| Revision as of 13:31, 30 July 2009 editMiszaBot III (talk | contribs)597,462 editsm Archiving 2 thread(s) (older than 6d) to User talk:Crusio/Archive 2.← Previous edit | Revision as of 11:23, 5 August 2009 edit undoVerbal (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers21,940 edits Warning: Potentially violating the three revert rule on Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. (TW)Next edit → | ||
| Line 16: | Line 16: | ||
| I have a number of references to OMIM addresses, and will add them as soon as I figure out the citation conventions. Would it be kosher to use external references to various of my single-page examples in my on-line teaching notes? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | I have a number of references to OMIM addresses, and will add them as soon as I figure out the citation conventions. Would it be kosher to use external references to various of my single-page examples in my on-line teaching notes? <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | ||
| == August 2009 == | |||
| ] You currently appear to be engaged in an ]{{#if:Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith|  according to the reverts you have made on ]}}. Note that the ] prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the ]. If you continue, '''you may be ] from editing'''. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a ] among editors. If necessary, pursue ]. {{#if:|{{{2}}}|}}<!-- Template:uw-3rr --> <span style="font-family:Papyrus">] <small>]</small></span> 11:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 11:23, 5 August 2009
Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.
 Archives |
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 6 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Is this how I communicate with you?
I started revising the Dominance article because it repeats many of the same mistakes my students do. 'Dominance' is always a relationship between alleles. The notion of a 'dominant phenotype' is one that gets everybody in trouble: the student supposes that 'dominant' refers to the phenotype being the "wild type", or stronger, or better, or normal, or more common, or darker, etc., than the recessive, when it fact none of those things make a difference. Students also suppose dominance or recessiveness to be intrinsic properties of alleles: a friend calls them 'merely a typographic convention." I have been asked if there is something 'wrong' with frozen 'green wrinkled' peas. Given my druthers, I would never use semi- or incomplete dominance, and I would accept your usage of talking about additive effects across multiple loci, which are of course epistatic and not dominant. I can in fact do my entire lecture on phenylketonuria without using the words dominant and recessive even once. We're forced to use them, mostly because human genetic disease is still talked about that way.
I have a number of references to OMIM addresses, and will add them as soon as I figure out the citation conventions. Would it be kosher to use external references to various of my single-page examples in my on-line teaching notes? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smcewincarr (talk • contribs) 17:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)
August 2009
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Verbal chat 11:23, 5 August 2009 (UTC)