Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mann jess (talk | contribs) at 17:39, 16 August 2011 (→New Section: [] on []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Hello, Rainbowwrasse, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

  Introduction

 5    The five pillars of Misplaced Pages

  How to edit a page

  Help

  Tips

  How to write a great article

  Manual of Style

  Fun stuff...

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  Abductive (reasoning) 12:33, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

chemistry

Hey, I am not trying to force you to edit war with me, so rather than just restore them, could you explain why you would want to delete the references to Nature and the NYTimes regarding the arsenic nonsense? This is not my pet theory and I am not defending it at all - just curious why remove the refs from a wikipedia standpoint. I will look for your answer here. μηδείς (talk) 22:58, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Hey Medeis, thanks for the message. I was just busy starting to write on your talk page to explain in more detail so you didn't think I was editing it to annoy you... I took the refs out because they are secondary refs of the original and don't add further support to what is being said in the article. I kept the NASA page as a ref for NASA funding, and the original article for the rest. The Nature News and NYTimes article are mainly summaries of the original, so they shouldn't be used to give the impression of independent support. They don't corroborate the original, but just report on it. Same with the Redfield 'Letter to Science', that just summarizes the original blog criticisms, so I removed it. I had originally taken out the PHB/water activity statement because it isn't a properly developed theory, but more or less just a single statement in the original paper. I also simply didn't think this would be the right place to go into that much detail, especially since there is a whole article on it, so repeating all that seemed a bit too much. I only added the criticisms to make it more balanced; if I were to write it from scratch, I think there should just be a brief mention with linkouts, something like: “It has been speculated that the earliest life forms on Earth may have used arsenic in place of phosphorus in the backbone of their DNA. Although arsenate esters are so much less stable to hydrolysis than corresponding phosphate esters that arsenic would not be suitable for this function, a heavily criticized 2010 geomicrobiology study supported in part by NASA claimed that a bacterium, named GFAJ-1, collected in the sediments of Mono Lake, can employ such 'arsenic DNA' .” That captures the gist of it, and links out to the relevant articles. I don't have particularly strong feelings about the wording of the article, so do whatever you want. Have a nice day.Rainbowwrasse (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. My only concern then would be that a reference remains which is accessible to lay readers. If I get around to it find it necessary I might restore one.00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

As far as I know, the article will remain freely available at the cited source, so it should be fine.Rainbowwrasse (talk) 11:01, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

Re: Felisa Wolfe-Simon lead

I've moved your comment to the article talk page. I will respond there. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 10:02, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Prefer that as well, thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 10:04, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

Talk section in Gentleman scientist

Misplaced Pages policy encourages removal of potentially (keep your opinion if you want) insulting content about living persons and this exactly that I want to do with this discussion. If necessary I will apply for help exactly following instructions as it is advised in the banner at the top of the talk page. Audriusa (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

There is very little in the discussion that could be construed as insulting to a living person, it hardly even mentions a person. The only passage that makes any reference to a living person is 'The work may be notable but the scientists, which is the subject of this article, are not'. Although I can't see how this is insulting, removing this passage might be an option. Deleting the whole discussion thread seems a little radical. The discussion mainly deals with the removal of unsourced material and the notability of a particular study. It is not concerned with the biography of a living person. Please specify which particular sections you find potentially insulting. Those can then be selectively blanked. Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 21:59, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

All discussion must be blanked as it discloses sensitive personal information that is not published elsewhere (fact of <words blanked later>). The project team (two living persons) is not willing to share this information. As I understand, they do not need to go into endless discussions why they do not like the content Audriusa (talk) 05:05, 11 August 2011 (UTC).

Sorry to go on about this, but there has been no disclosure of personal information in the discussion. If anything, the discussion very clearly demonstrates that there is no basis to believe that anyone involved in the study (which isn't even mentioned, so there is nothing in the discussion to link this to an actual person) had any voluntary contribution. The only person ever to have suggested this was in fact you, in the article (and this information has been removed). Just because you personally don't like the contents or outcome of a particular discussion thread does not mean you can delete it on the grounds that someone else may not like it. I have seen no evidence that the team involved has any opinion at all about any 'disclosure'. To say that they do is another unfounded assumption by you. I suspect that you simply are unhappy with the discussion yourself, could this be true? Cheers, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 09:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, me, but I have blanked my posts also. Audriusa (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Not really an answer, is it?...Rainbowwrasse (talk) 13:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I have already said everything and have nothing more to add, at least to the listener of your kind. Audriusa (talk) 13:58, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

So you are saying that there was no real reason for your deletion in the first place? Why did you do it then? Also please elaborate on 'the listener of your kind', Thanks. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 14:02, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the discussion in redacted format to remove any direct references. I think this is a solution we both can live with. Please note that I have not altered any of your entries, as it would be inapproprate for me to do so. I think your entries are fine, but please do check. Thanks, Rainbowwrasse (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Edit warring on Water Memory

Your recent editing history at Water Memory shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.   — Jess· Δ♥ 17:39, 16 August 2011 (UTC)