully) spent more than a year of my life on, we had an article in a 'scientific peer reviewed journal' that we had to fight hard to keep out, because we had a problem with its professional level and the peer review mechanism. Although the peer review was declared on the masthead, its specifics were totally hidden and unclear. Bottom line: we need to use common sense to apply clear and simple rules; using more elaborate and complex rules, as well intentioned as it may be, can lead to trouble downstream. Crum375 19:03, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I anticipate that artificially promoting a source that is labeled 'academic' over a source that is a reputed, well respected, mainstream publication, with lots of independent vetting layers, will create an improper balance and violate NPOV. As I mentioned to you above, we had a case where the so-called academic source was not really a good one, and we had to fight hard to keep it out. So I prefer to stay away from artificially boosting sources based on labels, and instead focus on merit. Crum375 19:15, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I am simply against label-based discrimination. If the Wash Post (for example) publishes a report about some new phenomenon, my assumption is that its lawyers and fact checkers, with their access to inside and outside experts, will be no less reliable than some smallish obscure academic journal. I don't want to promote the academic journal simply because of its label. I do want our editors to use their common sense to carefully evaluate the context, the merits of each source and its prominence, etc. Crum375 19:40, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

You are right, a respectable and reputable publication wouldn't normally publish an outrageous claim. But neither would an academic journal, normally. So the point is, why discriminate? If you have an example to make a case for label-based discrimination, let's evaluate it. But if you don't, by default and by NPOV we should not discriminate based on a label, but instead focus on the merits. Crum375 20:35, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

My limited understanding of the genetics is that the 'memory' is based on the unused sequences, so it wouldn't be that bizarre, whether true or not. But that aside, the point is that we need to assess each case individually. The Wash Post has a reputation for respectability to maintain, a lot of shareholders to keep happy, a budget for expert consulting help for technical issues, and lawyers and managers who are paid to worry about errors. A small obscure academic journal (not Nature obviously) would have fewer vetting layers and a smaller profile to protect legally and financially. So the point is that we can't just say that if it has label X it's better than label Y - we need to judge each case on its own merit. Again, this is what NPOV is all about. Crum375 21:22, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I think we are in agreement that the reputable, respected, mainstream publications, with access to technical experts when needed, won't publish junk. I would hope that you agree that there are some small obscure 'academic' journals who are less trusted in that regard. Bottom line: let's focus on the merits, not labels, per NPOV. Crum375 22:07, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds fine to me, but it also sounds virtually the same as 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources', so it breaks no new ground. Crum375 00:49, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I prefer the standard (and more subdued) terminology of 'exceptional claims require exceptional sources', which avoids the sensational-sounding 'extraordinary'. Crum375 00:57, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) I don't recall saying I was happy with any version, except the specific wording you asked me about, which had to do with exceptional claims. I insisted and still do that per NPOV we cannot discriminate against any reliable source, and instead should focus on the merits of each source. Crum375 01:45, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that a policy must be broad and based on all cases, not most cases. Also, I think we should concentrate this discussion in the relevant Talk pages, as it's not a personal issue between us. Crum375 01:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Anabolic Steroid GA review

Can you clarify on the Anabolic Steroid GA review that you support it meeting the criteria for GA? Thanks. Wikidudeman 07:48, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you need to worry about this. GA review has made its archiving procedures more robust, in line with similar processes on Misplaced Pages. In particular, no one archiving the article would have missed Tim's earlier comment that the article is "good enough for GA". Furthermore, the emphasis now is on the weight of argument, not the number of votes. I think this article should pass, but it needs some work. I am willing to help, and have made some comments on the GA/R page. Please let me know if I have missed the point somewhere. Geometry guy 23:12, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

PS. Tim, we have passed each other before on several occasions (e.g. Equipartition theorem), but I never properly said "hi". Like virtually everyone else, I am very impressed by your contributions - most recently to Evolution.

Do my eyes deceive me

I'm utterly shocked to see you here. I didn't think you had any interest in dead organisms locked in stone.  :) Orangemarlin 06:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Evolution

Hello Tim,

I'm curious to know, I'm currently 'debating' about Dawkins' book on Evolution(talk), and I would also like to discuss another change. When would I be able to make the change ? Currently, it's 3/1 in favour of the modification, is this enough ? Also, if you're interested in the subject, I would like to get the article on molecular evolution to FA status, it's an important article, in my opinion. I've created a draft here. - PhDP 18:30, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Blind Watchmaker

Is it true that the book "The Blind Watchmaker: why the evidence of evolution reveals a universe without design" is misleading about genetic drift and should be removed?--Filll 12:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

An editor has removed it twice now from Introduction to evolution. My coauthors do not seem to be around and I am not a biologist. What is your opinion?--Filll 20:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:V

I see that you're involved in the (sometimes heated) discussion WP:V regarding wording. I had protected it two days ago so that consensus could be reached before any changes were made, to prevent the edit war. It hasn't been nearly enough time for all parties to have agreed on a consensus text, and I don't think it was appropriate for you, as a party to the dispute, to have unprotected it yourself. There are admins with strong feelings on all sides of the issue, and this threatens to become a wheel war. I'd really like to avoid that. (By the way, I don't have any opinion at all about the wording of WP:V. I'm truly an outside party.) Could you please let uninvolved admins do any necessary protecting or unprotecting? Thanks, – Quadell 21:40, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

My bad, you didn't unprotect it. Sorry to bother you. – Quadell 21:42, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced

I made a post to Misplaced Pages talk:Verifiability#Age of unreferenced that you might be interested in. Jeepday (talk) 03:20, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

An organism's environment

Hi Tim, I need your sagely advice. I was thinking of creating an article on an organism's environment. Environment is just a disambiguation page at the moment, and natural environment isn't exactly what I'm looking for. For example, the nature vs. nurture article doesn't once link to the 'environment' it is talking about. The article could discuss things like phenotypic plasticity, conditions and resources (again, with resources we only have articles with an anthropocentric view), environmental stimuli etc, as well as summarizing natural and built environment and social environment. Do you think such an article is needed, and if so, what name should it have? (I was thinking environment (biology), which currently links to ecology, though thinking about it, environment itself would do the job, if a new dab page was set up. Richard001 03:26, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Policy page work

Hi Tim, I just wanted to drop a note to say that I appreciate the work you're trying to do on the policy pages (Particularly WP:V). I haven't commented on them lately, and I'm not sure I'll have time to in the near future, but I do check in from time to time and admire the way you work under the circumstances found on those pages. Keep it up and don't let anybody invite you to leave. Thanks again, R. Baley 01:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

July 2007 GAC backlog elimination drive

A new elimination drive of the backlog at Misplaced Pages:Good article candidates will take place from the month of July through August 12, 2007. There are currently about 130 articles that need to be reviewed right now. If you are interested in helping with the drive, then please visit Misplaced Pages:Good article candidates backlog elimination drive and record the articles that you have reviewed. Awards will be given based on the number of reviews completed. Since the potential amount of reviewers may significantly increase, please make sure to add :{{GAReview}} underneath the article you are reviewing to ensure that only one person is reviewing each article. Additionally, the GA criteria may have been modified since your last review, so look over the criteria again to help you to determine if a candidate is GA-worthy. If you have any questions about this drive or the review process, leave a message on the drive's talk page. Please help to eradicate the backlog to cut down on the waiting time for articles to be reviewed.

You have received this message either due to your membership with WikiProject: Good Articles and/or your inclusion on the Misplaced Pages:Good article candidates/List of reviewers. --Nehrams2020 03:37, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Completely off-topic

Vassyana has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

I also have four kittens. Aren't they wonderful creatures? And aren't they kittens no matter how old they get? :) Vassyana 04:25, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Wonderful, but infuriating in the kind of way that makes you smile as you frown. One is attacking my telephone cable as I write, I've been trying to convince them that electrical cables are similar to snakes and therefore scary, but without much impact. Tim Vickers 04:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

No!! Then it's a moving cord thing and even more of toy! :o) Vassyana 07:17, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Can you take a look at this?

I've brought up this issue to you before but it's coming up again, I've brought it to the Administrators' noticeboard for a discussion and I wanted your input. The discussion is concerning the constant deletion of a specific image from the articles it's placed on. See ] for more details. I'd like your opinion and/or support in restoring the image from those who erase it repeatedly. Wikidudeman 12:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Peer review

I've seen you around GAC and have noticed you've done well with the reviews and that you have experience with FAs. I was wondering if you could take a look at Oklahoma City bombing and leave some comments at its peer review. I've never gone to FA before, and I need to know what the article has to have before I head to FAC. If you don't have the time, or if this doesn't interest you, then don't worry about. Keep up the good work with the reviews. --Nehrams2020 23:15, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking it over, I really appreciate. I'll address the issues as I find information for them. Also, thanks for correcting the links and cutting some statements. --Nehrams2020 00:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Vegan GA Review: Did you notice a bit of a process burp?

Hello Tim, Did you happen to notice that the editor who put Veganism in the GA queue, Pendleton724 was a tad new to the game? An editor for less than a day, and his or her one involvement with the article was to fix a broken link. Hampered by inexperience, he or she forgot, (or did not know how) to post a {{GAnominee}} on the Veganism talk page. I fear, as a consequence, that your rather good review may come as a bit of a surprise to that community of editors; it is not clear to me that they were even aware their article was up for review. There may not be a person ready to assume the counterpart role to your review effort, take the article in hand and perform due-diligence. There appear to editors there so inclined, and might step up to the plate after the initial surprise. That might take a day or two, so don't be surprised if no one responds very quickly to your review comments.

I was in the process of picking this article up myself, became aware of the anormality, and was posting some procedural remarks at the GAC talk page when you roared past me. I don't mind that; you certainly have excellent credentials. I just hope you get a good editor from that community. Good luck with the review, and thank you for taking it on. — Gosgood 23:31, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Nice review, and ditto that about the credentials so please accept that the following question is from a complete layman! Can scientists not make artificial growth hormones? This ref seems to suggest so . Perhaps artificial growth factor is more correct than artificial hormone, the word hormone being reserved for cell produced substances? regards sbandrews (t) 08:41, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Taking this one over

I (think) I see your issue, and yes, establishing space-time displacements with editors with whom you have standing disagreements is, almost invariably, a wise course of action. T'is better to play with kittens than fight with Misplaced Pages editors. I am, at the moment, wrapped up in Hippolyte de Bouchard which got quick-failed twice, and the kind folks at Good Article Review had thought that a bit unfair. I agree; I believe a reviewer should fail with as much helpful and constructive commentary and analysis as possible, so as to cultivate better editors. This task, however, is proving a bit time consuming. I promised delivery by 15 July 2007 and give them seven days with which to work with my suggestions, and I'll be right up to that line. So I could participate (assume your role) on that Sunday. I won't change any of your suggestions or recommendations; it looks like the folks over there are proceeding along the lines you've laid out, so my inclination is to give a pass, barring the eruption of an edit-war. If you could find someone to work on a speedier timetable, be my guest. Take care — Gosgood 01:41, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Reversion

I reverted your edits to the CoS userpage, because I think it's unfair to call this a sock account, it's just his work/church IP. He's probably not the only one editing from it.

Cheers, yandman 09:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Hi Tim, neither of us got that far, specifically we were BOTH about to get to the dreaded 3 reverts when it seemed better to try and 'suspend operations' and call a breathing space which is when I contacted you. That is the current situation. What he had done was to remove bland & neutral longstanding material that was NPOV narrative all fully referenced and when I rvt that he rvt back and so it went on...we need to have someone wade in and take stock so we can proceed through negotiated consensus...similar situation to what happened last year as you will recall. please check it over and do as you see fit. I am sure as a Biochem PhD man all will respect your sound advice and skilled impartial editing as much as I do. thanks Peter morrell 16:36, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Peter, apparently you missed my credentials. Let's see, an MD with 6 years fellowship in Cardiology, an MS in Biochemical Endocrinology, publications in drug interactions with cardiovascular tissue, and a long history of medical research. Tim, what you are missing is that there is an critical importance in keeping this junk medicine absolutely verified. If the Evolution article makes an error, the world will be a bit sadder, but in the end no damage done. If someone reads the Evolution article, and is misinformed, then sure maybe the Creationists get another point to cause their holy war, and I'm all right with it. In any medical article, NPOV has to be absolute. If the article does not provide accurate, sourced, refereed and primary data that supports any claims made, then Misplaced Pages has a moral, yes moral, obligation to delete it. As long as Misplaced Pages is the #1 hit on Google, people will come here to make a self-diagnosis, to find out how to treat their disease, to treat their children or loved-ones--if articles provide inaccurate, poorly sourced, or downright dangerous information, then we are harming people. "Physician, do no harm," is the primary ethos of an MD--how can I countenance bad writing, bad research or anything that promotes bad medicine. Homeopathy kills. Read the article, specifically against the UK physicians who diluted malarial medications to such a point that patients either became very ill or died. Homeopathy is NOT the only article on Misplaced Pages where these people are attempting to promote unverified "treatments" that will kill people, but it is one that I have chosen to clean up. I do not know nor care what Peter Morrell's motives are--but his edits are dangerous. Rarely will I stand on moral principle, because morality so hard to define. But if A will kill someone and B will not, and that is verified by research, then B ought to be the only point discussed. Undue weight of NPOV means we do not allow minority, and frankly dangerous, POV's to enter articles. I presumed you had a Ph.D. in a scientific discipline--you would never allow this junk science enter an article you are writing. One last point--this comment, specifically "weird dude", "know nothing" and "persistent vandalism" constitute personal attacks. Orangemarlin 16:53, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

What gives?

Hello Tim. Don't know what attracted you to Veganism, but it seems that it is not a coincidence. May I alert you to WP:STALK? I am willing to WP:AGF, and that it is not the case, but I would suggest that, to make your wiki time more enjoyable, that you consider editing other articles for a while. ≈ jossi ≈ (talk) 00:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Are his contributions unhelpful? Wikidudeman 12:48, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Tim, thanks for your tips for improving the article; I'll see what I can do. I'm sorry to hear you are no longer reviewing the article but I hope you'll continue to be involved, as you have been participating on the talk page since at least June 4, 2007. —Viriditas | Talk 03:21, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I enter the fray (Talk:Veganism#Vitamin_B12_section) and now you're stalking me? I'm sure you realise this article is too small for both of us. David D. (Talk) 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I just want to say how much I respect your ability to put ego aside and hand this review over to someone else. It is often I see someone so willing to put articles first above any other issues they stumble into on the wiki. Many editors in your situation would self-righteously object to any suggestion to edit elswhere, simply because they were doing nothing wrong(and some would even attack the person making the suggestion for bad faith or other such nonsense). But I can see you one the few people that understand it is possible to do everything right and still have the best interests of article rely on backing slowly away. Anyways I am giving you a barnstar and I hope your example is often followed leading to no one needing to quote WP:POINT ever again.--BirgitteSB 04:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ditto to that :-) I've always gotten on well with Jossi, but I guess he just doesn't know you as the rest of us do, and he probably doesn't realize you're not only a prolific FA writer, but also a prolific GA reviewer. Um, and that's why I'm really here. Something is really goofed up at the GAC you just passed; within hours, it was at FAC, but significantly deteriorated from the version you passed. Sorry to drop more unpleasantness on you, but it made it look like you had passed a bad GA, so you may need to keep track of the situation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:40, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

oh, and I guess I should add that I keep appearing on that article talk page because the main editor there keeps destroying {{ArticleHistory}}, causing it to appear in the category that I check daily for errors. It's a small world out there :-) Feel like I have to say this with all this talk of stalking, etc. :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Pyloria

Hi,

You recently removed two cats, on of which I had put up (Protoscience). I had thought protoscience would be accurate as it is controversial and therefore unproven. And it's a more civil category than pseudoscience. I could be wrong, but is there a reason to leave it out?

Thanks,

WLU 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Would Category:Pseudoscience apply? I was tempted to assume and tag it as such, but I'm not sure what's been done in the past. WLU 16:58, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

More for my ever-growing to-do list. Thanks for the guidance. WLU 17:14, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Appeal for help at Homeopathy

I have been trying to turn it slowly into English. However, I feel I am stuck in the middle. I have homeopaths on one side claiming I am making it too biased and too negative to homeopathy, and scientists and doctors on the other side claiming I am giving in to the homeopaths. All I want to do is to write the text clearly, and let others decide what the right balance should be. Come see the arguments on the Homeopathy talk page and on my talk page and Orangemarlin's as well. Help!--Filll 06:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Smile!

WarthogDemon has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

-WarthogDemon 06:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI

Just to let you know that your name has been mentioned on my talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

TimVickers, Misplaced Pages has many mutual support groups that have different methods and goals. You have of late run into two different ones that sometimes support each other. These two groups most of the time do excellent work but are well known for winning their battles by less than policy supported means. Almost every time I see SlimVirgin et. al. critisized for their means; when I check the situation out, I find that I agree with the end result. Same too for FeloniousMonk and his friends JoshuaZ, Guettarda, and sometimes Jim62sch and KillerChihuahua. The very first time I ran into these two groups I felt very bullied; but over time I found I was able to successfully work with them. But only by biting my tongue a lot. Maybe when we get stable versioning installed,[REDACTED] will have less need for vandal fighters and thus less need to put up with policy breaking by our vandal fighters. WAS 4.250 18:04, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't life be so much simpler if all we did was write articles. Tim Vickers 18:13, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Maybe that's the best thing to do now, Tim. I'm terribly sorry that your name was invoked (not that anyone's name should have been, but you and I have barely even interacted)—you were probably rolled into that only because I defended you at the administrators' noticeboards. I hope you'll just write another featured article and forget all of this. And I truly admire how you've handled all of this; I hope I can be like you when I grow up. One other piece of sad news (I am really sorry to have be the bearer of such bad tidings); FeloniousMonk also posted that content to the Intelligent design featured article review. Since you've interacted with many of the editors of that article, I would think they wouldn't believe those things about you, but they do appear to have believed them about me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:28, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

ATP yield

Hi Tim, I have been following all your recent edits on OXPHOS. One section that I think is missing, and will try to add, is a discussion with respect to the theoretical maximum of ATP from the full oxidation of one glucose molecule. The main reason for this is that the text books are at odds with each other AND the primary literature. I think that this theoretical value needs needs to be more than an assertion backed up by a reference but explained, to stop future users coming in and changing these figures. Do you think such a section is worthwhile? David D. (Talk) 18:15, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi again :)

Hi Tim,

Thanks for your nice note; I don't think I'd be able to give away kitties once I'd grown attached to them. Two kitties is a nice number, though; I have three, which can cause unhappy strife if two gang up on one. :( (Luckily, that phase seems to have passed.) Please upload a picture of Loki when you get the chance! :)

Over the next month or so, I was planning on writing an FA about the Loop of Henle; would you be so good as to look over and fix my prose/science? It's meant as a good-will gesture towards Citizendium, although please don't ask how that came to be; it's a little embarrassing. :p Silly though I was, yet I feel I should take the high road and reach out in a friendly way. Could you spare a few moments now and then?

I was also shocked to read some of the recent postings here, and their connected posts elsewhere. The policy stuff seems over my head, but the poor powers I have to sway a debate, make peace or inspire faith in you are at your service; please reach out if you're in need. As you say, why don't we all just write articles and get on with it? I'm not sure whether people realize the magnitude of their task, how long a road lies ahead, how little behind. :( Willow 03:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I as well am fairly confused. But at least people seem to be coming to a truce on homeopathy (partly thanks to your help, but I might call on your assistance again). Now homeopathy is starting to move forward, after a long time of laying fallow and just falling prey to edit wars. Hopefully we can make it readable and well referenced.

I also agree with WillowW. We have made a bit of a dent, but there is still so very very much more to do. If you look at the number of GAs and FAs, it is pretty embarassing, compared to something like the Encyclopedia Britannica. Some of our articles are very sad, and the amount of effort required to clean them up is like cleaning out the Stygian stables! We have a long long way to go. I think we will get there, but we don't need to waste more of our meagre energies on silly disputes that are basically meaningless. I do not know what sides exist, and I do not think I want to know. It is all too much for me. --Filll 03:17, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Timelines and Tense

Tim,

You seem to be able to string a few words together on technical subjects... I've written a Timeline of tuberous sclerosis and put it up as as feature list candidate. This met opposition from one editor on the grounds that it should have been written in present tense. The Timeline of chemistry does this. Well, it almost does it. It is very hard to do this consistently, and I'm really struggling to see how to rephrase some of my entries. Plus, I'm not convinced the change would be an improvement. The discussion and issues are on the feature list candidate page. You can comment there, or my talk page, or here, etc. I'd really appreciate any advise you can give. Thanks.

BTW: I posted a similar request to prose guru Tony, but I think he was tripping on magic mushrooms last night :-). Colin° 15:28, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and for tweaking the lead. Cheers, Colin° 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

quick question about medical images...

Hi Tim,

Hope things are going well. This shouldn't take but a sec.. how do you feel about images such as those in Gelding? Do you think they'll hit probs in some distant-future WP:FAC? Thanks Ling.Nut 19:06, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I meant, they're kinda yukky. Graphic. But the fact that you didn't mention is suggests that you don't think it's a prob... Thanks! Ling.Nut 19:16, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! :-) Ling.Nut 19:33, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I Am Not Sure

DeviantArt perhaps? I do have a deviantart account (the link being in my userbox subpage . . . somewhere). It's the same name I use. -WarthogDemon 20:07, 16 July 2007 (UTC)