User talk:TimVickers: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 20:16, 25 April 2008 editTimVickers (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users58,184 edits →The various meta-analyses of homeopathy: reply← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 18:31, 29 January 2024 edit undoTheImaCow (talk \| contribs)Extended confirmed users, Rollbackers84,942 edits →Proposed deletion of File:Organic Apple.jpg: ReplyTag: Reply
Line 1:		Line 1:
			{{not around\|3=13 December 2021}}
	<!-- IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE ME A MESSAGE GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->
			<!-- IF YOU WANT TO LEAVE ME A MESSAGE, PLEASE GO TO THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE -->

	<tr><td valign="top">		<tr><td valign="top">
Line 26:		Line 27:
	{{User:MiszaBot/config		{{User:MiszaBot/config
	\|maxarchivesize = 250K		\|maxarchivesize = 250K
	\|counter = 6		\|counter = 10
	\|algo = old(14d)		\|algo = old(14d)
	\|archive = User talk:TimVickers/archive %(counter)d		\|archive = User talk:TimVickers/archive %(counter)d
Line 49:		Line 50:
	\|-		\|-
	\|]		\|]
			\|-
			\|]
			\|-
			\|]
			\|-
			\|]
			\|-
			\|]
	\|-		\|-
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->		\|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->
Line 55:		Line 64:
	</tr></table>		</tr></table>
	</div>		</div>
			{{Misplaced Pages:Peer review/PRbox}}

	__TOC__		__TOC__

			== You have a message ==
	== Informing past contributors of new ] ==

			{{Talkback\|Whpq}}
	As you were a contributor in the ], I am letting you know that {{tl\|Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the ]. Thanks! — <small>]] • 2008-01-30 17:48Z</small>
			{{talkback\|immunize}}

			Thank you for the invitation. I will try to follow the Enzyme Kinetics article and make contributions when I can. ] (]) 9:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
	== Barnstar ==

			== Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Neanderthalensis ==
	It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten.

			I have provided some additional sources which the general reader can also understand. For us scientists, youtube may seem an unreliable source, but that is only the case if the source itself is unreliable, which is why I have collected videos from somewhat reputable sources such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and others. This is so the general public can also partake and understand some of the main concepts of human evolution whereas if I only used peer reviewed scientific journals, the only people reading them would be the small minority of scientists on planet Earth. But as source of reference I will nonetheless continue to include peer reviewed scientific sources so that the scientific community will began to understand that human evolution is not the way they want it to be, but far more complicated series of migrations, evolution due to the selective pressure of their respective geographical location and possible interbreedings resulting in the modern day Homo Sapiens who happen to be part Homo Neanderthalensis and the ] anatomically modern ] who may either be part Homo Neanderthalensis due to possible interbreeding or it is possible the ] in ] did not significantly interbreed with the ] and that the anatomically modern Chinese Homo Erectus alive today simply retain what seems to be "neanderthal" genes because the Neanderthals were direct descendants of ] which happens to be either a separate species or subspecies of ], and as such they both carry similar genes and passed them into their progeny in both respective evolutionary branches. Thank you! Please watch :
	<Moved to trophy cabinet> :)

			1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpQiBPdFtog&NR=1
	== ref:deletion Satish Babu ==

			2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zVEQCIiRs&feature=related
	Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? ](])

			== ] ==
	== Admiration ==

			{\| style="width: 95%;"
	I admire your image works !
			\| colspan="2" valign="middle" style="border: 1px gray solid; padding: 1em; background-color: #B0C4DE;" \|
			{\| cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" style="background-color: #B0C4DE;"
			\| rowspan="2" style="width: 100px; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" \| ]
			\| style="font-size: 200%; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle; letter-spacing: 0.15em;" \| '''''The ] Newsletter'''''
			\|-
			\| style="font-size: 120%; text-align: center; vertical-align: middle;" \| Issue 2 (January 2010)

			<span style="color:#333333; font-variant: small-caps;">] ] \| ] ]</span>
			\|}
			\|}
			<big>'''Content'''</big>
			{{Col-begin}}
			{{Col-4}}
			{\| style="border:solid #FF99CC 1px; margin: 1px; padding: 4pt;"
			\|]
			\|-
			\|]
			\|-
			\|style="font-size:250%" align=center\|]
			\|-
			\|]
			\|-
			\|align=right style="font-size:70%"\|]
			\|}
			{{Col-4}}
			*]
			*]
			{{Col-4}}
			*]
			*]
			{{Col-4}}
			*]
			*]
			{{Col-end}}

			== Message from {{user\|immunize}} ==
	== Thanks! ==

			{{Tb\|immunize}}
	thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox

	== RfA Thanks ==

			== Message from immunize ==
	<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: none; padding: 0px; ">
	<div class="NavFrame" style="border-style: solid ; text-align: left; border: blue solid 1px; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue; padding: 5x;">
	<div class="NavHead" style="border-style: solid; -moz-border-radius: 10px; background: blue ; text-align: center; border: blue solid 1px; padding: 10px; font-size: 150%;"><font face="helvetica" color="black">A message from ]].</font></div>
	<div class="NavContent" style="background: none; display: none;">
	<center>
	<table style="background: white ; text-align: left; font-size: 95%;"><tr><td>
	<tr><td><table style="width: 100%; float: left; margin: 5px; border: black solid 3px; -moz-border-radius: 5px; background: white;">
	<tr><td><div style="padding: 3px; text-align: center; font-size: 150%;">]I would like to thank you for your participation in my recent RfA, was unsuccessful with '''61 support''', '''25 oppose''', and '''4 neutral'''. I've been taking the advice of the Opposes into practice and hopefully I can improve myself. Once again, thank you. ^_^</td></tr>
	</div></tr></td></table>
	</td>
	</td></tr></table>
	</center>
	</div></div></div>
	== Question for you... ==

	I would like to write an article about K12 Inc., an education company. However, would that be considered advertising? What are the chances of it being deleted?

	And remember: ] (]) 15:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Speedy deletion of ] ==

	] A tag has been placed on ] requesting that it be speedily deleted from Misplaced Pages. This has been done under ], because it is available as a bit-for-bit identical copy on the ] under the same name, or all references to the image on Misplaced Pages have been updated to point to the title used at Commons.

	If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding <code>{{tl\|hangon}}</code> to '''the top of ]''' (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on ''']''' 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 Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact ] to request that a copy be emailed to you. ] (]) 01:08, 12 April 2008 (UTC)<!-- Template:Db-nowcommons-notice --> <!-- Template:Db-csd-notice-custom -->

	== Rosalind Franklin image ==

	Hi Tim, I remember a little while ago you were looking for a free image of Franklin for some purpose that escapes my memory. Last month someone uploaded a PD image of Franklin from the NIH archives to the commons, ]. I've looked into it and although most of the NIH images of Franklin do not appear to be free, image does indeed seem to have been released into the public domain by the NIH, the only use of it I can find of it by the NIH is , the NIH do not make reference to it being copyright at all (while all of the other images they use are attributed). The NIH does indeed . As far as I can tell this image is therefore free because it doesn't state otherwise. Any good? ] (]) 12:02, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Fair fa' your honest, sonsie face :) ==

	]

	<center>
	<poem>
	Wee, sleekit, cowrin, tim'rous beastie,
	O, what a panic's in thy breastie!
	Thou need na start awa sae hasty
	Wi bickering brattle!
	I wad be laith to rin an' chase thee,
	Wi' murdering pattle.

	I'm truly sorry girl's dominion
	Has broken Nature's social union,
	An' justifies that ill opinion
	Which makes thee startle
	At me, thy poor, earth-born companion
	An' fellow mortal!
	</poem>
	</center>

	Dear ],

	I know you'd be going outside your comfort-zone, but I dearly need your help with ]. Won't you be so kind as to give it a look-see and maybe give us some advice and help? I daresay it'll be more fun for you than whacking vandals. The article is still rather ghastly in its wording and I honestly don't know if I can bring it up to ] standards without you. My courage is drooping, especially when I consider the long, twilit road still ahead. :( Anyway, I hope you can come and help; thanks, Tim! :)

	Great chieftain o' the wiki-race, aboon them a' ye tak yer place! ;) ] (]) 19:58, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	PS. I hope everything's going well with your newly shy ]. :)

	:My standards? Heck, I can do MoS fixes and ref cleanup anytime the text is finished; not a problem. ] (]) 20:00, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	::That's a nice offer, ]! I've already fixed the dashes and most of the references, and we're working on the abc-123 thing; but I'm sure that the article still has many ''peccadillos''. As you say, though, we should agree on the text, before we get too finicky about the MoS compliance. :) ] (]) 20:18, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

	====Honest sonsie face====

	Hey ],

	Thanks for your help the other day with ]! :) I'm not sure if you're keeping abreast of its ], but your opinion carries a great deal of weight there. If you feel that the article is worth retaining as an ], now would be a good time to change your vote from '''Remove''' to something more positive. But I'd welcome your sincerest opinion and advice, no matter how critical, as I hope you know. :) ] (]) 19:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

	== RFA redux time? ==

	Since my first RFA ended on the 13th of November, I figure it's been long enough to try again. What do you think? Also, FYI, I went through admin coaching with Acalamari, and promised him and AGK/Anthony they could co-nom. Let me know, ]] 19:44, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Please tell me when you've created the page, TimVickers: then I can add my co-nomination to it ''before'' it goes live. Thanks. ] 01:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	Thanks very much Tim, for everything. ]] 19:06, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Darwin Papers Released ==

	*

	Which wiki site could this go on? I'm sure it could be mentioned in Darwin's article.--] (]) 00:45, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Hi Tim, just wanted to let you know that I responded to your oppose on this RfA, and it sparked a brief discussion that you might find interesting. Thanks, ] (]) 13:33, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

	== MY RFA ==

	Thanks, I'll try and bear that in mind while I lick my wounds from the thourough lashing I've received.:-)--] (]) 16:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

	== The various meta-analyses of homeopathy ==

	Tim, perhaps you may want to add your thoughts here. In addition to proposing reference to and description of more meta-analysis published in RS journals, Arion's assertion that Brunton was quote-mining and only providing a partial quote by Linde is revealing. I hope that you can help us move towards consensus. ]<sup>]</sup> 01:05, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Revealing about Arion and those who repeat it, perhaps. We were discussing Linde 1997. The passages that Arion objected to my having omitted were about the editorial accompanying the 2005 Shang paper. Not only is this not the paper we were discussing, the editorial in question is not even referred to in the article. It is not "quote-mining" to omit passages that are irrelevant. ] (]) 09:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Actually, it IS quote-mining when you provide a quote from an author that is the exact opposite of the primary meaning and intention of the author. Let me ask you, then, what was the primary message of the Linde letter to the editor? ]<sup>]</sup> 18:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
	:::The "primary intention" of the paper was to make some fairly specific criticisms of the Shang paper and some rather broader criticisms of the accompanying editorial; however, we were discussing neither on the homeopathy talk page. The sentence I quoted does not, as you and Arion seem to be claiming, say anything particularly negative about homoeopathy; it just makes a specific statement about a paper we ''were'' considering, which is precisely relevant to the weight that should be given to that paper. In any case, I'm not quite sure how a sentence which, perhaps, implies that homoeopathy is not proven is "the exact opposite of the primary meaning and intention" of a letter that states, in its lead paragraph, that the authors "agree that homoeopathy is highly implausible and that the evidence from placebo-controlled trials is not robust". But that's beside the point. I was making a point about Linde 1997, not about homoeopathy in general, and the passages that Arion objected to my omitting were not relevant to that paper, or to any other paper we were discussing. I would suggest that Tim's talk page is not an appropriate venue for further discussion of this. ] (]) 08:06, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
	Actually, my invitation to Tim to comment is perfectly appropriate, especially in the light of the fact that Tim has made more edits to the homeopathy article than anyone else. Because of Tim's participation in the homeopathy article, I want to alert him to the Lancet's editorial in response to the 3rd trial Dr David Reilly's team had conducted on the treatment of people with various allergy disoorders and found significant results each time, December 10, 1994, p. 1585. The editorial asserts, "They (Reilly, et al) invite us to choose between two interpretations of this activity: either there is something amiss with the clinical trial as conventionally conducted (theirs was done with exceptional rigour); or the effects of the homoeopathic immunotherapy differ from those of placebo." The editorial further says, "carefully done work of this sort should not be denied the attention of Lancet readers." In the article by Reilly, he says, "Either answer suggested by the evidence to date--homoeopathy works, or the clinical trial does not--is equally challenging to current medicine science." Later on, he concludes, "Our results lead us to conclude that homoeopathy differs from placebo in an inexplicable but reproducible way." (p. 1606) It seems a bit odd that the Reilly research is not mentioned at all in the homeopathy article. Tim, as you may know, many editors seem a bit "allergic" to proposals from me. Perhaps a proposal from you would achieve faster consensus? ]<sup>]</sup> 16:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Individual clinical trials are less important to this article than meta-analyses that combine such trials to achieve greater statistical power and make sure local bias from individual research groups is controlled for. Relying on the meta-analyses also avoids the danger that editors might pick out positive trials, and ignore negative ones (or vice versa), since meta-analyses give a rigorous and expert assessment of all the evidence. ] (]) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	::Yes, I understand that, but the reference to the above Reilly studies is that this was their 3rd of four studies on allergic disorders...and this Lancet article IS a meta-analysis of his first 3 studies, totaling 202 patients. And when you consider what the Lancet editorial said about this work, it IS notable. It may be controversial as to whether the BROAD field of homeopathic research is positive, negative, or mixed, but it is not controversial that there is a body of evidence showing efficacy in the treatment of respiratory allergies. THAT is my point here...and it should be noted that the Shang review of research mysteriously makes no reference to the body of work by Reilly (I file this one under "how convenient"). In addition to these points, there are several RS meta-analyses which are presently discussed on the Talk page which are not a part of the article. I cannot help but sense that many editors here only want the "negative" meta-analyses referenced and discussed in the article. I hope that you will help be one of the editors who wants reference to other RS meta-analsyes. ]<sup>]</sup> 20:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
	:A clinical trial with a grand total of 24 patients? I'm not surprised others working in the field ignored it, I certainly would. ] (]) 20:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Question. ==

	How can you edit ], but I cannot? Thanks. ] (]) 04:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Small request ==

	Hey, Tim. Can you help me out by taking a look at some of ]? Specifically, in the Characteristics section there are some journal cites that I want to make sure I did correctly, and if you could perhaps add a sentence explaining the mechanism which the journal cites study (I don't quite get it), I would really appreciate it. Afterwards I'll probably put it up for GA. Thanks again for the nomination, ]] 21:29, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
	:Thanks a million Tim, I appreciate you lending your expertise. Now if only ten of your colleagues would do the same... ;) ]] 19:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

	== lupus ==

	--] (]) 01:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Is a self-published book written by internationally recognised experts an acceptable source for Misplaced Pages? ==

	Hi Tim, at last I've managed to get my Misplaced Pages account sorted and so I can actually sign my posts. I've recently
	made a couple of edits to the evolution draft document, one of which you undid, explaining that the source
	was a self published book (the field guide to genetic programming). I've read the pointer you provided on reliable sources, and I generally agree with what's there. However, the documents also states an ecception: "Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
	I believe we can claim this for the "field guide". I have published over 240 peer reviewed papers in conferences and journals, plus a highly cited book (Foundations of Genetic Programming, published by Springer, 2002). I'm also an associate editor of three international journals. The second author and third authors have similar experiences. Please, check our CV at the very beginning of the "field guide" book or simply look at our contributions to genetic programming at http://www.cs.bham.ac.uk/~wbl/biblio/gp-html/index.html
	The reason why we went self publishing is simply to generously donate our knowledge to science free of charge. The book is Creative Commons Licenced. Essentially we had the same objectives of the wikipedia. We want to reach people.

	] (]) 18:41, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Homeopathy ==

	I'm not sure I want to get deeply involved. I dipped a toe in the water in February, but withdrew because the editing seemed very aggressive. But I'll certainly take a look at the magic section — it sounds too interesting to miss. :-) <font color="Brown">]</font> <small><sup><font color="darkgreen">]</font><font color="Light green">]</font></sup></small> 17:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

	== ] ==

	Believe me, I was quite serious in my attempt to know a list of her current and past sockpuppets. Thanks for your help, ] (]) 20:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

	== Thank you ==

	{\| class="messagebox standard-talk" style="border: 3px solid #FF4F00; background-color: #8AA5DB;"
	\|align="left"\|]
	\|align="center"\|Thank you for voting in ], which '''passed''' with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. <br>{{-}} Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to ], ] and ] for their nominations.<br>{{-}} Thank you again, ]]
	\|}

			{{tb\|immunize}}
	==YouTube: Benefits of Antioxidants==

			== ] ==

			== WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter ==
	We are currently in the process of creating a number of health videos and we are wondering why this video keeps getting pulled off of wikipedia? I came to find out last time that Somno could not even watch the video that we published, please see below.

			{{Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron/February 2012 Newsletter notice}}
	If this is considered spam or advertising please tell us how, so that we may change the scripts of our future videos.

			== about removed article ==
	Thank you for your time and consideration.

			Hello Tim,
	We are thankful for your constant work monitoring wikipedia from spam and solicitations. However we feel that our video regarding the health benefits of antioxidants is good non-bias helpful health information. Would you please take a minute to watch the video in its entirety and let us know how or why it is not suitable for wikipedia.

			I created article about artist Dimitry Gerrman, but when I tried to add it to wikipedia I got message that you removed on 09/29/2009 another article with the same name, because copyright problems. My article is the new one. Could you please help me to add this article or please explain what could I do at this case.
	YouTube: Benefits of Antioxidants
	Thanks! StayHealthyTV (talk) 16:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
	OK, I will watch it when I edit from somewhere that doesn't have Youtube blocked. Somno (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
	Hi Somno, I just wanted to follow up to see if the video meets your approval and if you agree that we are not 'spamming' the wiki. Please let us know when you have a chance to approve the video. Thanks!
	Hi Somno, we never heard back from you regarding the video so we reposted it. If you still feel this is a problem please review the video and tell us what you would like to see changed with future videos so that it is not considered 'spam'. We feel that using YouTube is a great medium to provide health advice to our ADD generation. Thanks again for your time and help with this matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by StayHealthyTV (talk • contribs) 19:00, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

	] (]) 22:50, ~~24 April 2008~~ (UTC)		Thank you.] (]) 10:42, 02/14/2012 (UTC) <!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
			== ] of ] ==
			]

			The file ] has been ] because of the following concern:
	==Please move the Universe?==
			<blockquote>'''unused image, the source file has been deleted, and the licence is no longer verifiable'''</blockquote>

			While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be ].
	Not an impossible request for you, methinks. ; ] just moved ] to something else; could you please move it back and erase the fact it was ever moved? People are so silly sometimes! Thanks! :) ] (]) 05:51, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

			You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your ] or on ].
	:Dealt with before I came to it. ] (]) 16:25, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

			Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{Tlc\|proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the ], but other ]es exist. In particular, the ] process can result in deletion without discussion, and ] allows discussion to reach ] for deletion.<!-- Template:Proposed deletion notify --> --] (]) 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	== Animal testing ==

			:I've removed this tag, because there's an unfortunate circle going on here. The source file was deleted because it wasn't being used due to this file format being preferred, and now we want to delete the preferred copy because the source file was deleted in favor of this one. If we need to have the license of the source file visible to non-admins, then the source file should be restored. ] (]) 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
	Is a useful reference for your Animal testing article?--] (]) 11:53, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
			::I posted a request on ] --] (]) 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:31, 29 January 2024

This user may have left Misplaced Pages. TimVickers has not edited Misplaced Pages since 13 December 2021. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Welcome to Tim Vickers's talk page.

Today is Tuesday, January 7, 2025; it is now 22:56 (UTC/GMT)

Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Misplaced Pages, please see Welcome to Misplaced Pages and frequently asked questions.

Talk page guidelines

Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and try to be be polite.

Archives
Archive 1
Archive 2
Archive 3
Archive 4
Archive 5
Archive 6
Archive 7
Archive 8
Archive 9
Archive 10

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}

Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback

August 20 Hard Scrabble and Snow Town August 28 Windracers September 4 University of Canterbury Faculty of Law September 9 Hadhramaut September 9 Urien September 10 Fraser Valley Heritage Railway Society September 10 Spit (album) September 12 Elm Farm Ollie September 24 History of chocolate September 26 Lucky Loser (book) September 29 History of The New York Times (1945–1998) September 30 Lake Michigan Monster September 31 Spoiler effect November 25 Fabienne Wohlwend November 30 4th Army (France)
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, you can add it.
v t e

You have a message

Hello, TimVickers. You have new messages at Whpq's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hello, TimVickers. You have new messages at Immunize's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Thank you for the invitation. I will try to follow the Enzyme Kinetics article and make contributions when I can. User:Todd40324 (talk) 9:39, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Homo Sapiens interbreed with Homo Neanderthalensis

I have provided some additional sources which the general reader can also understand. For us scientists, youtube may seem an unreliable source, but that is only the case if the source itself is unreliable, which is why I have collected videos from somewhat reputable sources such as the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) and others. This is so the general public can also partake and understand some of the main concepts of human evolution whereas if I only used peer reviewed scientific journals, the only people reading them would be the small minority of scientists on planet Earth. But as source of reference I will nonetheless continue to include peer reviewed scientific sources so that the scientific community will began to understand that human evolution is not the way they want it to be, but far more complicated series of migrations, evolution due to the selective pressure of their respective geographical location and possible interbreedings resulting in the modern day Homo Sapiens who happen to be part Homo Neanderthalensis and the Chinese anatomically modern Homo Erectus who may either be part Homo Neanderthalensis due to possible interbreeding or it is possible the Homo Erectus in China did not significantly interbreed with the Homo Neanderthalensis and that the anatomically modern Chinese Homo Erectus alive today simply retain what seems to be "neanderthal" genes because the Neanderthals were direct descendants of Homo Heidelbergensis which happens to be either a separate species or subspecies of Homo Erectus, and as such they both carry similar genes and passed them into their progeny in both respective evolutionary branches. Thank you! Please watch :

1.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpQiBPdFtog&NR=1

2.) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y9zVEQCIiRs&feature=related

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

	The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter
	Issue 2 (January 2010) Previous issue \| Next issue

Content

The community is currently

deciding whether

60,000

articles should be deleted.

background

Message from immunize (talk · contribs)

Hello, TimVickers. You have new messages at Immunize's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Message from immunize

Hello, TimVickers. You have new messages at Immunize's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Misplaced Pages:RSMED

WikiProject Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter

Volume I, Issue III
February 2012

Front cover | Feature | News and announcements | Humor | Want ads

To contribute to the next newsletter, please visit the Newsletter draft page.
ARS Members automatically receive this newsletter. To opt out, please remove your name from the recipients list.

about removed article

Hello Tim,

I created article about artist Dimitry Gerrman, but when I tried to add it to wikipedia I got message that you removed on 09/29/2009 another article with the same name, because copyright problems. My article is the new one. Could you please help me to add this article or please explain what could I do at this case.

Thank you.User:Markus50 (talk) 10:42, 02/14/2012 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Organic Apple.jpg

The file File:Organic Apple.jpg has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused image, the source file has been deleted, and the licence is no longer verifiable

While all constructive contributions to Misplaced Pages are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. --TheImaCow (talk) 17:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I've removed this tag, because there's an unfortunate circle going on here. The source file was deleted because it wasn't being used due to this file format being preferred, and now we want to delete the preferred copy because the source file was deleted in favor of this one. If we need to have the license of the source file visible to non-admins, then the source file should be restored. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I posted a request on Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_undeletion#File:Organic_Apple.png --TheImaCow (talk) 18:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Categories: