User talk:TimVickers/archive 8

likely the helpful thing to have done

I think this was the helpful thing to do, I could see only disruption and wondered what I was missing. Gwen Gale (talk) 07:03, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

United States

Yes, I think it's FA worthy at this point, but I expect there'd still be a lot of resistance to the length. We've knocked off about 5 KB in the last few days (thanks for all you've done), but I imagine a significant chunk more would have to go for it to be a viable candidate.DocKino (talk) 16:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Quick Links theft

I hope you don't mind, but I stole your nifty quick links box and added it to my user page. If you would like I could add a note attributing it to you. Let me know. KnightLago (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Martinus Beijerinck photograph

Hi Tim, I received the photograph from Delft but it's page looks a mess and I can't edit it. Can you, or do you know someone who can, fix it? Graham Colm ^Talk 17:56, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

Have you seen this? Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		To TimVickers, for outstanding commitment. Axl ¤ [Talk] 17:09, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

PBB

Hi Tim,

I have got a question which I do not know exactly where to ask, so I am just asking here. I want to insert a "see also" section in one of the articles created by the PBB which I did in the following way: [1] My question is what I should do so that the entry stays there and is not deleted the next time the bot comes around?

Btw, I am writing a new article about eIF2 (see my user page, Article 1) and I was confused by the amount of articles created by the protein bot. I do not think it makes so much sense to have an article about all three subunits of eIF2 and all five of eIF2B since there isn't even an article that explains what they do. So where does the information belong what the individual proteins / gene products do?

Greetings

Hannes —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hannes Röst (talk • contribs) 21:12, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Anaconda Page

Tim, I have posted a paragraph or two on the anaconda article page. I have also placed a small section of a graph that I have found below the edited graph under the "Species" section. There is a link on the talk page along with a "Help Me" message which explains what I would like to be done with it. If you could, please format the HTML codes, or whatever, to set up the full graph under the one that is already there. If you have any suggestions to it or think that some of the graph is irrelevant and needs to be taken out, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you for all your help.

Dorkstar17 (talk) 22:49, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Well I am aware that this message may not interest you in the slightest bit but I was really bored and can't go to bed so I just thought that I would let you know that it took me a lot longer to do my Lab Report than I thought and did not get a chance to complete the TABLE. I will do later, maybe not tomorrow but it will be the next thing on my list when it comes to editing. Now remember, I am up for suggestions on the table on whether you think some of the listing needs to be taken out. If so, what? Your help and others are appreciated if someone else is reading this. Thank you and goodnight.

P.S. Tell your wonderful cat Loki I said goodnight too!

Dorkstar17 (talk) 04:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Antiscience

Hello, Tim. I reverted the edit because it was unreferenced and unencyclopædic in its tone. But, yes, I should have been more explicit in my edit summary, and should have left the editor a note about it. All too often, I get in a hurry while reverting and forget such things. Clearly, the edit was not mere vandalism. I was sort of going on auto-pilot. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 15:52, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, polymath and autodidact both apply to me, which is not bragging. I attended 5 different universities, pursued more than half-a-dozen degrees, but it has always been the library where I felt at home. Wikipedia feeds my fascination with many different areas of knowledge, which is why I spend so much time here. Cheers! ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 16:38, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

Former article, Andi Whaley

Hi, Tim. I noticed you deleted Andi Whaley, a former article here. However, whoever tagged it for deletion did not warn me about the deletion tagging, first. Here's a word of advice: Next time you delete an article, whoever tagged the article for deletion needs to see to it that the creator is warned about it prior to the article's deletion. I hope this advice was helpful!Kitty53 (talk) 19:53, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, okay. Sorry. I guess I didn't understand it. Thanks, Tim!Kitty53 (talk) 21:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Curious

Rs5569 came up on my periodic check of what links to Tourette syndrome; strange to redlink authors? Or did I miss something in genetics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:19, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

What is wrong with redlinks? I guess it may have something to do with the everlasting discussion on notability, and some feel that humans are not generally notable... With the erasing of the author links the link to, e.g., Professor Dr. Peter Riederer. It would have provided some context. — fnielsen (talk) 10:00, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Chiropractic

Nice to have you on board. In case you haven't read them yet, Elonka dropped some helpful background links at Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log (though I think the AN thread is going to be archived pretty soon). If you've got anything you'd like to discuss, whether it's about the article or just general small talk, feel free to contact me at my talk page or by email.

While I'd love to say that's the only reason I'm here, I could also use your help with a small thing. In regards to this edit, would you mind verifying that this (ref #86) is a valid reference for the statement "Some of this research has been criticized as being misleading for failing to mention incorporation of data derived from studies of SM that do not relate to chiropractic SM..."? While I'd love to do it myself, I can't make heads or tails of it. I believe you are more knowledgeable in the subject. If you'd like me to explain, please contact me by email, as I'd prefer to do so off-wiki. Thanks, and cheers. lifebaka++ 02:18, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Echoing Lifebaka, I'm very pleased to see you helping out with this one. :) If you have time, I'd also recommend setting a watch at Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles), which is currently undergoing some, hrm, "intense" discussions, and seems to have a bit of overflow from the Chiropractic article. I think you're probably one of our best-suited admins to participate in the discussions there, so if you have time, I am sure your comments would be appreciated. --Elonka 23:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

The biggest current problem at Chiropractic is installing possibly-controversial edits without adequately discussing them, so I'd suggest something like the following: "When considering a possibly-controversial edit to the article's stable state, discuss the edit on the talk page first, attempt to gain consensus there, and do not install the edit if the consensus is against it. When proposing such an edit, give other editors at least 96 hours to comment before installing it. If there's any reasonable doubt about whether an edit might be controversial, assume that it will be controversial. Violations of the above guidelines will lead to topic bans." (That last sentence sounds weird to me, but I'm not an admin and don't know how to phrase these things....) Is that the sort of thing you're looking for? Eubulides (talk) 01:19, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Heya, one last piece of paperwork. When you notify an editor of the case, it has to be logged on the case page itself. For Pseudoscience, since it's combined with another case (just to make things that bit more complicated, heh), this is at: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist#Log of notifications. If you check there, you'll see the format. Just list their name, and a diff of the notification. You only need to list editors who haven't been notified yet, so in this case, that'd be Surturz. --Elonka 18:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Quackguru

I have Pseudoscience on my watch list and noticed this today. Later I saw the Arb-com page and your log re: Quackguru there. Just thought it might be related. NJGW (talk) 05:02, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

All is for the best, in this, the best of all possible worlds

One of the advantages of not having many supporters at your RFA is that there are fewer people to thank at the end. Thanks for your support and your willingness to look at my complete record. I'm going to try to interpret this resounding defeat as a statement that I should choose my words more carefully in the future, and remember that every statement I make gets recorded forever, just waiting to get carefully transcribed onto my next RFA. I would go insane if I believed that it was repudiation of what I truly meant: that no editor should consciously and willfully ignore guidelines and policies, and editors that repeatedly do so should not be rewarded for or supported in doing so.

I'm sure I'll get back to full speed editing soon, because, after all, , every day, and in every way, I am getting better and better.—Kww(talk) 05:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Evolution

Thank you for the warning about this article. I've considered your remarks and placed a reply at Talk:Evolution. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 18:08, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Hello TimVickers. Thank you very much for your support in my recent Request for Adminship, which was successful with 111 supports, 0 opposes, and 0 neutral. I have to say I am more than a little overwhelmed by this result and I greatly appreciate your trust in me. I will do my best to use the tools wisely. Thanks again. Regards. Thingg⊕⊗ 01:46, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Tile Join :(

New and Improved.

He's been blocked, but no template on the userpage. Can you add it please? Aunt Entropy (talk) 17:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Please stop subtle mass vandalism

66.251.199.141 inserted bogus material with fake references into dozens of articles. I have manually reverted dozens of the edits, but this has to be stopped. He regularly uses invented refs by Giannini et al. Take a look. The claims are completely idiotic, sound scientific to the lay reader, are dangerous in medical articles. Stop him, Tim. I can't because no admin. Thanks in advance. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Ion

The other ref Giannini, Giannini, Giannini et al is also bogus. read the abstract. Article protected, I can't edit it. Must be a hoax by Ohio State. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 20:59, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

More clearly, Giannini and his relatives with 4 or 5 different initials are a very gifted bunch. They are a hoax by Ohio state with 100s of publications about PCP psychosis, foot fetishism, medieval gonorrhea, psychological phenomena, detoxification etc. Don't be misguided by the PMIDs. We had a similar genius with 100s of bogus inventions entered into IEEE and other journals as a hoax, also citing each other. Was complete bogus but looked genuine. See also "Journal of irreproducible results". This is rather treacherous. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:11, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

So what would be the "climactic heat stress" in the ref by Giannini, Giannini, Giannini et al? The abstract is gibberish. As I said, it is not the first time I have seen gibberish in Pubmed. These are academic hoaxes, see also above the case of IEEE journals, and you are gullible. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

This is greek fraternity/sorority crap from Ohio State. Trust me. Not the first time I have seen it, and I am 62 years old. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:27, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes for depression and for seasonal disorder such claims exist, however still questionable. But not for "climactic heat stress", the heat stress if somebody is whacking off. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:33, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Steroids

Liver damage is particular to first pass metabolism of 17-alkylated oral steroids, not others. Article tells gibberish about that. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 21:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Xymmax RfA

I'd like to take a minute to let you know that I appreciate your support in my recently-closed RfA, which passed with a count of 56 in support, 7 in opposition, and 2 neutrals. The way you dug into my contribs for some evidence of article writing was helpful, and I believe it helped keep that particular objection down to a low roar. I'll certainly try to justify your faith by using the tools wisely. Happy editing, and thanks again! Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 22:24, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Giannini

There is another Giannini ref in Gonorrhea, talking about gonorrheal foot fetishism. This is suspiciously the same crap as in the foot fetishism article, one of the favorite topics of the Giannini family. We need a second run on the Gianninis, they are a whole gang, not only AJ Giannini. They are strangely specialized in drugs and overheated immature phantasies, as seen in junior college and frat houses. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoax

It is a hoax, trust me. I can immediately point you to more articles, which are hoaxes, but listed in PubMed and cited. It is a sport to do that. Trust me. If you go through you win. Wait a minute, I dig something out for you, then you see. 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:01, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

http://www.summarization.com/~radev/ilist/0374.html there you are. It is a sport. I find more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Here for the sake of the argument and to relax for a moment: Give this a shot. Write a paper in a minute.

http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/scigen/ 70.137.179.88 (talk) 23:17, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

There is a google book available by Giannini. Maybe thats useful. Generally I would prefer if facts are notable and broadly accepted as fact, i.e. easily backed by multiple references, teaching books etc. The connection of gonorrhea with foot fetishism doesn't belong to the notable facts about gonorrhea, even if it turns out to be true. Please remember the discussions we had about temazepam, and the effort it took to clear the article of trivia and hard to check anecdotal findings. As I said there, virtually everything has once been suspected, tried, investigated, contradicted. It takes a long time until the established and material facts crystallize. In this sense the Wikipedia is just a self-proliferating avalanche of crap, in particular wrt. psychoactive drugs, religion, politics and any stupidity that could be funny or exciting for high school kids or religious or political zealots or druggies or reborn anti-druggies or teetotaler Jesus people or 12-steppers etc., not to forget scientologists and Narconon zombies on their way to clean the world. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 06:27, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I see this is a multidisciplinary genius and his OR is so sophisticated that we are all too dumb to really value it! This is going to be fun. It is not even OR in the WP sense! 70.137.131.133 (talk) 21:43, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

See here for the peer reviewed multidisciplinary semantic and ergonomic research on the heuristics of the styles of porter beer and related paradigmal eulogism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Porter_%28beer%29&diff=242828115&oldid=241380602

We certainly need a multidisciplinary team fluent in greek to really value it. But my time and effort are too valuable to spend on debugging such crap. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 22:27, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

So this did so far cost us approx 10 man-hours to find and revert. That this are crap additions is obvious, maybe provoked by the intellectual challenge to slip under sooo intellectually advanced crap, that only multidisciplinary teams hopefully can recognize it. But it is destructive to the factual content and reliability of the WP. Remember Goodson's additions to temazepam. It is vandalism, and I would not have unblocked them. Highly advanced team of scientists? Give me a break. Its a sport and they are just wankers from some junior college. 70.137.131.133 (talk) 00:47, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

PANDAS

In case you want a little challenge :-) PMID 15721825 (a review) has a decent overview of PANDAS under "Neuroimmunology". Even though "I get it", it's tough for me to write about; specifically, I find it very hard to paraphrase the tecno-mumbo-jumbo. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and check out the figure on page 153. Maybe some graphics genius could make something for the TS article :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:07, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Updated confirmation of the trend at PMID 18823914 (primary study, but in line with review). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force

I wanted to know if you (or any friends of yours) are interested in dermatology, and would be willing to help me with the WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? Kilbad (talk) 15:03, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Hoser and venomoids

Pardon my lack of response, I wasn't trying to be mysterious. I did the second save on the split venomoid article, and was disconnected by my blasted ISP. When I returned home, and sorted them out, I was glad to notice you had found the article and edited it. The article was my solution to what I see as residual problem with the Hoser art, cheers for contribs there as well! I hope to be able to focus on content again, not thuggish and unsubstantiated accusations, thanks for being a model wikipedian. cygnis insignis 16:25, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

I did a light fact check and recast the sections. I meant to let you know, just remembered I didn't. Cheers, cygnis insignis 18:02, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

FA-Team help requested

Hi Tim, I notice you are mentoring a couple of students at WikiProject AP Biology 2008. The FA-Team has just launched a mission to help this project, and also WikiProject North of the Rio Grande, improve articles towards featured quality. I'm hoping you would like to join in this endeavour and support a couple more articles. If so, please add your name to the articles you are watchlisting on the mission page. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:30, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Ping!

You've got mail. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Do you think you could read and correct the paper this week, or will it be next week? Just so I have an idea about timing, it's fine either way. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:57, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

No problem, your other work definitely has priority, I just like to know so I can plan my own stuff. I'll be looking forward to it for sometime next week then. Thanks and good luck with the other papers! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Life

Hello TimVikers. Thank you for taking the task to finally cleanup the table in the Life article displaying the scientific classification of life. I do have feedback for you, if I may, to further clean and simplify it. As per its heading ot title, this table is focused on the contemporary Domains (x3) and Kingdoms (x6). The current displayed subdivisions of flagellates (Bikonta & unikonta) down to specific species, adds confusion to this basic classification supposedly limited to Domains and Kingdoms. In addition, the Kingdom of Plantae is now displayed as as a genus(?) of the phillum microphita (microscopic algae). I humbly suggest to actually display only the 3 Domains (bacteria, archea, eukarya) and the 6 Kingdoms (Eubacteria, archaebacteria, protista, fungi, plantae and animalia). Please let me know what you think and if you have the time for that. Thank you, -BatteryIncluded (talk) 19:49, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		For you, just because I seem to come across your fantastic contributions thoughout Wikipedia's science articles. Deli nk (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, can I ask you a favor? Could you please take a look at calorad sometime? It seems quite spammy to me, and I've tried a little to cleanup it up, but the science is a bit beyond what I know and much of my edits have been reverted. It could really use the help of someone with a good understanding of biochemstry/biology/medicine and of Wikipedia's quality standards. Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 19:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking a look. Deli nk (talk) 13:32, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Paul Smith the banned user

Thank you for neutralizing Smith's new sockpuppets. --Loremaster (talk) 20:59, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Query

What are you basing this on?[2] --Elonka 18:22, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Well, we know Elonka supports an indefinite block, at least [3] Slrubenstein | Talk 00:02, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

I need your opinion

[User:WLU] suggested I contact you. We've had a running conversation for a year or two over the articles about Wiley Protocol and T. S. Wiley. I agreed sometime back to not edit either article as I am clearly COI, but I make suggestions through the discussion pages. To make a long story short, the detractors of Wiley have been very efficient in getting their opinions into "reliable sources," but Wiley has not. As a result, Wiley gets beat up pretty badly on Wikipedia. However, WLU's insertion recently of comments that the protocol is "controversial" (what HRT isn't?), is dangerous and the dosages are "potentially dangerous high dosages" (whatever that means) simply can't stand. There is no research to back this up. While the articles prominently point out there is no research to support Wiley (directly) the omission that the same is true for the detractors is just wrong. I won't ask you to read the long history, but just look at Talk under "Please fix this" (and expand it) and tell me if you agree with his point of view. Thanks. Neil Raden (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

My Bad

In the deletion attempt of Donna Eden, I gave the impression that the article had been published in 2007. Sorry. My bad. It was published in 2008. See the very bottom of pdf version of the article. They don't have the author/subject list compiled for 2008, yet. If this changes your view, I would appreciate an edit. Thanks.--Mbilitatu (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with formatting the reference.--Mbilitatu (talk) 19:40, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism

I wonder where you get your sheepish patience with idiots who are constantly vandalizing WP, as in the Giannini case and Temazepam. I don't have the nerve for that, pooh, I need an institutional size pack of blood pressure pills now. I need a vacation, as the terminator said. (people advised me to teach at a college, can't do that either, just no nerves for that) 70.137.138.161 (talk) 08:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Your comments regarding QuackGuru

I saw your edit on QuackGuru's talk page and then the message on Elonka's talk and what you're saying there really worries me. Since I've also been closely watching his contribs lately as well, I had a few issues that I was wondering if you had seen. He's been continuing to attack other editors [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9]. There have been some problems with him trying to force a particular view of an article and shut down discussions by stretching a very tightly worded RfC beyond its bounds even after having been warned about this tactic [10], [11], [12]. He continues making daily (or more frequent) edits to another editor's talk page that duplicate his comments on the article talk and occasionally attack the editor even though he's been asked to stop and even advised to stay away from this editor, for this one you'll get the best idea of the scope by looking at the history instead of specific diffs - for the requests to stay away [13], [14], [15], [16]. He meets any comments or advice on his behavior (or things he thinks are about his behavior) with accusations of bad faith [17], [18], [19], [20], [21] and he reacted in a very defensive manner when I gave another editor a barnstar [22], [23]. Overall, he has been hampering dispute resolution at Talk:Chiropractic (again, its really worth it to read some of the threads there to get the best view of this problem).

I have received multiple emails (in confidence) from editors involved in the Chiropractic discussion who are very concerned by QuackGuru but have indicated that they are very uncomfortable saying so on wiki because they will be harassed for those comments. It is my opinion that his involvement in the dispute at Chiropractic is severely detrimental; editors are having difficulty discussing or resolving issues in part due to his repetitive comments that he puts in multiple threads on the article talk and expands to editor's talk pages as well. His comments are frequently unhelpful and off topic as well as being very dismissive of other editors opinions or ideas; instead of addressing the issues at hand, he continues to sidetrack discussions by bludgeoning editors with the same comment repeatedly. I was seriously considering suggesting a topic ban myself before I saw Elonka was trying to gently redirect his efforts. I could not disagree more strongly with your assessment that there is "nothing of concern here" - there are a number of things that are very wrong here. Shell ^babelfish 05:18, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Since I watch Tim's page, I noticed this thread and took the liberty of checking all the diffs. As an editor who doesn't know the party in question, or you, and is only looking at whether the diffs substantiate your allegations, I have to confess that I'm not seeing it in any case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:29, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry Sandy, are you saying you don't believe those diffs show attacks? Or that he isn't making accusations of bad faith? Or that he doesn't continue to post to a talk page he's been asked to avoid? These seem like issues that are rather evident on their own rather than interpretive. If that's not what you meant, could you clarify here what part you don't think is well substantiated? Unfortunately, I'm certain further diffs can be provided if there's any question. Shell ^babelfish 05:42, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation research

FYI: Spinal manipulation research resources. You are welcome to contribute with comments, suggestions, and additions at the talk page. -- Fyslee / talk 06:25, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Invitation

TIM VICKERS. You seem to be a very intelligent person. Do you want to defend evolution at a blog ? You might learn something ! (GeorgeFThomson (talk) 17:58, 27 October 2008 (UTC))

No thank you, but I'm grateful for the invitation. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Aoso0ck

Aoso0ck (talk · contribs) is back in the licensure articles again, reverting to his old versions from a few months ago. NJGW (talk) 03:31, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of... he got blocked for a week. NJGW (talk) 06:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Umm.....

[24]

Am I missing something? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:18, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

blocking templates

Thanks!Slrubenstein | Talk 21:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again! So ... this is how the wikiworld looks to you? Fascinating! Slrubenstein | Talk 00:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Uh, okay, the tabs for the pull-down menues, which were visible to me before, are no longer visible. Is this because i screwed up a setting with Twinkle, or because my thinkpad is not displaying the entire page (preliminary fiddling around seems to eliminate this possibility)? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to be a pest about this. I cleaned out my cache, deleted my browser history, etc. When I logged back on, some of the new Twinkle tabs appeared at the top of my page. But when I went to my userpage, they disappeared. I logged out and logged in and they have not reappeared. might there be something wrong with my cache settings? Slrubenstein | Talk 02:11, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I refreshed, and the "warn" tab appeared, but only this (out of several from when i initially added Twinkle) - not complaining, just want to confirm this was the intended outcome. BUT when i click on the warn tab I got an error message, that my account is too new to use Twinkle. Soooooooooo?? Slrubenstein | Talk 03:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, Tim, it is still happening - it is an Windows internet explorer (yeah, I know) warning that says "Your account is too new to use Twinkle." I appreciate your help, I wish I understood what is going on ... Slrubenstein | Talk 03:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC) Thanks by the way for the token of trust!! Slrubenstein | Talk 03:29, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

I use Mozilla at work; at home I use Explorer. Can I download Mozilla for free? I can then use Mozilla at home ... Slrubenstein | Talk 16:13, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I will try it when I go home tonight, Slrubenstein | Talk 16:27, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Account creation toolserver interface request for access

I've approved your account. Please review WP:ACC/G before working on requests. If you've got any questions, feel free to ask me or join irc:wikipedia-en-accounts on freenode. Thanks for the help! - Rjd0060 (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

ANI thread, GammaRayBurst block and Grburster checkuser request

I've commented at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grburster and left this note at ANI. I might be missing something. Was there a good reason for the block of an inactive (quite possibly unrelated) and already-warned account, and the checkuser request of an account that looks (to me) to be making useful and productive edits? Carcharoth (talk) 08:56, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Media naturalness theory page

Hi Tim. It took me a while, but I think that now the media naturalness theory page is properly formatted, referenced, etc. Can you take a look and let me know what you think? My next project will be on channel expansion theory, which has also been getting a lot of citations lately. Best regards.--Senortypant (talk) 17:12, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Re: GAR

Hm, well I also added a review. The GAN and GAR processes are like this and have been for at least a few months now; perhaps they need a bit of a revamp then. Gary King (talk) 19:12, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay I will certainly keep that in mind for the future. I've done over 150 GAN and GAR reviews and this is the first time this has been brought up :) Gary King (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

New Page Watcher

I've activated this feature for you, have fun! Tim Vickers (talk) 23:09, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

When I try to mark a page as patrolled, it says I don't have sufficient rights. Any idea why this would be? LeilaniLad (talk) 22:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Courtesy, mentioned your name

... here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:01, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

advice on writing style

Hi there. I noticed you were willing to volunteer to help out other Wikipedians. I need another pair of eyes, or some copy-editing if you can spare some time.

I have been working on an article called Grand Theft Auto clone. I recently completed a peer review, where a few wording and organizational changes were suggested. I followed through on all of them. I nominated the article for good article status, and it failed. The reviewer stated that the article frequently goes off topic and has serious grammatical issues. This is pretty out of step with what the peer review indicated.

I don't doubt that the article needs some polish to get to GA status (I was expecting an "On Hold" review)... but I'm left scratching my head about how to improve it. It's hard to reconcile the "instant fail" grammatical and organizational problems with the generally positive peer reviews. I think the most helpful thing right now is a set of eyes who isn't particularly experienced with the topic. If you don't have time to help with copy-editing, even a quick read with 3 tangible suggestions would be extremely helpful. See Talk:Grand Theft Auto clone, whenever you can find a moment. Randomran (talk) 21:35, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on controversial articles

I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on a podcast about controversial articles that Scartol and I are working on. We have started a series of podcasts on improving article content (our first one was on copyediting). If you are interested, please sign up here. Thanks! Awadewit (talk) 17:58, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Paleontology GA review

Hi, Tim, as far as I can see nothing's happened since 6 Nov. Do we have a misunderstanding about whose move it is? --Philcha (talk) 16:13, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

No worries. I quite enjoy a bit of torpor myself. ---Philcha (talk) 08:53, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I just checked your latest copy edits. I was a little concerned at the changing of the first instance of one of my favourite phrases, "family trees" - until I saw what you 'd done with the rest of the sentence, it was really good and read much more smoothly. The rest of your copyedits are excellent too. Many thanks! --Philcha (talk) 10:27, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Certain wiki-drama-inducing RfC's

You do realize that I joking you guys? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 16:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the link

Hi Tim, Thanks for the welcome and the link to the template filler for citations. It makes formatting references much less painful and considerably more accurate. Mardueng (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Chromosome

I have been updating gene counts and bps lengths in the Human Chromosome table to those currently reported in VEGA. The article previously described the estimates in the VEGA as: "Number of genes is an estimate as it is in part based on gene predictions. Total chromosome length is an estimate as well, based on the estimated size of unsequenced heterochromatin regions." I don't know enough to be sure that the updated numbers now reported in the VEGA were estimated in this same way. Could you look into this? Thanks. Professor marginalia (talk) 20:36, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That Grburster case again

Hi Tim. Do you remember this checkuser case? I've just been looking over it again while discussing it with someone else, and I noticed that you said in that thread (at 15:40, 31 October 2008) that you "...called for a check partly because an account that was a self-admitted alternate account was showing a strong antipathy to ScienceApologist and the first edits this account made were to Talk:Non-standard cosmology. This raised the immediate suspicion in my mind that this was a sock (which I noted in my checkuser request) and Iantresman was the user that I suspected most strongly of being the sockmaster." The thing that puzzles me here is that you said none of this at the actual request for checkuser. See Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Grburster. You mentioned that Grburster was an alternate account, but you didn't mention at the checkuser your concerns about the antipathy to ScienceApologist, or the edits to Talk:Non-standard cosmology, or your suspicion that it might have been a sock of Iantresman. You just said "these may both be sockpuppets of another account". Was there a reason for not stating your suspicions in full? The only reason I can think of is that you weren't quite sure. With hindsight, I think detailing your suspicions in full would have been helpful. Certainly, if you had said at the checkuser what you later said at ANI, I wouldn't have objected to the checkuser. Carcharoth (talk) 02:26, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

re: your message regarding my (granted, uncivil) comment on the talk:evolution page..

You're right, I know, that was lousy of me. I am kinda sorry about that, I had a rough day and relentless stupidity like that just gets to me, especially after having had the same debate over and over and over and over again on other internet forums, only to have new people feeling good about their astounding ignorance popping up every minute and spout the same tired, supposedly pwning talk points. Will do better in the future. Thanks for the warning, good to see people still care about wikipedia, I've almost given up on it by now :/ (I guess making Japan your main field of interest in wikipedia is a particularly stressful testing of one's wiki-endurance) TomorrowTime (talk) 21:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, but thinking it over, it could not have been a troll or ignoramous, it could have been an honestly meant question by someone who just didn't have access to this stuff, and a polite answer could perhaps have helped somebody see things in a different perspective. That's what gets to me now. Oh well, as I said, will do better in the future. Cheers. TomorrowTime (talk) 06:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

Hi, thanks for the comment on my talkpage, I will definitely factor it in when I take a deeper look into the discussions on the article (I hope to have some time for it this weekend). As another administrivia note, is it alright if I move your name on Talk:Chiropractic/Admin log to the "editors" section? Allowing you to be completely involved in editing and sorting out the article's content issues, will probably be even more helpful than anything you might do as an admin! :) --Elonka 18:37, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, are you sure that's wise? The language at WP:UNINVOLVED is pretty specific about neutrality, content disputes, and bias, and you just used that latter term in respect to yourself. Or in other words, if you tried to use admin tools on any editor on the "other side", my concern is that the editor may quickly take it to ANI and diff your statement to try and get the action overturned. So it might be best to let other admins use the actual tools. You are still welcome to make admin suggestions and recommendations, and participate at the admin log page, too. If you were to say, "I think so and so should be topic banned" or "I don't think this editor should be blocked", or whatever else, your comments would still have considerable weight. I've dealt with this situation at other ArbCom enforcement articles, and what we usually do is to list the admins in the "editors" section, but put a qualifier next to their name, "Admin participating as involved editor".[25] So you still have clout, you're just not in the "uninvolved admins" category anymore. Would that work? --Elonka 18:58, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Consensus! :) Thanks, --Elonka 19:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

WP:V

Tim, if you have time (and there's no rush), would you mind taking a look at the self-published section of WP:V? I'm also going to ask Jay, as I know he's interested in this section.

The section has been getting changed slightly over several months, I think mostly with a view to tweaking the writing, but the result (perhaps inadvertent) has been a significant policy change.

The change is that self-published and questionable sources, previously only allowed to be used as a source on themselves in articles about themselves, may now be used as sources about themselves and their own activities elsewhere too, albeit in a limited way. (This should not be confused with self-published expert sources being used as sources in their area of expertise, which is allowed -- the issue I'm talking about here is self-published and questionable sources with no expertise writing about themselves and their activities.)

Although I do support this change and have argued for it before, I'm wary of it, because it has the potential to open the floodgates to nonsense. It also wasn't clear to me that the change to policy was intentional. I therefore changed it back to the long-standing "in articles about themselves" version on November 5, [26] and left a note on talk asking whether the change had been intended. [27]

Since then, there has been fiddling back and forth, with some changes clearly intentional, others clearly not. The current version is here. C) I think I support this wording, but my concern is whether the safeguards are strong enough to stop absurd sources (e.g. a self-published astrologer) from being used in articles where it would clearly be inappropriate (e.g. Astronomy)?

Any input would be appreciated at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Self-published_sources_on_themselves.

Sorry this is so long-winded! SlimVirgin ^talk|edits 22:25, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Orphan/Mentor Talk

So, I had not had much time to work on my Anaconda page that much recently, but in the last couple days I have been doing as mcuh as possible. On top of school and studying, I think you should be slightly impressed with what I have accomplished in the past two or three days. I have also submitted the page to "Peer Review" and am excited to the responses that I might get back from it. Hopefully, it shall help me and lead me in the right direction for success. Now, as my Biology teacher promised, I am sure he will send you (and every other mentor that adopted a member of my class) an e-mail this Friday, November 14, discussing how he was slightly upset with the slackers in my class. He also told us that he would mention to you all that he didn't really want you guys helping us out a whole lot because of his disappointment. Although I agree with some of his point-of-view toward others, I graciously ask you to comment/halp/review my article while it is submitted to peer review. GA is my goal, and I believe I can reach it, but it would be a lot easier with your help. Thank for everything, as always, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Dorkstar17 (talk) 01:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi, and update

Hey Tim,

We should probably start thinking about our presentation at the ASCB. I'm arriving on the 12th and staying through the 22nd; how about you? We should think about the presentation. I'm in favor of talking briefly and allowing the scientists as much time as possible to edit and experiment. One scientist has contacted me already, User:Lionel_Jaffe, who wants to write about calcium waves.

A few people with the Foundation and nearby are inspiring the local volunteers to help us in person, so I think we needn't worry about that. Perhaps you as Coordinator of the MCB could ask people there if they'd be willing? I think my name must be mud there after biting their ears for a student charity donation. ;) I think several other people, such as Awadewit, will help us if we asked nicely.

After having finished my grants and teaching for this semester (mostly), I'm educating myself about Wikipedia by coding scripts. Have you ever used them? They're interesting, because they allow each user to customize the page for themselves, and also allow calculations on the page's content. I wrote one today that you might like: it asks the reader questions about the article they're reading. You can try it out by adding "importScript('User:Proteins/studyquestions.js');" to your User:TimVickers/monobook.js subpage, as you can see at my own user page. The script adds a button appears in your navigation portlet (at the left) labeled "Study questions". If you go to this sandbox and click on it, you'll be asked easy questions about amino acids.

I've written a few others, such as this script which expands Wikipedia's ubiquitous shortcuts such as WP:V into plain English for newbies. I'm not entirely sure that my short summaries are entirely accurate, and I know that I'm still missing a few shortcuts, so if you have suggestions, I'm all ears. Thanks, Proteins (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

An update to the update. I wrote an article template this morning, which you can check out here. The idea would be to ask the cell biologists to substitute (not transclude) it into their sandboxes by adding {{subst:User:Proteins/ASCB_article_template}}. This will give the scientists some "seed" text and an outline from which to work, plus examples of how certain elements work on Wikipedia, elements such as section headings, references, images, tables, and categories, which they can cut/paste/copy/move around in their articles. Let me know if you think this is a good idea for the workshop and if you have some suggestions for improving it. In principle, we could have a few templates for different major classes of cell-biology topics; I modeled this one after the proteasome article, but an article about a signaling pathway could be organized differently. I feel that our goal in the workshop is to explain quickly how to produce articles with decent exposition, if not necessarily brilliant prose. Proteins (talk) 14:24, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean to be confusing. I mentioned those scripts only because I thought you might find them interesting, not because I wanted to use them in the workshop. I also worry about introducing too much too fast, since we'll have less than two hours. For now, the only thing I'm suggesting for the workshop is what's described in the previous paragraph: to substitute (subst:) an article template to help the scientists hit the ground running. Do you think that's a good approach?

Speaking for myself, I think it'd be better to give them a template to work from, something that lays out a smorgasbord of wiki-elements, such as section headings, images, tables, footnotes, references, categories, etc. We could follow such a template in the lecture as we introduce new elements and refer to it in describing the structure of WP articles. Everyone would be "on the same page", so to speak. In their own writing, the scientists could copy-and-paste elements around within the article as needed. I was thinking that the scientists should edit in their sandbox, to avoid AfD's and to polish their articles before making them "live".

Some may object to a "cookie-cutter" approach, but I think it will give us more time to help the scientists improve their articles. If we describe the wiki-markup without referring to a template, I fear there will be too many ways in which the scientists can go astray in using them or understanding them — the entropy of article space is high — and we might lose time tracking down and correcting those vagaries and misapprehensions. If you agree with a template (or possibly a handful of templates), we should collaborate on refining them; if not, let's cook up another approach. Proteins (talk) 22:09, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Do you want everyone to be doing the same thing? Perhaps some exploration is good, since not everyone will be drawn to article-writing, in the end. Awadewit (talk) 22:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Awadewit, I don't follow your suggestion? I was thinking that we'd use the template as a touchstone when we're first discussing the elements of wiki-markup. During that time, the scientists would be looking at identical pages. However, after Tim and I finish our introduction, each scientist will move on to writing their own articles. Since we'd use subst: and not transclusion, each scientist will have their own independent copy of the article template to fill in and play with as they like. I believe all the scientists are coming to the workshop with the goal of writing an article, although they could diverge into other roles after they leave.

I agree with you about the idiosyncrasies of writing really fine articles, and how a cookie-cutter approach isn't normally useful. But I'm also trying to be practical. We have only two hours; we need to communicate quickly and clearly, and forestall as many errors as possible. I see the template as a potentially useful tool for that. In my first draft, I tried to choose section headings that are common themes in many areas of cell biology: history of discovery, structure and assembly, function and inhibition, regulation, evolution, etc., along with the usual end-sections starting with "See also". Every scientist will have a different story to fill into those sections. Proteins (talk) 22:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if you were going to discuss the larger possibilities of Wikipedia at all and let the scientists explore them. For example, aren't there large cell biology databases that are doing data dumps into articles? Might you have people at this session that are willing to coordinate something like that (essentially people who are more interested in administrative work than individual article work)? If I had only two hours to show a bunch of literature professors what Wikipedia was about, I suppose I would try to show them the breadth of opportunities. So, for example, I would show them that they could both contribute and use Wikipedia for their own research - they could write papers using Wikipedia as a primary source (like you and I did). I would also emphasize that articles can be written for both the lay person and for the scholar - some articles are only for scholars, actually. To me, it is interesting that you are focusing so much on the technical side of things. I would barely mention that. :) Does any of this make sense? I would offer article-writing as only one aspect of the amazing world of Wikipedia. :) (I actually have a long list for an article I'm writing.) Awadewit (talk) 22:50, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are excellent thoughts for my part of our introduction, at least as Tim has suggested it. I was planning on mentioning AndrewGNF's work and its relatives that have appeared recently in the literature. However, I think that cell biologists are coming to the workshop primarily to get their research written up on Wikipedia, perhaps eventually bringing it to Featured Article status so that it could appear on the Main Page. The bulk of our time will be spent with the scientists writing their own articles, maybe 75%. Cool articles bring advantages in terms of "broader impact" and outreach, and also perhaps in attracting undergrads and grad students. There's also the advantage of explaining to your relatives exactly what it is you do...  ;) Proteins (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I see - then I think you should spend a lot of time on WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. :) Awadewit (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast

Would next weekend work for you, too? Scheduling these things is always difficult. See here for additional time options. Awadewit (talk) 17:27, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Paleontology

Hi, Tim, Thanks for your help. Getting the phrasing right when you're squeezing a quart into a pint pot isn't easy, and I appreciate that some of my efforts were a bit rough round the edges. --Philcha (talk) 01:05, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Gallo's Egg

I've recreated Gallo's Egg as a redirect (check the article history, you can see that it was made a redirect): as the AFD closed because the article was speedy deleted as a copyvio, simply having it as a redirect to AIDS denialism isn't a G4 violation. Nyttend (talk) 16:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Bacteria

Hey Tim. I've restored semi-protection for the article—I hope you don't mind, but it's been getting quite heavy. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:15, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Planning for the ASCB workshop

Hi Tim,

Do you think it's sensible to use an article template such as this one in the workshop? As outlined above, I think it would help, but there are several other options. What are your thoughts?

Also, do you agree with devoting roughly 75% of the time (1.5 hours) to getting the scientists writing? I know it's important to set context and show examples of good articles, and half an hour is short for that. But I'd like to get them writing pronto, at least if they come prepared as we've asked them. It's important that the workshop be productive, I think, in terms of real articles produced on Wikipedia. I think the scientists will get antsy if we just blather at them about Wikipedia without letting them dive in. The volunteers (live and online) will also get antsy, waiting for raw material to help with. Do you agree? Proteins (talk) 03:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Locke Cole and 1RR

Please see the Tennis Expert thread at AN for four citations of edit warring, several of which are gross violations of 1RR. I haven't the time at the moment to dig around further, but even if the spirit of 1RR was not broken on a singular article, going through multiple articles and conducting reverts multiple times over several days -- some more than once a day, is enough to file this over at ArbCom or present a block. seicer | talk | contribs 04:57, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Kingdoms

OK. I understand your point of view. My main intention was to correct dates and references instead of overvalueing the Cavalier-Smith's taxonomy. I'll change my table. --Maulucioni (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Chiropractic rvv

User:QuackGuru has been attempting to derail the mediation process as discussed here: [28]. If you look at the last few edits on 2008-11-20 by QG and myself, you may get a clearer picture. --Surturz (talk) 23:35, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

User:QuackGuru has a long history of sowing discord on the Talk:Chiropractic page. However, if you think I was in error to call his edits vandalism, I apologise for the mischaracterisation. --Surturz (talk) 23:42, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for welcome

Hello Tim,

thanks for welcoming me at wikipedia. By this, I just discovered the talk pages and the feature of posting comments.

Can I get these posting also by E-mail?

--Tomaschwutz (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Podcast on Sunday

Just a reminder that the Wikivoices podcast on controversial articles hosted by Scartol and Awadewit is happening on Sunday at 6 pm EST. Please add ideas to our list of discussion topics here and come prepared to give a short summary of your work on controversial articles at the beginning of the podcast. Awadewit (talk) 22:53, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

• I have added some suggestions for "conversing about controversy". If you have any further suggestions, please do add them. Awadewit (talk) 02:38, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Marc Feldmann

Dear Dr. Vickers,

I've started and developed the bio of Marc Feldmann. Dr. Feldmann is an immunologist. I'm not a biologist, but I've more than a passing curiosity about biology. The bio may have some technical errors. Can you please check the bio? Have a nice day. AdjustShift (talk) 15:42, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioacoustics therapy

Hi, would you userfy the final version to me at User:Smile a While/Bioacoustics therapy, please? Smile a While (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

Update and help?

Hi Tim,

I've heard from Dave Ennist, and over twenty scientists have signed up for our workshop, with many more expected. He'll send us a list of their preferred topics when he gets to it. About seven Wikipedians have volunteered to help out in person, thanks to the efforts of Phoebe and Bastique. I left a note with the League of Copyeditors and with the WP:FA-TEAM and Dank55 has volunteered to help bring the scientists' articles to FA once they get that far. I still haven't done my slides, but I hope to get to that today.

Could you help me add ALT text to the images of acid dissociation constant? I've done only four, and I'm getting tired already. Plus, I have lots of other things to do today; I have a student graduating in December and we still need to finish some things for her thesis. To add ALT text, you just add "alt=This image illustrates..." as a parameter in the Image: tag, similar to "200px", "thumb" or "left". It's useful for making the images accessible to the blind or anyone who uses a screen reader. I'm sure you'll do a great job, given your experience with enzymes and with Wikipedia. Thanks! Proteins (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Much obliged, Proteins (talk) 18:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of problems solved by MacGyver

I arrived at the debate only a few minutes too late, and would have argued to keep the article for its potential, but I was singularly impressed by how professionally you closed this debate. I hope this close becomes an example to point to for all administrators.--otherlleft^{No, really, other way . . .} 00:08, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

The MacGyver problem one

Dear Tim, I really do not see a consensus there and I even see some on the delete side really not seeming to have a problem with some kind of merge and redirect. In fact, the individual who posted the most responses to those arguing to keep, wrote, "a limited selection in an article's section would adequately tell the reader what a MacGyverism may be." Thus, would you perhaps reconsider allowing for a merge and redirect instead of outright deletion? The obvious merge and redirect location is MacGyver#Influence on culture. A number of sources were added to the list during the AfD and I believe these can and should be used to reference that section of the main article. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 23:54, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I have merged the cited material. Best, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 14:46, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

List of problems solved by MacGyver

Hi I would like to ask you to reconsider your decision regarding this article. As you stated you discounted the opinions of those who wanted to keep who were either questioning the good faith of the nominator or were not offering valid reasons to keep (I'm guessing you felt my own statement fell into the latter category).

You will notice that many of the delete arguments were based on the idea that the article largely or entirely consists of fancruft. When I go to WP:FANCRUFT and read the very first sentence: Fancruft is a term sometimes used in Wikipedia to imply that a selection of content is of importance only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question. Based on that I don't see how this article could be called fancruft, as it is important even to people (such as myself) who find the actual show unwatchable.

As I pointed out in the AfD discussion the unique characteristic of the MacGyver character to demonstrate exceptional resourcefulness has transcended the show and even the character. This trait has become a part of ordinary society (in the U.S. at least) to the point where the word "MacGyver" is sometimes used as a verb when discussing situations where resourcefulness is required or demonstrated.

I'd also like to offer admittedly anecdotal information that I feel helps illustrate my point, if one looks at the amazon.com page for "The Unofficial MacGyver How-To Handbook" and looks at the list of other items purchased with the book as well as purchased by the purchasers of the book there is only one item that is actual MacGyver related fiction (6th season DVD set) while most are other books fall unto the resourcefulness category (i.e. "Sneaky Uses for Everyday Things"). I do feel that this helps show that people who find this content important are not necessarily fans of the show but are looking for information on the practice of resourcefulness that the MacGyver character has become the archetypal example of.

Regarding notability, I admit to being confused as to how the other sources (that you mentioned) cited in the AfD discussion fail to establish notability based on my understating of [[29]].

In any case another search that is related to the one above but I don't believe is especially anecdotal. Looking at the search results for an amazon.com books search for the word "MacGyver" you will find the first page dominated by resourcefulness guides. Looking at subsequent pages, specifically the excerpts of the various fiction and non fiction books the reference to MacGyver is nearly universally used in reference to being resourceful. Literally dozens of published books showing the word MacGyver in that context with very few using the word MacGyver to refer to the show, the character or even the actor who portrayed the character.

Thank you for your time and for your efforts. Raitchison (talk) 16:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article

Since I know you've got at least a side interest in megavitamin and orthomolecular therapy, I was wondering if you'd seen this interesting editorial on the subject. I'd propose including it in some of our relevant Wikipedia articles, but I'm tired of dealing with them. MastCell ^Talk 19:17, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

List of problems solved by MacGyver

Good decision imho. Thanks. Springnuts (talk) 19:19, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Huggins

You may know that amalgam illness is an accepted diagnosis in some European countries. How can you be against including the fact that scientists openly disagree with the American orthodoxy that so pains Huggins in the Huggins entry?--Alterrabe (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

no barnstar

(since I'm too lazy to find one) but great job on the Hal Huggins article. --Cameron Scott (talk) 21:52, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Happy Thanksgiving!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I just wanted to wish those Wikipedians who have been nice enough to give me a barnstar or smile at me, supportive enough to agree with me, etc., a Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, --Happy Thanksgiving! Sincerely, A Nobody^{My talk} 02:34, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Deletion review for List of problems solved by MacGyver

An editor has asked for a deletion review of List of problems solved by MacGyver. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Raitchison (talk) 05:15, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bernard Morris

Any particular reason why? You didn't appear to have a rationale. — BQZip01 — ^talk 01:07, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have missed my point. The guideline states that a player "at the highest level of amateur sport" can be included. How does this not qualify? I have no intention of going to DRV over this yet. I just don't understand how he doesn't fit the guideline at WP:ATHLETE. I think he fits it perfectly. — BQZip01 — ^talk 07:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

??? — BQZip01 — ^talk 06:24, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Hello, TimVickers. You have new messages at A Nobody's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Source favour

Hi Tim! I've not had to post here for a while, which suggests I have been able to handle most of wikipedia without your sage advice, and that I'm an ungrateful wretch who only shows up when I have a problem. I feel terrible, I assure you. That being said, you know I've got a favour to ask...

Any suggestions for accessing this article? It's listed as a full-text on pubmed, but it's subscription. I long for my days as a student, when I had access to the databases, sigh. If it's accessible as an e-mailable PDF I'd be most grateful, but I also firmly believe that you know of some sort of wikimagic to access these articles as your abilities in the area are nothing short of sorcerous.

Thanks, WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 16:10, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

The podcast is live

Tim, thanks again for participating in the recent podcast about controversial articles. We're happy to announce that it's live, and you're invited to listen to the finished product in all of its OGG format glory. Cheers! Scartol • Tok 02:16, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant

Tim, I don't know if you have the time or inclination, but Acid dissociation constant is running into some friction at its FAC. A couple of editors have said it needs a copyedit, but the primary editor is resistant, feeling that the technical language is precise and changing it for readability would not benefit the article. I think it could do with a copyedit pass from someone who has experience with editing technical articles; I have copyedited it myself but I think I've done all the good I can. I know you're good with technical articles; if you have time, it would be great if you could take a look. I know you're busy, though, so no problem if you don't have time. Thanks -- Mike Christie (talk) 20:28, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Mike Christie (talk) 21:48, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Ouch. Sorry about the outcome; and I really appreciate you spending some time on trying to help. I am genuinely uncertain about the need for the specific language that is in that article; my knowledge of science tells me that sometimes apparently innocuous changes can change the meaning dramatically, but my experience in writing about arcane topics tells me that there are almost always improvements that can be made to clarity. Thank you again for trying. Mike Christie (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Tim, following Mike's suggestion I wonder if you would be willing to work through the lead with me as he suggested. I'm sorry if we appeared to be a little harsh in rejecting your previous efforts. I had not realised that they were done at Mike's suggestion. He and I worked very effectively together in the run-up to resubmitting the article for FAC. I'm all in favour of improved readability. To achieve it without changing the meaning, that's the challenge. Petergans (talk) 13:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

FAC discussion

Tim, re the note Petergans just posted a couple of sections higher up on your talk page, you may also be interested in this discussion. Mike Christie (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Peter Tobin

No problem - Are we going to start subbing other UK legal cases? That's not me taking the piss but once we've started this process - where do we stop? I honestly don't know. --Cameron Scott (talk) 19:55, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Edits by 69.106.242.49

I am not sure, but these edits seem like vandalism.

Can you take a look?

Thank you.--Senortypant (talk) 22:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Anaerobic respiration is not fermentation

Hi Tim. There is a serious error in the metabolism map that has been inserted at the bottom of the following articles: Glycolysis, Citric acid cycle, Pentose phosphate pathway, Gluconeogenesis. There may be others articles that I have yet to find with the same map. The error has to do with the pathway going from pyruvate to lactate and ethanol, which are examples of fermentation. Instead the pathway is incorrectly labeled anaerobic respiration. This error may be perpetuating the belief that fermentation and anaerobic respiration are synonymous. I'm turning to you because I have no idea how to fix it. NighthawkJ (talk) 01:43, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I see that you corrected the template. I'm confused about one thing though. I thought that any change to the template would automatically appear in the metabolic map in the various articles, but this doesn't appear to be the case. To make the correct version of map appear, I went into the glycolysis and citric acid cycle articles and clicked the last "edit" section link. Without changing anything in the article, I then clicked "Save page," and the correct version of the map appeared! (Another curiosity is that my action didn't appear in the History of the articles.) I was wondering if I did the right thing, so I didn't touch the other articles, which still had the incorrect version of the map. However, I noticed today that the correct version of the map now appears in the pentose phosphate pathway and branched-chain amino acids articles, yet the gluconeogenesis article, along with a few others, still have the incorrect version. I'm stumped. Should I make the change to the remaining articles myself, or will the correct version of the map slowly make its way into the various articles? NighthawkJ (talk) 18:31, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand! It's not as mysterious as I thought. Thanks for directing me to Wikipedia:Purge. NighthawkJ (talk) 17:38, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

PANDAS

Ugh. I'm having a problem with my eyes and can't clean it up today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

worse than cleanup needed, puts forward dangerous and unproven treatments with no balance so I put a POV tag because I just can't work on it today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Sorry to edit-conflict with you, Tim - I was just working through and reformatting the refs with DOI's and PMID's so we can at least start the verification process. MastCell ^Talk 20:26, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

MC, I'm sorry my eyes are troubling me so much, particularly since PANDAS is a technically challenging topic. I understand it pretty well, but I can't write on the level of brain and neurobiology involved here. The bias and unproven science, in this case, unfortunately is paid for US taxpayers, so mainstream TS research has to be accessed for balance. There are very good reviews available. Singer, Kurlan, the Yale guys. I'm no friend of the TSA, and I'm usually loathe to defend them, but separating their fundraising and PR and advocacy issues, undeniably their medical and scientific advisory boards represent every one of the best TS minds. I wonder if the $18 million grant they received from the NIMH had any impact on their criticism of PANDAS, which has been carefully muted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Draft ASCB workshop slides

Hi Tim,

I e-mailed a draft set of 24 slides for the ASCB workshop to your WUSTL address. Please let me know what you think. You're probably not nervous, but I am — only two weeks left! ;) Thanks for your help, Proteins (talk) 18:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Niobium

Tim, Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Niobium has been one step backwards for every two steps forward. Every time I think it's ready for promotion, I find new basic typographical and grammatical errors and new unclear prose. Now there's also a mix of US/British English, with jewellery and jewelry, for example. Casliber went through once and left it in fairly decent shape, but now it's gone backwards again. Do you have a moment to look through it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Acid dissociation constant - re-written lead

I have now re-written the lead for acid dissociation constant. The essential content of the lead is the same as before. The effect of this change will be that when chemists will read the explanatory material they will say to themselves, yes, I know that, but non-chemists will hopefully get the gist of what the article is about

I invite you to read it and then record your “vote”, e.g. “now support” or “still oppose”, at wp:Featured_article_candidates/Acid_dissociation_constant. I have assembled a list of names under Re-written lead, so that the responses will be collected together in one place.

Some minor disagreements will inevitably remain. These should not be a reason for opposition. Rather, put constructive ideas on the article’s talk page, so that the article can be further improved by the normal editing process. Petergans (talk) 09:31, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Itub (talk) has proposed an alternative, shorter version of the lead at User:Itub/ADC lead. Petergans (talk) 10:47, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Enquiry

Dear Dr Vickers

I have been working on the Plasmodium page for a while. My impression is that there are few editors interested in parasites on Wikipedia. I nearly have pages done for all the parasites now. While there is I admit considerable variability in the content of these pages that for the most part reflects the amount of material available on that species. Many have but a single paper. Most of the ones that need a page done for them are those where there is a lot of information that I have yet to get around to summarising. So many species, so little time :-)

Given your background in Fairland's lab I would think you know quite a bit about parasites in general. I would be grateful for your opinion on this page in its current layout and what you think should be done to improve it further.

A note: I'm still checking out the list of dubious species. Several of these are listed in the taxobox. I have not deleted them yet because I have found a peer reviewed published reference to them but little else. My impression is that more than a few have been declared non species since then but not having a definite opinion on this one way or the other I have simply listed them as dubious cases. There are a few in the taxobox that I need to check up but I will move these to the dubious section once I can fomulate an better informed opinion on them. Any species with a seperate page has been validly described.

Thank you in advance for your time DrMicro (talk) 14:08, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your note. There is no rush. Wikipedia was not built in a day.DrMicro (talk) 11:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks for your review. Im afraid I had to correct one of your edits. Infection with a Plasmodium species is synonymous with malaria. Disease - that is symptoms and signs of the pathology - may or may not be apparent. While infection usually causes disease in humans in some species (mostly lizards) infection does not seem to cause problems. At least as far as we can tell.

Thanks again. DrMicro (talk) 12:28, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Spamming my friends

Per this upcoming event:

Hallmark Hall of Fame TV Movie about Tourette Syndrome True Story Based on Brad Cohen’s Life to Air on CBS, Sunday, December 7, 2008[30][31]

I'm anticipating some tic-related vandalism at Brad Cohen, Tourette syndrome and coprolalia when the show airs. (Brad is an extraordinary fellow in case you want to watch the program; no advance news on whether the story will stay accurate, but they usually don't. Most TS shows opt for sensationalism, but Brad's tics are so sensational anyway, it would be hard to exaggerate them.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Video tutorial on creating a user account

I'm rather rusty at Camtasia, but I managed to eke out a tutorial video on creating a user account. How does it seem to you? I could probably dash off a few others in preparation for the workshop. Hoping you liked the slides, Proteins (talk) 00:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Complaint

All i want to say i tim vickers you are an idiot for deleting the Darin Murphy page, it might not have been informative, but he is a bloody good muscians! i didnt know where to complain about this and thought why not put it on some random section on your talk page. TWAAAAT. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.137.44.172 (talk) 20:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Review

Hi Tim Vickers,

Hope you are doing OK. Just wondering if you can go through Streptomyces griseus page and let me know on how I can improve that please. I am not sure if it makes sense the way it is. :D Wiki San Roze ^†αLҝ 02:58, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see new proposal at MOS RFC on date linking

Your Nov 25 comment at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)/Date Linking RFC#Year-in-Field links should be made in certain cases is a point I expanded on in a new proposal on that page, so you might be interested in it: "Year-in-Field links in tables and lists are just fine but should be identified" -- Regards, Reconsideration (talk) 17:26, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Image request

Hi Tim, I was wondering if I could use the image you uploaded of M. tuberculosis in a Youtube presentation about endometrial tuberculosis leading to intrauterine adhesions. I will attribute the image to you of course. Please let me know. Thanks Floranerolia (talk) 03:41, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Bird flu

Hi. The disambig page Bird flu is inaccurate and not as useful as it could be. Could you look at my talk page, the recent edit history of that disambig and then do whatever you think is best? Thanks. I need a vacation from Wikipedia. WAS 4.250 (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Anaconda

Hi Tim, Since you got me re-involved in the Anaconda article, I would be interested to know what you think of this: Talk:Anaconda#New_move_proposal. Cheers, --Jwinius (talk) 21:38, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! --Jwinius (talk) 17:17, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Move image?

Hey Tim, could you move Image:Button_nowiki.png to another name? It's interfering with an image of the same name but different content from the Commons, which is used for the editing toolbar. Thanks, Proteins (talk) 20:29, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! See you in a few, Proteins (talk) 12:00, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

HI Tim. Great to see you arr working with Bill across the Atlantic in regards to biochemistry which if I remember rightly that was also your profession, right? I'd be very interested to hear any proposals or suggesiton you have in regards to using a bot to generate the mass of missing content that exists from the sciences that can be started with a decent amount of information and are valid starter article. Lord knows that if we could have used a bot to generate the French articles with infoboxes and references we wouldn't have been spending the last year adding them! A species bot or even a bot which starts missing content on missing biochemistry articles would be an interesting prospect I think. Take care and I look forward to hearing from you! The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Shout-out

Hey - I saw that the Molecular and Cell Biology WikiProject got a shout-out in the pages of Nature: [32]. Cool stuff. MastCell ^Talk 18:34, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Were you involved? I think both WP:MCB and WP:MED could use an explanation of what the plan is, as some concerns have already been voiced. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:07, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Request for feedback on article

Hi Tim, Could you take a look at the Promega article and give me some suggestions about how to make it more neutral? I have provided every external reference I can find for the statements made in the article, but it is still being interpreted as promotional. I would appreciate some guidance. Thanks.Mardueng (talk) 19:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Sleeping Georgie.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Sleeping Georgie.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:49, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Admin help needed

Hi Tim, can your sort out Erythrovirus and Parvovirus B19 for me please. I redirected erythrovirus (a stub ) to parvovirus B19 (the fuller article). But now I want to rename parvovirus B19 "erythrovirus". It seems I have got myself into a bit of mess. And, I hope you have a good Christmas and New Year holiday. All the best. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 19:48, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

I need some of the administrators' tools

Hi Tim, sorry to hear about your snot. To continue to improve the coverage of virus articles on Wikipedia, I need to be able to do more myself. I have to ask you and other admins to help me with, what I think are, simply solved problems. I hate asking for power and I am reluctant to self-nominate at WP:RfA. I think I could be a good admin; would you consider nominating me? I need more administrative abilities on top of rollback. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 22:04, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

See also here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

FYI

Again [33] --Thermoproteus (talk) 16:21, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Have a good one

I hope that you have a happy Christmas and have a Happy New Year Tim.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:02, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:49, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Is this a combination of my Christmas greeting from 2006 and my New Year's greeting from last year? Why, it most certainly is! Hey, if it ain't broke...

Merry Christmas

Hello TimVickers! I just wanted to wish you and your family a merry Christmas! May this Christmas be full of great cheer and holiday spirit. Have a great day and a wonderful New Year, from The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

One thing though. Why do you never respond to any messages I post you. Am I really that bad? The Bald One ^{White cat} 11:55, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm overjoyed by your willingness to talk. The Bald One ^{White cat} 22:07, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Tuberculosis

Tim - could you spot check my recent revert at Tuberculosis. The claims made in the recent addition seem suspect at best; and the user has a history of cursory fact checking. Your expertise would be appreciated. Kuru ^talk 04:01, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Nature News discussion re: RNA Biology and summarizing current literature in wiki

Hi Tim, This is a continuation of the discussion from the Nature News comments on the 'Publish in Wiki or Perish' article. You make a good point about the hierarchy of generality. I guess what frustrates me is when people include sections of recent papers on Wiki pages that are either (a) at an inappropriate level of detail/generality for that page or (b) not taken seriously by most people in the field, despite being published in peer-reviewed publications. In the second case, I only really notice it when it's in my field, but it worries me because I'm less-able to evaluate such things in other fields. For example, in the article on anandamide (which is what I work on in real life), people frequently add little one liners such as "A study published in 1998 shows that anandamide inhibits human breast cancer cell proliferation.". This is not untrue. It's in the literature and it probably represents a legitimate finding, although there are various ways to interpret the result. However if you ask the top 10 people that study anandamide what its functions are, nobody will mention inhibition of cancer proliferation and thus, IMHO, it's not really appropriate in an article that is supposed to summarize the basic facts about anandamide. Are those sorts of comments appropriate? Is there a good way to remove them, if not? I saw some article somewhere a few weeks ago that said that in the post-wiki world the standard for 'truth' has become verifiability. I.e., as long as you can cite a source that makes the claim, it's as good as true. I don't really have a good solution, just a rant. Any thoughts? Roadnottaken (talk) 00:05, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

You might want to check out WP:MEDRS. I'm one of the dissenters on excluding information sourced to peer-reviewed journals from Wikipedia because it's not published in a review, but I don't think there's many people who think in vitro studies (which that appears to be) are generally worth including ... there's a bit of a campaign in Wikipedia to delete sources much more credible and interesting than that one, and it does OK. For example, see this edit, where a couple RCTs (one blinded, one not) which showed that 5-HTP was more effective than placebo for fibromyalgia were removed, along with a review of its pharmacokinetics. II | (t - c) 01:38, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

"Nomination withdrawn"

You removed the afdx notice on Georgina Bruni with the above edit comment. The nomination was withdrawn, under pressure thanks to a bit of over the top complaining on WP:ANI, but what you missed is that I am trying to relist it. If SA withdrew it, fine, whatever, but I am certainly within my rights to relist it. Unfortunately the directions on the how to delete page just says to put afdx in a template, and that just goes to the old one. I have brought this up on the ANI page discussing this whole mess expressing my interest in getting help in relisting it. DreamGuy (talk) 16:33, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Merry Christmas

A Nobody^{My talk} is wishing you a Merry Christmas! This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove and hopefully this note has made your day a little better. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Don't eat yellow snow!

Spread the holiday cheer by adding {{subst:User:Flaming/MC2008}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--A Nobody^{My talk} 02:53, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Wishing you the very best for the season. Guettarda (talk) 06:51, 25 December 2008 (UTC)

Happy Darwin200 Year! . dave souza, talk 22:37, 1 January 2009 (UTC) (for story line see Darwin's Rhea#Discovery)

metalloenzymes

user:proteins has suggested that I contact you, as I've just expanded the stub metalloproteins. I've done this purely from the point of view of an inorganic chemist, so there will be plenty of room for improvements if you have the time and inclination. Happy New Year! Petergans (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

RFC at WP:NOR-notice

A concern was raised that the clause, "a primary source may be used only to make descriptive claims, the accuracy of which is verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge" conflicts with WP:NPOV by placing a higher duty of care with primary sourced claims than secondary or tertiary sourced claims. An RFC has been initiated to stimulate wider input on the issue. Professor marginalia (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Edit conflict

Hi, Tim. I was just experimenting with ways to get the reader into the topic faster. I have restored the "note reductions". The result is that a few sentences on history are moved down, where they make a nice segue into the History section anyway. Feel free to rv me completely if all I did was mess it up.

Cheers! --Uncle Ed (talk) 18:23, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

File:Nucleotides v2.png

Please add more copyright tag to this image? Newone (talk) 01:01, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

Hey Tim,

Thank you for you warm welcome! Actually I was looking for a guy like you. Because I have some problems. I know a lot of photosynthesis, light reactions, photosystems and stuff like that, but I found out that all this articles are just such a mess. All the information that this articles need seems to be somewhere on wikipedia, but not on the right place. So I thought it should be a good idea to make a plan to get all the information on the right place. What do you think?

Sorry for my english, I'm from Holland... (Kasper90 (talk) 07:15, 4 January 2009 (UTC))

I've changed the structure of photosynthesis a little bit. I moved a lot of thext from overview to molecular process. I think this is much better, but it's just a begin..
I don't think that we can use the same structure of Oxidative phofsphorylation for Photosynthesis, because photosynthesis is a much complexer subject. It's not only in the Molecular Biology sector, but also in the plant sector. It might be better to put most of the molecular part of photosynthesis in the light reaction and calvin cycles articles.
At this moment there isn't much about the plant part of photosynthesis, but I dont think I'm the guy who can fixes this. I think there should be more information about chloroplasts and thylakoids... and how CO2 is moved to the reaction place, things like that
Kasper90 (talk) 03:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey tim, I added a new section, but could you please check my english on the sentences I wrote by myself. I think the overview is still not what it should be, but It's really late here (I'm in New Zealand at the moment)... Kasper90 (talk) 13:31, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Action potential

Hi there, I moved the section discussing the number of ions to the Wikiversity article, which is a good place to discuss and explain the topic in this way. The Wikipedia article needs to be written in an encyclopedic tone. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:20, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Rvfrolov"

Hi there, the moving is not right at least not right now. I have moved this section from membrane potential article which i'm currently editing. I will edit this section (estimation of ion number) later as a part of action potential article. This calculation (not mine) is useful and helpful in understanding the topic, as you will see after i'm finally done. Anyway, you should have post a link to it in the action potential article otherwise it is hard to locate it. As with respect to the content, it will have more "encyclopedic tone" after i'm done. Anyway, i dont agree that the tone is not right, because Wikipedia is very far away from being an encyclopedia in strict terms, written in a professional meta-language. Wiki is a basic resource, and such basic calculations like the one you have moved are essential. Please return the edit to the previous version and let me finish the work (hopefully in a couple of weeks). I would appreciate your considerations after that. I will post a note on the discussion pages of the relevant articles when i'm done. thank youRvfrolov (talk) 17:44, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

WP:AN/AE

I'm afraid that I'm an involved party, having had some content disputes with that user, so I really can't give a neutral opinion there. Eubulides (talk) 21:01, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Block

A year is fine. Please see my latest post to AN/I—this is a tad more worrisome than I'd hoped. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:50, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for chasing our 88.108 friend around the project. Please let me know if you need some background. JFW | T@lk 22:25, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

New Photosynthesis Project

I started this two pages:

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Photosynthesis Wikipedia:WikiProject_Photosynthesis/proposals

Here people can discuss what should be done at all the photosynthesis articles. Kasper90 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Michaelis–Menten_kinetics

Hi Tim, I worked on Michaelis–Menten_kinetics, especially on the mathematical part which was not as well presented as I had wished for. I hope that it is more accessible and better discussed now. I still have some trouble with the presentation and the structure but at least I feel that the most important points are discussed, what do you say? While working on it I noticed the picture [34] that you created; I think it is a very good illustration of the matter but the axis seem to be arbitrary labeled, I am not too happy about that - was there a specific reason to do it that way? Is there actual data that is behind the graph? Greetings --hroest 13:45, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Medical Weight Loss

Hi Tim, I really appreciate your comments regarding the request for deletion of the medical weight loss article. I am new to this whole wikipedia thing and I have to admit I am not thrilled with the debate currently raging on my recent contribution. I was hoping you could advise me on what to do here. The most recent comments have now turned to outright slander against Dr. Sasse. This is really ridiculous as he is absolutely on the front end of medical weight loss. He is well published and a leader in the field of bariatrics and medical weight loss. The latest comment from Plutonium27 has him selling snake oil and this is flat out offensive. I am very frustrated by the attacks on him and the article in general. I strongly feel the article should stand on it's own, as medical weight loss will continue to grow and define itself from bariatrics. I do not wish to resort to arguing with people who are supposed to be having an intelligent debate, but instead are now resorting to name calling. This is nonsense. Please advise!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Infofreq (talk • contribs) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Overview photosynthesis

I have rewritten the overview section, but I don't know if it is written in good enough english to post it on the Photosynthesis article page. If you have some time to check it... should be great! Kasper90 (talk) 07:26, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

RE: Medical Weight Loss Merger

Hi, Tim I have two questions for you. First and foremost, I really do not want a lasting record of the libelous statement against Dr. Sasse in the archive of the article discussion. How can I have such content deleted? It is inappropriate and damaging. Second, I would like to re-state my case to have Dr. Sasse stand as a legitimate authoritative source for medical weight loss and bariatrics for that matter. There is no reason for his references to be questioned. Yes, there are commercial aspects to the website we referenced in the original article, but there is also a huge free resource of additional information available to the public. That is the section we had linked to. Your feedback is greatly appreciated.--Infofreq (talk) 00:49, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim. Re your courtesy blanking for this AfD: please see the correspondence I had with User talk:Wronkiew. I suggest it would have been better to have clarified this situation with me (and any other "libelous statements" suggested) before acting upon the SPA's request. This was not a legal threat but it is citing subjective opinion as a civil law tort and I would have expected you to have ascertained intentions before acting. Plutonium27 (talk) 19:04, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Tim thank you for your time and efforts regarding the medical weight loss article. I am kind of surprised to see this much of an aggressive response from Plutonium27. Is this the typical response to posting new articles? The continued use of SPA account in reference to me is pretty annoying but I really don't wish to waste any more time in Wikipedia drama. I can't wait to see the reactions to any future edits I submit to this article.--Infofreq (talk) 00:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

PANDAS

Hey, Tim. I just came across leishmaniasis... <ugh> ... I thought I'd seen it all in my time in South America (including my bouts with hemorraghic dengue fever and other unpleasantries best left unstated), but I have never encountered that jewel and am appropriately horrified. Anyway, now that the holidays are past, I am thinking of trying to repair PANDAS in a sandbox version. I don't want to lose the information added by the new editor a while back, but it still needs to be balanced. The neurobiology and autoimmunology are a challenge for me, and my bias is an issue (I think the hypothesis provided a vehicle to emotionally and physically harm children through parental denial of genetics and the proliferation of dangerous and unproven treatments, and I don't believe it would have gained so much traction if Swedo hadn't been behind it). The question is: shall I try to sandbox it and plug away at it myself, or do you think we can put our heads together and just fix what's there now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hey

I hope you don't mind a little semi... Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:58, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Just don't go any further. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Origin of the universe according to John C. Lilly

You've been around long enough. I'm assuming you know deletes and merges don't mix well. Your nomination here seems to indicate something might have been salvagable. Why did you nom for deletion rather than trying a merge first? - Mgm|^(talk) 00:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

• The average Wikipedian who comments on an AFD doesn't know much more than you do. I would've tried to merge and see if it sticked. Or, alternatively, make the suggestion to the people who wrote the article on Lilly. - Mgm|^(talk) 01:09, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Evolutionary history of life

Hi, Tim, thanks for your contributions in the GA review - it's very magnanimous of you considering the history. BTW re your addition about alt biochems on other planets, are you an astrobiology or science fiction enthusiast? --Philcha (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, at present I can access enough articles for my purposes, but I'll keep your kind offer in mind.

My biggest concern (apart from the reviewer's comments) is that the current text provides no opportunity to link to the Three domain theory. At one stage I wrote a chunk about that, but realised it was far too long - see User:Philcha/Sandbox/LUCA. Can you suggest a good but brief way to work the 3 domains in? -Philcha (talk) 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

		The Mensch's Barnstar
		You deserve this for the help you've given at Evolutionary history of life and other places, as well as for your patience with my opinionated approach. --Philcha (talk) 19:18, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, I'm not sure that linking Evolutionary history of life to Oxygen Catastrophe is a great idea:

• I don't link the sensational, POV title Oxygen Catastrophe.
• The graph there shows a slow initial build-up, a long, low plateau and then a surge after 800 MYA.
• The whole subject is uncertain - see for example Talk:Oxygen_Catastrophe#What_exactly_was_the_.22catastrophe.22_.3F - after which Martin sent me User_talk:Philcha/Archive_4#Proterozoic_ocean_chemistry... "... is a huge can of worms ...". --Philcha (talk) 20:55, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

On looking at the other link (previous version) it's as bad. What would you think about de-linking? --Philcha (talk) 20:59, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

Do you mind if I unprotect this article? I, and another admin at RFPP, believe that the situation can be handled without full protection at this time. The editors involved have been warned, one blocked, and it seems the situation can be handled with blocks. seresin ( ¡? )  00:16, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Do you mind if I ask you a question about this situation which is now resovled? I am not sure why I was the only one to get the block in this situation and not TVC 15?

1) I initially did not edit the article, but began in the discussion. 2) user TVC 15 attacked me and my suggestions. 3) I appealed to more experienced users. 5) I appealed to the category wikipedia pharmacology project 4) These more experienced users sympathized with my comments and made the edits. 5) user TVC 15 reverted. 6) I undid TVC 15's reverts. 7) He undid my reverts 8) the war, for which I am guilty ensued. Shouldn't we both have reveiced the block? After all the attention, the page received a more NPOV. I can understand if you feel that I was the antagonist, but I lost patience trying to deal with TVC 15 in a rational manner. I realize that all pages are important, but when it comes to drugs used to treat clinical depression, I found TVC 15, alarmist editing to be counterproductive. Cheers Mwalla (talk) 21:36, 16 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

Thanks. And thanks for sharing those journal articles on the paroxetine page. Mwalla (talk) 22:11, 16 January 2009 (UTC)mwalla

River Otter

Hello Tim!

Thank you for the congratulatory note. This has been a very intriguing project and I have had a great time with it. Your assistance with edits and refinement along the way helped me achieve this goal.

Cheers, --Wikitrevor (talk) 20:21, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Vandalism policy

Hi, Tim. There's a consensus at Wikipedia_talk:Vandalism#Policy_change for a tougher policy on vandals. Since admins have to implement anti-vandalism policy, we need some input. Please respond there, and feel free to bring in other admins. --Philcha (talk) 11:37, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Favor

Tim,I am trying to RfC on an article, and I keep screwing up the template. Can you help?

This is the article: Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA). This is what I tried to add:

== Request for Comment: molecular lineages and family trees ==

{{RFC [sci] | section=Request for Comment: molecular lineages and family trees !! reason=Please read the two sections, "Trivia Section" and "Removal of Section." The question is whether this deleted section relied on unreliable sources, and was original research !! time=16:44, 17 January 2009 (UTC)}}

Maybe the instructions at WP:RfC could be clearer? Not sure why I kept screwing up. Anyway, I appreciate any help. Slrubenstein | Talk 16:56, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!! Slrubenstein | Talk 23:48, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

"Sedona method"

Thanks for the offer, Tim.

This kind of subject depresses me. I'd like to have encyclopedia articles that expose silly "therapies" for what they are, but am fairly sure that they'd be defended by the practitioners or suckers who'd claim "NPOV". So all in all I'm glad that the article was killed off. Morenoodles (talk) 11:36, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Doctor of Chiropractic

I apologize for reverting your bold merger. I feel that this discussion is too young to decide on a consensus just yet. I would prefer if we took the matter to AfD with a formal "merge" request. That said, I would be in favor of merge if we went the other way and merged "Chiropractic education" into "Doctor of Chiropractic". In terms of WP:N, I believe that the degree is much more notable than the education. Anyhow, I hope you understand my rationale for reverting. Thanks! :-) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:15, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! I guess you didn't understand agree with my rationale for reverting. Sorry! Per your instructions, I reverted my revert. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:27, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Happy TimVickers's Day!

TimVickers has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as TimVickers's day! For being a civil user, a capable administrator, and a rare expert, enjoy being the Star of the day, TimVickers! Cheers, bibliomaniac15 00:10, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

User:Jzlong and Cravatt's papers

I have the feeling User:Jzlong is polishing his adviser a bit too much on the wiki. Not every article on enzymes, especially the general ones, e.g. enzyme substrate, need to have some of Cravatt's papers in the references. I hope I'm not too rude in bringing this up. Xasodfuih (talk) 06:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Passing on a warning?

Heelop decided to pass on the warning you gave him! I don't recall ever being the recipient of a warning in this manner. Rather odd form of mild harassment. I think this is only the second or third time I have ever deleted something from my talk page. Has he ever edited any other article than Mucoid plaque? He's got to be the most consistent and single-minded SPA I can remember. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:49, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Fyslee, there is no basis in saying that I am passing on the warning. You are making stuff up again. Fyslee has equally engaged in edit warring as I have. It is a double standard for me to be warned but for Fyslee to not be warned as well. Calling this "harassment" is a bit weird as well as a personal attack, which Fyslee have a history of doing [35] I am, in actuality, accepting your offer to discuss the matter on the talk page. Tim and Fyslee, please be civil and discuss this on the talk page with me. Heelop (talk) 06:47, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Temazepam, Benzodiazepine etc.

Some guys are reinserting the whole stuff we have removed from temazapam in hard work, back into temazepam and into benzodiazepine and benzodiazepine withdrawal. Even, how the CIA and KGB were involved in the development of temazepam... To make it short, the misrepresentation of sources, addition of unsourced claims and addition of bizarre material goes on. I have reverted some, where I could find it. Please help. One of the guys is the one who tried to roll back temazepam to the old 95kb version. 70.137.173.82 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC) 70.137.173.82 (talk) 13:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Advice concerning images

Hey Tim, I am not sure whether this is a village pump inquiry or what - if you can't answer y questions I am hoping you know where I should go. I have never uploaded any images to Wikipedia. I have images made from photocopies of pages from a book. First, I am not sure whether I legally am allowed to upload them (the book is an English translation of a French book, copyrighted 1955. The book itself has been translated into English twice, and one translation was originally published by Atheneum, now by Penguin. The images of course are always the same). Second, if I am allowed to upload them (I want to use them to illustrate a section in the Culture article that discusses the author's theories), I do not know technically how to. If you can tell me what to do or where to look I would appreciate it. Slrubenstein | Talk 17:54, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

I feared as much - thanks for the suggestion, Slrubenstein | Talk 22:44, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

K_i as a case of "Ki"

To me, K_i makes only abstract mathematical sense, so i was glad to have you weigh in on the corresponding entry on the Dab KI; that, and my sense of having seen your sig "around the campus" for years upon years, helped me sit still since then for your having turned that entry into one with two blue lks.
Altho there was at one time explicit license in the Dab guidelines for multiple blue lks in rare cases, and altho i did not take part in the decision to remove that, i

do a great many Dab cleanups,

can't recall ever seeing a double-blue that to me seemed justified, and

would without qualms have been part of a consensus whose effect would be at least to create a strong presumption that a double-blue is an error.

The Dab in question has again been tagged for cleanup, and since KI is close to Jerzy in the alphabet, i'm thinking about it again. I'm going to deal with the odds and ends that have accumulated in 6 months, but, for now, leave the CU tag in place and ask whether you can help me further with these issues.
At the risk of boring you, i'm going to run thru my own reasoning, starting with "the purpose of Dab'n is to Dab'ate". We are clear that Dab's are not articles, but what i don't see said often enuf is that Dabs are not articles in almost precisely the way that Rdrs are not, and they look more like articles than Rdrs do only bcz their task is the inverse of Rdrs': Rdrs deal with users' not realizing that several titles are associated with the same article (a problem they can solve without user assistance) while Dabs deal with users' not realizing that several articles are associated with the same title (a problem that requires exploiting some thinking by the user). And tho it's mechanically feasible, any use of a Dab to provide information other than distinguishing between the topics of articles that the Dab's title could apply to

1. interferes with the Dab'n process by requiring the reader to either read more or stay lucky at skimming the text, and
2. increases the maint load by inviting some editors who add new entries to follow their "more is always better" impulse.

Again at a risk, this time of presuming to read your mind, let me ask whether your intent with the double link is hinted at by this (guideline-compliant) approach of replacing

* K_i, the dissociation constant that measures how tightly an enzyme inhibitor binds to an enzyme

with

* K_i in chemical reactions:

* Dissociation constant applicable to process abbreviated as "i"

* Measure of bond-tightness between enzyme and a corresponding enzyme inhibitor

In my mind, this keeps the clean parallel structure among entries, and clarifies the intent: "You may have had in mind in the mathematical aspects of the kinetics in question, or the structural causes and inactivation consequences of the inhibitor's presence and characteristics." (Of course, some readers may be interested in both, just as some readers of the Dab Draft will be researching sailboats, and want to read both Draft (hull) and Draft (sail). But for the ones only interested in one, we've given them a clearer picture about the two articles, tho arguably related, covering distinguishable topics -- as separate articles of course should.)
Could i be lucky enuf to have come up with a structure for handling K_i that (even if my wording may be totally inadequate) will accomplish what you intended by setting up an entry lk'g to both articles?
--Jerzy•t 07:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Atmospheric oxygenation event

I have been bold and created a tiny page for this around which people can work if consensus moves that way. I have no relevent experience, so I will not get into it any further.

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Spontaneous Generation

You seem to be a smart chap. Would you mind exploring this page: Spontaneous Generation which is under construction at the moment and is the subject of some interesting discussion. We would be interested in your thoughts. Thanks

IceDragon64 (talk) 20:51, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

request for a favor

Hi Tim. I would like to ask a favor of you. it is a big favor but it means a lot to me.

I have been avoiding edit wars and cranks by rewriting the formerly attrocious article on "Culture."

I have just written the section on "biological anthropology and the evolution of culture." It is hard for me to keep things focused on "culture" rather than talking about "anthropology," especially while there are serious debates among anthropologists - nevertheless, the question of whether non-human primates have "culture," and how "culture " (or a capacity for culture) evolved among humans, are central issues in scientific research on "culture."

I know that I have provided an account of almost all the most significant views from notable sources in this section (I am still waiting for my library to get me a key book ... but all the core issues and views are now in the section)

But ... I have just had my head in journal articles and what I have produced is not well-written. Long quotes that should be paraphrased, areas that need more expanation, the organization sucks, the basic style needs improvement.

I am too close to this and need a break but it still needs a lot of work.

I am not asking you to do any research (and if I wrote anything that doesn't make sense to you ask me and I will try to clarify).

But I am asking you if, when you have some spare time, you can go over it and edit it - revise for clarity, reorganize, whatever.

I am asking you to do this over the next week or two. One could spend a whole weekend working on it; I am not asking that of you! My hope is that if you just spend a little time on this every day or every few days until you feel good about it, you can spread the work over a couple of weeks and it will not be too difficult.

here is the link:[36]

It is part of a much larger article but I am asking you to look only at this section (I feel better about the others, this is the one that needs help!!)

I hope you don't mind my asking, I really appreciate the help. Ask me if you are unsure of the research but otherwise I trust your judgement especially here, a topic bridging the life sciences and the human sciences, and the challenge of writing about technical research for a general audience. Best, Slrubenstein | Talk 15:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi, maybe you can help

I know you are a busy man, but if it is possible and not too much effort, is it possible that you could get access to this paper? Temporal lobe epilepsy due to drug withdrawal I would like to use it as a reference in the benzo withdrawal article but need to read it first.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Deletion review for Durvexity

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Durvexity. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this page, speedy-deleted it, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the deletion review. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 6 February 2009 (UTC)

Nimetazepam and others, Benzodiazepine etc.

Have bulk insertion of unreferenced edits w.o. summary, edits with refs not supporting the edit. Same old story. 70.137.130.4 (talk) 13:36, 7 February 2009 (UTC)

Intelligent design

Can you protect the page there to end the edit-warring? I figure you're about as safe an admin to do this, since you're annoyingly fair (that would qualify as a compliment from me), and are a science admin. That way neither side can bitch about your protecting this article. Thanks. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 20:18, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

The research was published

Dear Tim, please check this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Genetically_modified_organism#56.25_mortality_rate_among_rat_pups.2C_comparing_to_9.25_when_fed_with_regular_soya DenisRS (talk) 15:49, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay; I provided additional information in the discussion, mentioned above. Thank in advance. DenisRS (talk) 16:46, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

What?

You seem to have deleted the featured article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.100.215.109 (talk) 03:04, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

History of Evolutionary Thought

I'm trying to open this recently Featured Article, but the message says you've just deleted it. Must be some mistake. O_o --CopperKettle 03:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

See [37]. That was a temporary copy. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

That is not a good reason. It was an good article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.45.204.49 (talk) 03:08, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Oh, its back again. I almost thought it went extinct.. (0: --CopperKettle 03:10, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Protection

Hmm, I didn't even notice that you deleted/restored the page, I just protected it from the Grawp vandalism. Looks like J.delanoy re-applied move-protection. Cheers, –Juliancolton ^{Tropical Cyclone} 03:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

reply

Sorry. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 04:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Congrats

Hey, congrats on the new paper. And thanks for the kind note. MastCell ^Talk 05:35, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Paroxetine

Hi. I was wondering if you have any thoughts on the Paroxetine page. Warnings in the opening paragraph of that page are harshing and misleading than on the pages of other SSRI's. In my view, warnings about "suicide ideation" belong in a sub section and not the opening paragraph. Why is it that the risk of "suicide ideation" gets highlighted, but not the reduction in risk of actual suicide. Here is an article you may find useful: http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/11/after_2_decade_decline_teen_su.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.150.2.55 (talk) 17:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Phosphorylase

Can you look over this article? It has an old tag on it asking for verification by an expert.--BirgitteSB 01:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Continuing HIV Discussion

I wanted to continue the HIV discussion on this page - going further from antibodies and asking for some help, if you have time. Ok, I need to explain things so you can better understand, and I hope you'll take the time to read it. I want to first know if you believe it's impossible to cure AIDS as well? AIDS, which is defined as less than 200 CD4, and to cure it you just need to raise CD4 over 20% or 200. In your opinion, if CD4 is at 70, is it impossible to get it over 200? Like a consistently increasing CD4 count and consistently decreasing viral load, the vl less than 3-fold and consistent.

I disagree with what you are saying about HIV, that its impossible to cure. Think of a product that acts like irradiation: it kills all harmful organisms, it eradicates them, but it does NOT kill any "good" organisms. If such a product existed, could it cure someone of HIV? I see what you are saying about it living inside cells, a report I read said that HIV infects and replicates in CD4 cells, then it eventually "bursts" from them, destroying the cell, and populating the body with more of the virus... Is that correct? And is that what you were referring to in your reference article? The HIV being inside CD4 cells?

Ok, so here's why I'm so interested. There was a U.S. pharm company called #^*%, FDA registered and DEA licensed. It employed a few highly skilled doctors, former U.S. college professors, etc. The point is, it wasn't some multi-billion dollar company, it was formed by someone's life savings, and people who wanted to "save lives" anyway, they got big, aligned themselves with quite a few professors in charge of labs at north-American universities, and also the historically renowned Dr. Burgdorfer and his entire NIH laboratory. Together, all those doctors developed a product that worked by killing only harmful organisms in the body - viruses, bacterial and fungal infections, etc. So that's the product I'm talking about...

It was clinically tested (yes in vitro) against numerous AIDS related infections, Lymes, bacterial infections, and HIV multiple times. It inhibited everything. Then, it was tested against HIV in vivo in 2 patients one with full blown AIDS and a CD4 count of like 5 and another with HIV, Herpes, and Hepatitis B. It consistently lowered viral loads, greatly increased CD4, etc. Anyways, special interests interfered, #^*%'s president was smart and got the product grandfathered in under some clause, and even got it registered with the FDA as an OTC. Anyway, now it's sold under the classification as "dietary supplement" but the manufacturer is likely shutting down, and decided to donate mass amounts of product stocks to a non-profit organization against HIV, now focusing on cure because of this product.

I'm a person working with this organization, and we offer everything completely free to HIV patients. We just need a protocol to determine if someone is cured, after CD4 counts normalize, after PCR type tests cannot detect it in the blood, etc. That's why I'm asking about it. So, would the antibody test be enough? You're saying they use RT-PCR to diagnose, which is just a viral load or NAT, right? And I read that they don't use that for an official diagnosis, that they use ALISA and Western Blot as the official diagnosis. Anyway, if HIV is no longer in the blood, does that mean it's still in the body? So, along with the above questions, can a product that kills HIV, that eradicates it, can it cure an HIV patient? Surely you agree it can turn an AIDS patient back to HIV, right? And can you please give your opinion on a protocol for determining if someone has been cured? This was as quick as an explanation as I could give, it is all true, if you want more info then let me know. I don't know how you reply, if it's on my talk page, or this page, or what. I'll copy this onto my talk page, if you want to delete it off of yours. Thank you so much for taking the time to read all of this. Jason1170 (talk) 16:27, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Happy TimVickers/archive 8's Day!

User:TimVickers/archive 8 has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian, and therefore, I've officially declared today as TimVickers/archive 8's day! For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian, enjoy being the Star of the day, dear TimVickers/archive 8! Peace, Rlevse ~ A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:00, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations :-) I see you all over the place. You definitely deserve this. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 02:28, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Project welcome template

Have you seen our template? Might be less personal but certainly fancier ;-p

See: User_talk:Unconventional85#Greetings_from_WikiProject_Medicine.21 .

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:39, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

The Shame of a City Was Incorrectly Deleted

Hello, Tim. You deleted The Shame of a City, claiming that it was a blatant copy of a celebrity website. Why was there no attempt to contact me, the writer of the Wiki page? Did it ever occur to you that the other website directly copied what I wrote for Wiki?

I'm sorry to take such a tone but I have to admit I'm angry that I've had to spend more than an hour of my time trying to navigate the extremely confusing and un-user friendly process by which I have to communicate or do anything else on Wiki. Please let me know how I might be able to prove to you that I wrote the Wiki article and that someone unknown to me copied and pasted it onto the other site. Perhaps you can check the dates of both postings.

Regardless, I hope that you can please restore the entire Shame article because over the months I have made changes to it that are not reflected in any of my original documents stored on my computer (most notably, the citations). I do appreciate the existence of Wiki and am grateful to people like you who volunteer to help keep it free of abuse but I, as I said, am frustrated that you took the "guilty until proven innocent" approach, failing to consider that the other site is violating copyright law, rather than "accusing" a veteran journalist who has never stolen anything in her life, especially someone else's writing. Thank you. Tara Nurin

Tarashawne (talk) 00:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Symposium: FAC and the sciences

• Your input is requested, either Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#FAC_symposium or at the subpage where the effort will begin... Thanks! Ling.Nut ^{(talk—WP:3IAR)} 10:08, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Auditory Integration Training NPOV dispute

Please note that I am receiving a warning for violating the 3RR rule, and yet the other member of this disute - Eubulides - has received no such warning, despite the fact that he was the first in this dispute to make a reversal! Your insistence that the medical references are the only reliable resources - completely flies in the face of the fact that AIT is NOT a medical intervention. This being the case it is incomprehensible that the medical fraternity should insist on excluding the expert information by those involved in this approach as practitioners, authors and trainers... this attitude, if rolled out to all wikipedia entries, would mean only uninformed or misinformed single POV entries by outsiders will be maintained... with consequent loss of reliability of the encyclopedia as a whole. Surely not your goal? Wiki urges a balanced view stating all relevant aspects of the topic... yet in this case only one - that of Eubulides and the medical fraternity - are permitted. How does this adhere to the Wiki rules? Jvanr (talk) 07:53, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Phagocyte

Hi Tim, have you got the time to take a look? As you now this is a contribution from one of our Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008 students. We are planning to go for FAC in March. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 14:48, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

reply

Hi Tim, I like the invitation template. As for the animations I think it's different for everyone. I am not bothered, but I know people who hate animations and are distracted by them. As for me all's fine :) Thanks, Independovirus (talk) 09:54, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much !

WikiThanks

Thanks for pointing out that embarssing gramtical mistake on the template. I apprecte it. I am going to spend more time correcting those damn templates than I ever did posting them. Ikip (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Tiger rockfish

Hey Tim, I saw your Qu. in an edit on the tiger rockfish page about ^oN. I think it's referring to a latitude (35 degrees North) rather than a temperature -- although I don't know enough about this to go in and confidently add this info to the article (!) -- picked out of reference #4, under "climate". Hopefully this helps just a little! Cheers, ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 04:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

5 years?

Isn't that a little extreme? –xeno (talk) 18:48, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

If it's OK with you, I'd like to drop them down to 1 year. –xeno (talk) 18:53, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

yep, i guess like that one on your user page =] cute one. –xeno (talk) 18:57, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Request to work on enzyme catalysis

First, thank you for the invite, I'm honored you wish for me to work with you. Secondly, I would love to contribute in any way possible to your work on enzyme catalysis, but it is going to be stop and go at best for the next few months as I focus my time interviewing and making decisions about which graduate program to attend next year. Kehrbykid (talk) 01:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks and a request

Thanks for signing up at Wikipedia:Peer review/volunteers and for your work doing reviews. It is now just over a year since the last peer review was archived with no repsonse after 14 (or more) days, something we all can be proud of. There is a new Peer review user box to track the backlog (peer reviews at least 4 days old with no substantial response), which can be found here. To include it on your user or talk page, please add {{Wikipedia:Peer review/PRbox}} . Thanks again, and keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 04:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Review of Lipid Bilayer

I've recently done a complete rewrite of the article lipid bilayer and am now in the process of revising it. I'd like to bring it up to FA standards in the near future and, if you have time, I'd like to get your thoughts on what should be addressed or improved. I've already started condensing it and removing some of the more technical details, which I've put in subsidiary articles. I suspect there is more of this type of work that could be done, but I'm reaching the point where I'm not sure where to strike the balance between completeness and readability. Any input you have would be appreciated. Thanks. MDougM (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2009 (UTC)

Pill images

I'd really appreciate your opinion on the discussion at Talk:Temazepam#Pill_pictures regarding the value of generic pill images on drug pages. Thanks! St3vo (talk) 01:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Re: Invitation

Thank you for inviting me to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. --Eulemur2008 (talk) 21:51, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Me too. However, to paraphrase DeForest Kelley: Dammit Tim, I'm a doctor not a biochemist. I'm a fish out of water outside of basic topics. If you need a clinician, I'll be happy to participate. Let me know. --MartinezMD (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

Check your gmail! --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Ortho flosser

Thanks for the heads up - I might, in a little while. The main reason I speedied it was that I saw it created and deleted yesterday. --User:AlbertHerring ^{Io son l'orecchio e tu la bocca: parla!} 18:49, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

COI accusation

No one seems to have informed you of this [38] and this [39]. dougweller (talk) 13:52, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tim. I've been accused of being your "friend" and deleting content on your behalf. Your comments on the mediation would be appreciated. Smartse (talk) 14:25, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Kevin and acupuncture

Hi Tim

I've been told to try Arbcom but I thought that to avoid the drama I'd try you as one last effort. I've been topic banned from acupuncture and chiropractic in what I think is an illogical decision. I was hoping you may be able to review and give me your opinion. I find it hard to trace posts on pages which are archived, so a place to start is here (search for word "appreciated"). Thanks.Kevin McCready (talk) 01:29, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of archives (which I know can be hard to access, hence this comment), there was also a recent discussion of this at AN/I. Here is the link to the archive, which includes a comment from User:Kevin (a different Kevin) linking to several previous reviews of the topic ban. VirtualSteve also posted a link to the complete archived discussion at his user talk page. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 20:20, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Dilemma with my Wikipedia skin...

Hello! I stumbled by way around the "Contact Wikipedia" maze for what seemed like forever, and could not figure out how, where, or who to ask about this. Having just re-read your post on my talk page, I noticed that you suggested that if I have questions, I can ask you on your talk page. So — here I am!

Here's my problem. I'm using the black-and-green skin on Wikipedia. I love it very much, and whenever my automatic login expires and I'm presented with the regular blue-and-white skin, I feel like my eyes are bleeding. This skin is amazing.

HOWEVER: All transparent images — those whose background colours depend on the background colour of the page — are extremely problematic. At first, when I wasn't seeing certain images, I thought there must be a glitch with the image, my browser, or Wikipedia; until I realized — duh — that the image itself must be black, and thus wasn't showing up on my black background. Mostly it's only happened with the images that appear alongside messages about the importance of proper rendering support for Japanese/Chinese/Korean characters; but it's also happened with important explanatory images in articles about mathematics or language (although I can't remember the exact topics off the top of my head). It's also happened with black words — for example, the word "solid" on the periodic table of elements.

Do you know of anything I can do about this? If not, do you who I can take my problem to?

Thank you very much!

NoriMori (talk) 00:42, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Peer review/Cyathus/archive1

Hi Tim, I saw your name on the peer review volunteer list, and was hoping you might have some time to have a look at the article I'm getting ready for FAC. I'd be more than happy to reciprocate the favor in the future by reviewing a mol biology/biochemistry related article for you. Thanks for considering my request. Sasata (talk) 05:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Kanner image on autism

Hi, I reverted your edit and have started a discussion about the issue on the talk page. J Milburn (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

SymAtlas?

Hi, I just read your SymAtlas essay and it doesn't seem to explain what SymAtlas is or how it could relate to Wikipedia. Maybe you could add that in. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:45, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

question, trying to get a feel for your thoughts

Hey Tim!

A few users and myself have been trying to think of someone who would make a good bureaucrat. I think you would do a fine job as one. Would you be interested in me pursuing this farther? I guess essentially what I'm asking is, all other things aside, given a "yes" or "no" choice, would you want to be a crat? J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:33, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay, fair enough. If you ever change your mind, you know where to find me :-) Cheers! J.delanoy^gabs_adds 00:12, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I disagree, Tim. You have a lot of common sense and Wikipedia has a serious deficit of leadership by example. Bureaucrat might not be the most visible place for it, but it has finite tasks, and it might be a good starting place. It's obvious you don't have the time for something of this nature, but I personally think your doing something like this could be one small step in the right direction for Wikipedia. Just my opinion. --KP Botany (talk) 01:54, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim Vickers,

I have contributed to the wikipedia article "glucobrassicin" some time ago. Meanwhile, I have coauthored a review on the topic, but I am uncertain as to whether I should place my own article as a reference in the wiki article. Will you decide? The review is: Niels Agerbirk, Martin De Vos, Jae Hak Kim, Georg Jander, 2009. Indole glucosinolate breakdown and its biological effects. Phytochemistry Reviews 8, 101-120.

Best regards, Niels Agerbirk nia@life.ku.dk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niels Agerbirk (talk • contribs) 15:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim Vickers,

You recently deleted my addition to the article on African Trypanosomiasis. This was done on the grounds that it contained copyrighted material. I can assure you that no such transgression was made; I am positive that every source, quote, and image was appropriately cited according the APA format. The content of my update comes from a paper i wrote for my Microbiology and Disease class. One of the foremost criterion for this paper was appropriate, and complete, citations. Considering that I received a 96% on this paper, I can assure that my paper follows all of Wikipedia's guidelines.

I hope you will revise your decision 143.195.110.65 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 143.195.202.143 (talk) 19:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

DYK for L-form bacteria

On March 19, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article L-form bacteria, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--Dravecky (talk) 07:55, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

advice

Hi Tim, I am not sure if Francesco Carotta meets the criteria for a speedy delete, can you take a look and weigh in here? Slrubenstein | Talk 01:01, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome

Added some refs. Seems to be an obscure name for lesions in syphilus used in the 1950s. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:50, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

• Thanks for your help with Lutz-Jeanselme syndrome‎. Sorry I was having trouble finding a reference. kilbad (talk) 22:31, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

Editing policy draft

So what do you think of my draft (User:Rd232/EPmock)? Pls comment at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy. cheers, Rd232 ^talk 17:44, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you

For your kind words on my talk page. I really am trying for neutrality and am willing to work to find citations. I have so much to learn to be a good Wikipedian, though! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Levalley (talk • contribs) 05:16, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Discussion about AfD rules

Hi, Tim, the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#Proposal_to_change_the_length_of_deletion_discussions_to_7_days seems to show overwhelming support. However I notice no names I recognise as admins. I think this is a serious gap since admins would have to implement any decision, and I'd also hope they'd raise any policy implications that might have escaped notice. It would be helpful if you could comment and ask a few other admins to comment. Please note this is not canvassing, as I have no idea how you will vote (if at all) and this is a request for info, not for a vote on any particular side. --Philcha (talk) 11:31, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi ya

Thanks for moving that info from 'Hot stain' over to Water stress and you are right it does fit nicely there. skip sievert (talk) 15:43, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Oxidative Phosphorylation

Hello Tim. I appreciate your having taken the time to review the edits that I had presented, and, of course, your continuing to exert a diplomatic approach to the editing process. Thank you.Drphilharmonic (talk) 16:32, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Expansin and helicase - proteins or enzymes

Hi Tim, the above pages both say that they are proteins but I've been taught and it says in textbooks that they are enzymes. They both catalyse the degradation of hydrogen bonds which to me makes it seem as though they should be termed enzymes. Any ideas? Thanks Smartse (talk) 16:54, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Back when I was in school, most or all enzymes were proteins. :) They're not mutually exclusive - in fact, there's nearly 100% overlap, or at least there used to be (Tim can now embarrass me). MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Evolution question

Looking at Objections to evolution, it uses Answers in Genesis as a source 13 times, is this even appropriate?--Otterathome (talk) 21:55, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Response from UF:Biomembrane project

Hi Tim, this is Gail Fanucci responding and saying thanks for any help that you can give to my students regarding their efforts at putting together wiki pages related to their biomembrane presentation topics. I got the idea for this from my friend Moni3, and I don't think 3 weeks of time at the end of the semester will be enough for them to do more than just get started, but hopefully this can turn into a long term project that I can have students constribute to each semester. Any help you can provide would be most beneficial. As a first question, do you prefer to correspond through a talk page or via email?--Gfanucci (talk) 03:58, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Re:Slow revert warring

I've made three edits over four days, and I'm familiar with edit warring policy- I'm hardly a newbie. I certainly don't appreciate the templates. Have you considered warning the other users involved? They appear to be the ones unfamiliar with policy. J Milburn (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

DYK for Ergothioneine

On April 11, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Ergothioneine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

∗ \ / (⁂) 07:43, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Francesco Carotta ‎

Can you look over the recent history? I have tried to preserve your edits. User 78. keeps reverting. He may have violated 3RR but I am cautious about making more edits as I do not wish to be accused of the same. Slrubenstein | Talk 21:39, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping!

You've got mail... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:59, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

just a tip of the hat

I noticed you'd done some nice work on the Susan Boyle BLP. Nice work, you must have run into a fair share of edit conflicts I'd think. Nothing else, just wanted to drop a "kudos" off at your talk page. — Ched :  ?  16:05, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Flava Works

Thank you for your interest in the Flava Works article. However, before judging what is at issue here, please compare the two different versions of the article: the version to which I am trying to revert and the one that keeps being advocated by a series of IP editors as well as Wikipedia editors whose list of contributions contains nothing but the Flava Works piece. (In other words, there is very strong evidence of a conflict of interest here.) "My" version of the article tries to be neutral in its judgments; it is also carefully researched and well-documented. I created the entry in the first place. The other version that keeps being pushed by—I assume—representatives of the company is biased (it quotes at length the CEO from the company's own website, lists awards that the company was nominated for but never received, etc.). My suggestion would be to block edits to the article for a while. However, my own involvement with the article will stop at this point.GBataille (talk) 00:41, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

(Merged fro new section, as i didn't see this)

Hi, i noticed you had responded to a 3RR report on this article (about user:GBataille). I've been doing similar reverts of the article, and was wondering if you could put your admin hat on and comment on the talk page there. (There has been no admin editing of it, so i guess you are only one that has looked at the page).

I completely agree about the sourcing needing to be tightened up, but that is not the cause of the reverting - it is the continual addition of unsourced lists of awards and "notable performers" and other COI-seeming additions. GBataille and a couple of other editors have been removing them per the talk page consensus, but they keep getting added back, and the editor who does it has started to learn wikijargon (such as "See the talk page"), but is ignoring the consensus that is on the talk page. Not a reason to break 3RR, as it is not obvious vandalism, but it is not constructive either. I only got involved via a wikiproject's request for assessment, but from what i've seen, any compromise version (that includes all the rewrite except the lists) get pushed out of the way as people revert back and forth. Further progress (including improvments the assessment process suggested) has halted, as no-one knows which version to improve, and any improvments get lost in the blind reverting (such as my removal of a red-linked image).

My own advice after noticing the reverting was to discuss on talk, so i also agree with your similar comment, but this has been done, so it now just one single-purpose editor editing against consensus. The warring has resulted in the assessment being downgraded, which is unfortunate, as compared to most such articles, a lot of good faith work was put into it, so it would be nice to reach a well-written, stable consensus version (and show some newer editors how consensus should work :-) ).

Thanks for any input.YobMod 14:48, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Tim. It's not one of our usual haunts, that's for sure! Editing the article gives me an excuse to keep on watching the video. I keep feeling I've had enough, but then have to go and watch it again. :-) SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 04:14, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Tim, see thanks to both of you on SV's page. --KP Botany (talk) 04:50, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Oxidation event

Hi, Tim, thanks for the link. I've asked User:Smith609 (aka Martin) to comment, as he's more familiar with the chemical evolution of the Earth than I am. --Philcha (talk) 17:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Progress on Biomembranes at UF Wikiproject

Hi, Tim.

I just stopped by the UF Biomembranes class to give them a crash course on uploading PD images and answer last minute questions. I urged them to start loading their articles immediately so they can read them through and make them formatted neatly. The instructor and I urged them to load what they have and save formatting issues for the last thing to concentrate on. The assignments are due on the 27th I think, so there should be some activity coming up on the project page. I noted that they should appeal to you directly and pitifully, if only to distract you from the Susan Boyle article.

Thanks for your assistance! --Moni3 (talk) 20:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Here's a question: I don't know how to format the images in Outdated theories of anaesthetic action. --Moni3 (talk) 23:17, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Tim (and Moni).

After my students update a page, how do we change the status? Do we need any other review to move from Stub to B class or from StartClass to B-class? After they are done, can you help us decide which we should nominate for Grade A? -- Gfanucci --70.185.105.156 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

I have also had a student ask me about changing sizes of figures that they uploaded to the lipid rafts page. They say the figures are too small and ask what they can do to make them look better on the page. Thanks.-- Gfanucci 70.185.105.156 (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2009 (UTC)(sorry, I thought I was logged in)

Hey Tim. I'm concerned about the new article Membrane receptor vs the established Transmembrane receptor. User:Biophyschem, who is also a grad student at UF, says they are so similar two separate articles are not necessary. Discussion by the articles' contributors on Gfanucci's page, seen here, last two entries, suggests a new article was started so as not to wade through the info in Transmembrane receptors. I don't know enough about the topic to merge the two. I'm worried the students will work on it and lose their edits to a merge or AfD. Thanks for whatever you can do to clear it up. --Moni3 (talk) 15:40, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

• Is there a page that describes the needed resolution of images to be uploaded so they look nice? Many of the figurs that the students have uploaded are blurry and likely have poor resolution. I'd like to be able to send all of them an email with details on how to change this. I am not going to be able to post-edit; it is likely a problem in how they saved the files originally or what software they used to make them. --Gfanucci (talk) 15:27, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Standard format for mechanisms?

Hi Tim,

As per your request a few months ago, I'm starting work on making examples for the enzyme catalysis article, but while I was doing some research I came across several images of mechanisms, [40] in particular, that are in .gif format while most of the others I see are in .png format. Is there a standard format for these types of files or is it up to the user to create them as they wish? And, if there is a standard format, should the other files be updated to fit? Thanks! Kehrbykid (talk) 19:34, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! I found the answer to my question and also to yours here Kehrbykid (talk) 16:29, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Tay-Sachs disease

I have submitted Tay-Sachs disease for peer review, in preparation for nomination as a featured article. Metzenberg (talk) 00:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Ito cell article needs attention

Hi! Ito cell is being repeatedly changed without discussion by some rude guy. He wishes mainly to rename it to Hepatic stellate cell, but states no valid reasons as yet besides some invectives. I would be grateful for some professional opinion. Best regards, --CopperKettle 04:46, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak

Hi, so i read that your contris to this site are only based on newspaper articles? You do not do research by any official health departments, government agencies, world wide health organizations or labratory data? why not ? Hoffmansk 00:02, 29 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs) 22:50, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Hoist with my own petard

Well, that backfired. I figured that one of two things would follow from the AfD: either the article would be deleted, or responsible editors would turn up reliable sources which had eluded me and improve the article. Instead, we seem to have fallen into the Twilight Zone - the article is being crapified at a breakneck pace. Live and learn. MastCell ^Talk 04:00, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ping! (2)

You've got mail. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 19:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

So I do. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:57, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I've sent them an e-mail to correct the medical student part, and it seems to have been corrected on Forbes, Tribune etc. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 10:21, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Cytokine Storm

I've replied to you over on the Swine Flu talk page. Unfortunately I sort of mangled the formatting, but nobody's perfect.OcciMoron (talk) 17:29, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh-oh

Did you notice that our article on origin of AIDS was cited by a group of luminaries (including Robert Gallo, Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, and David Baltimore) as a good source of information and a counter to AIDS denialism? ([41]). In fact, it was listed above articles from Science, the CDC, and NIH Medline Plus. I haven't looked at the article recently; does it still go on endlessly about the OPV AIDS hypothesis? :) MastCell ^Talk 19:56, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

(on wikipedia) Swine flu is NOT the Mexican flu

Hello, I noticed that you are both expert in biochemistry and active on the Swine flu article. I need help there. I follow this epidemic spread (on wikipedia) since the very beggining, april 25th. The issue was quickly divided between :

• article Swine flu : waves and strains of influenza affecting pigs, being a important issue for farmers and pork industry for decades.
• article 2009 swine flu outbreak : the 2009 H1N1 human influenza A epidemic started in Mexico, likely derivate from one strain of swine flu.

Then, on April 27, the Main Page's 'news section' linked to both articles. Frome there, all become confusing. Well intentionned but misleading users coming from the Main Page started adding human-relate informations into both Swine flu (pig) and 2009 swine flu outbreak (human) articles, which are becoming duplicata, both mainly talking about the 'mexican flu'.

I made my best to put an warning frame at the top of the article Swine flu, to keep the 2 artices working on their respective issues, but the 2 articles are HIGHLY visited, and news users are coming again and again to say "no, 'swine flu' is the 'mexican flu': CNN said it !". This is false on wikipedia, which have to display several swine flu articles, and to keep them specific. Please, help me to keep the places clean and specific. Yug (talk) 22:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey there. Yes, I do see your argument, but unfortunately with organisations like the CDC and WHO all referring to this as "swine influenza" (see WHO for example) we have to do the same on Wikipedia. Once we have more information on this H1N1 strain we could split the articles into one on this human-transmissible strain and a second more general one about "swine influenza", but presently we're stuck with this nomenclature. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:05, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Hello, thanks for your quick answer.

Here, on wikipedia, the split have already be done 3 days ago. And all was clean, 3 days ago. I try to stop the 'hemoragy'. We already have a specific article for the current mexican flu : 2009 swine flu outbreak (mexican flu specific). But new users are coming and coming again, adding such human relate data to Swine flu (formerly pig-specific, now on the way to become Mexican-flu specific... too). We are in the bad way, since this will produce two overlapping articles, and eventually a lot of time waste for wiki users. The solution may be to:

• rename Swine flu into Pig's swine flu/Former swine flu/Agrarian swine flu/Pig farm swine flu (pig specific, with sections about pig-to-human transmission)
• make a redirect Swine flu -> 2009 swine flu outbreak (current human specific)

I'm not a native English speaker, please help me to find the best solution. Yug (talk) 23:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The currently use title 'Swine flu' alone is not clear enough now, meaning both '2009 mexican flu' and 'thousand years old pig-to-pig flu'. Accordingly, this unclear tittle should be avoid. Yug (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

I know, it is a problem but I'm not sure what to do about it. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:32, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the issue is not easy. In English language, a new 5 days-old event (mexican/swine flu) is replacing the decades old 'swine flu' virus. More we wait, more work we [wiki users] will have to do later, to separe/move/merge sections.

I can do the rename of Swine flu into 'Pig farms swine flu'. The important is that not wiki-experienced users note immediately that they are not in the mexican flu article. Yug (talk) 23:40, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Feel free to submit a better name. Yug (talk) 23:43, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

What about :

• move Swine flu to Swine flu (farming)
• make a redirect from #Swine flu to 2009 swine flu outbreak

? I think this should be good enough. Yug (talk) 23:48, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

OK, so split the article into Swine flu and swine flu (farming)? Then we can move all the purely pig-related material into the farming article. I don't think we can just redirect swine flu, since that article needs to discuss the previous "swine flu" human outbreaks. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:51, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I see a solution. Not exactly your.

• move Swine flu to Swine flu (farming) - some sections will still talk about pig-to-human transmission, and famous swine-origin influenza pandemic.
• make a redirect from #Swine flu to Swine flu (disambiguation)

• 1. Swine flu (farming)
• 2. 2009 swine flu outbreak

This will stop the current movement of users adding (too much) human-relate data to the 'swine flu' article, and redirect their effort to 2009 swine flu outbreak. That should work. Thanks :] Yug (talk) 23:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

<crying>the page Swine flu is semi-protected, I can't do the move....</crying>(some time, I regret to have throw away my admin tools XD) Yug (talk) 00:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC) [or never candidated on en-wiki]

Can you unprotect the page 3 mins, the time I make the move. Yug (talk) 00:11, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Not unilaterally, you need to propose the move and merge on the talkpages involved (see Help:Merging and moving pages). If other people agree this is a good idea, then we can do it. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

No, it's a matter of fact and medical terms. Not a matter of populism. All the trouble is that there is that numerous new, or not experimented users are coming adding data there. The old and experts users are not enough. Make a vote will make things worse. This 5 days old event's name 'swine flu' is misleading, this already exist, the article swine flu still say it itself : « Swine influenza (also swine flu) refers to influenza caused by any strain of the influenza virus endemic in pigs (swine). » After this last 30hours, 60% of the article talk about the 2009 human mexican flu, how to prevent the 2009 mexican flu, etc. That's simply not the right place. That's a copy and rewording of 2009 swine flu outbreak. Yug (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I have to go to sleep. bye Yug (talk) 03:18, 30 April 2009 (UTC) (4am here O.o )

FYI

Just making sure you knew about this from the AP. Nice work Tim! Steven Walling (talk) 22:59, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Please do something

Stats confirm my feeling. Wikipedia have a big naming trouble, wikipedia have 2 articles/names/topics (Swine flu AND 2009 swine flu outbreak), while CNN, BBC, etc just have one : Swine flu.

• Swine flu - the page NOT on the current issue got 1.3M hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/swine%20influenza
• 2009 swine flu outbreak - the page about the 2009 outbreak got 417K hits on april 29 : http://stats.grok.se/en/200904/2009%20swine%20flu%20outbreak

This lead me to 2 conclusions :

1. 1M people a day aren't getting the information they are searching for. A solution is NEED.
2. I was right, people are changing the 'swine flu' article, into a copy of 2009 swine flu outbreak.

I sleeped 8 hours, that continue in the same way. That's a naming trouble, a move are need, an admin is need to do it... quickly (1Mhits/day! O.o). Yug (talk) 11:52, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ! (swine flu)

Hello, and a big thanks,

Thanks to the {Caution}, and {about} templates added at the top of Swine flu, and maybe thanks too to the deletion of the link from the Main Page, this article have eventually stop to move toward a copy of the 2009 swine flu outbreak. This article is actually now moving to a pretty good complete article :] , thanks to yesterdays users, and thanks to you: I noticed your are undergoing a large structural and edition work. Especially on the side of pig-to-pig influenza. Look great !

Feel free to resquest me some new diagrams on my talkpage to illustrate your texts, I made somes, I can make others. Your opinion would be especially appreciate on File:Swine_influenza_symptoms_on_swine.svg : does this file need more symptoms?

Thanks for your effort, Yug (talk) 20:08, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

 Done :] Yug (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Hello, I added the section 'Ancient and moder times', I provided sources for the industrialization and economic cost of swine flu for pork industry, as well as for the fact that the first isolation occurred in 1930. Other issues are common sense : swine influenza is older than 1930, swine and wild boar should then have had epidemic before 1930, pork dying in ancient times were an important income lost for farmers, interspecies transmission may have occurred before 1930 within the 7000 years of close contacts (taming of swine according to wiki), the practice of raising a pig in a room of the farm being a common usage in China, Europe, Middle east 2.000 years ago. Nothing amazing in what I added, but it stay good to remember this to readers. The 'History' section is the right place to put such introductive/remember notes.

I also added the template {copyedit} since yes, I'm foreigner, but the article already contain areas wrote by myself, corrected by native English speakers. For a native speaker, that a piece of cake to correct this.

Regards, Yug (talk) 14:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Society for Neuroscience alert

Hi Tim, I noticed this page about the Society for Neuroscience undertaking to improve neuroscience-related articles on Wikipedia. The MCB and other WikiProjects might be able to help them, as we did the ASCB; do you think we should contact them? Proteins (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm also trying to get a mathematical article, Euclidean algorithm, through FAC. It's going surprisingly well so far, but I'd appreciate suggestions from an expert, especially on how to write accessibly on technical topics. Proteins (talk) 20:51, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Sure, I'll write them and offer help. My sympathies about the swine flu, especially now that WHO is about to certify it as a pandemic (stage 6). It seems like you're doing an excellent job without me, but just say the word if you'd like my help on something. I'm not an expert in this field, but I can probably do something OK. Proteins (talk) 14:04, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Help!

I'm new in this. I'm a student in México and i have got to do an exposition on mitochondria. I think I still don't understand how the ATP synthase(enzyme) works (I mean how it creates the ATP from the ADP and the Pi) and how all the enzymes work on the pyruvate to get it acetyl CoA (the pyruvate decarboxylation). Any help would be really useful. Tilmanoax (talk) 00:58, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

DNA on your mind?

Check this out. Seems a little off even if it is sourced. Do you know anything about the source? ( McElheny, Victor K. (2004), Watson & DNA: Making a scientific revolution, Basic Books, ISBN 0-7382-0866-3 ) David D. (Talk) 03:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Broda Otto Barnes

This has had a couple of inconclusive Afds. Per your comments on the ARS members page, do you fancy running a fresh and expert eye over it? pablo_hablo. 15:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Cell biology and biochemistry

Thank you for the invitation. For a very long time I have been concentrating on articles related to the Mexican Drug War and Mexican cartels. Now is a good time to break away from that and do more biosciences. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

d.n.a.

As well as the pdf for the NYT article, you might be interested in the actual text of the "News Chronicle" and "Varsity" newspaper articles (unfortunately not available as pdf's):

NEWS CHRONICLE (BRITAIN) : Friday, May 15, 1953

Why you are you

Nearer secret

of life.

By Ritchie Calder,

The Science Editor

An exciting discovery about what makes YOU the sort of person you are will be discussed today by one of Britain's foremost scientists.

It was Sir Lawrence Bragg, director of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge, who used the word "exciting" yesterday.

He will be talking to Guy's Hospital medical school about the discovery two groups of students have made with X-rays.

One group is at King's College, London; the other at the Cavendish.

They have found the structure of the chemical which transmits - from one generation to another - inherited characteristics like the colour of the eyes, the shape of the nose and even intelligence.

Vast field opens

They think it is a chemically pure substance which can be isolated from the living cell and crystallised. They call it "D.N.A." (short for deoxyribose nucleic acid) and they have produced a model of its structure.

Sir Lawrence could tell me: "It provides the first rational explanation of how a chemical can reproduce itself."

One could go further and say that it means to the study of the living processes what Rutherford's early descriptions of the structure of the nucleus of the atom meant to physics.

It will open up a vast new field of research into the secret of life.

On four groups of elements, according to their arrangement, depend the characteristics passed from generation to generation.

No one suggests these groupings can yet be arranged artificially. Discovering how these chemical "cards" are shuffled and paired will keep the scientists busy for the next 50 years.

VARSITY (CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY) : Saturday, May 30th, 1953

X-RAY DISCOVERY

X-RAY researches by Dr. J.D Watson and Dr. F.H. Crick at the Cavendish Laboratory in connection with work carried out at King's College, London, on hereditary characteristics have been hailed in England as "the biological equivalent to crashing the sound barrier."

Twenty-five year old Dr. Watson, an American, is flying this week-end to a conference on viruses, and he is taking the results of their work with him.

Their researches have looked into the structure of deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA), a substance previously known to be present in dividing cells.

For the first time an explanation in terms of atoms and molecules can be given for cell duplication.

American scientists have accepted this structure and further work will show how far it can provide an explanation of the behaviour of diving cell nuclei.

91.110.183.238 (talk) 16:31, 10 May 2009 (UTC) Martin Packer

Tim, I wonder if you can do me another favour, this time on the FRANCIS CRICK article please?

The first reference reads:

^ a b Crick, Francis (1990). What Mad Pursuit: a Personal View of Scientific Discovery. Basic Books reprint edition. pp. 145. ISBN 0-465-09138-5. — Crick described himself as "agnostic, with a strong inclination towards atheism".

I don't see why the words: agnostic, with atrong inclination towards atheism - have to be in bold, and therefore attract unecessary attention to them; can you revert them back to non-bold please?

I would be interested in your opinion of the FRANCIS CRICK article by the way? I think it's a very good article (having made a few changes myself) but it does not reflect Matt Ridley's 2006 'short' biography of Crick, but hopefully will include some of Bob Olby's full-length scientific biography of Crick after it is published later this year by CSHL Press. Martin

Nitramrekcap (talk) 16:59, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Restricted Access Barrier System

FIY I've closed this AfD since you didn't mention trying to find any sources in your nomination. To avoid this issue in the future, please summarise what you've done to try to verify content before nominating an article for deletion. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 18:37, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

There's no requirement to look for sources before nominating an article. It may be recommended, but isn't mandatory. I won't take this any further because the discussion was obviously headed towards keeping, but if it were not, I would be going to DRV. Stifle (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

I must have misunderstood your nomination then, I thought you had nominated this under the criterion "Articles for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed". Tim Vickers (talk) 19:01, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

No, it was because the article as I nominated it failed to comply with the WP:V policy by providing sources, and as it had been tagged for approaching three years, I thought it reasonable to believe that the existence of sources was unlikely. Stifle (talk) 19:10, 10 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Tim, thanks, Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 16:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Advice needed

Tim, User:Soerdoc has requested permission to use some of "my" hepatitis serology diagrams, (see my talk page) and wants to know how to credit me. I don't think credit is necessary, since they are in the public domain. Do you know our policy on this? If, indeed we have one. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 17:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

User:Bloodz311 vandalizing his user pages

Please look really closely, Tim: User:Bloodz311 UWEC at 173.26.80.178 (talk) 20:35, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of recent studies...

... what do you think the odds of something like PMID 19433800 (lay summary) appearing in our famously well-balanced articles on orthomolecular medicine and megavitamin therapy? MastCell ^Talk 19:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

CDC numbers change and what to do about it

Since you are a major contributor to the Swine flu page and I value your opinion, I'd like to invite you to a conversation on the US template talkpage. CDC changes numbers from confirmed to confrimed and probable and what we should to do about it. --PigFlu Oink(talk) 21:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Sweeps invitation

Hello, I hope you are doing well. I am sending you this message since you are listed as a GA reviewer. I would like to invite you to consider helping with the GA sweeps process. Sweeps helps to ensure that the oldest GAs still meet the criteria, and improve the quality of GAs overall. Unfortunately, last month only two articles were reviewed. This is definitely a low point after our peak at the beginning of the process when 163 articles were reviewed in September 2007. After nearly two years, the running total has just passed the 50% mark. In order to expediate the reviewing, several changes have been made to the process. A new worklist has been created, detailing which articles are left to review. All exempt and previously reviewed articles have already been removed from the list. Instead of reviewing by topic, you can consider picking and choosing whichever articles interest you.

We are always looking for new members to assist with the remaining articles, so if you are interested or know of anybody that can assist, please visit the GA sweeps page. In addition, for every member that reviews 100 articles or has a significant impact on the process, s/he will get an award when they reach that threshold. If only 14 editors achieve this feat starting now, we would be done with Sweeps! Of course, having more people reviewing less articles would be better for all involved, so please consider asking others to help out. Feel free to stop by and only review a few articles, something's better than nothing! Take a look at the list, and see what articles interest you. Let's work to complete Sweeps so that efforts can be fully focused on the backlog at GAN. If you have any questions about the process, reviewing, or need help with a particular article, please contact me or OhanaUnited and we'll be happy to help. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Reply

I would disagree with your comment that I have been particularly rude. I feel that with people calling Scotland a province and a county I have been constrained. And if people are too lazy to do any research on a subject and just want to spout rubbish, I'm going to tell them that it is rubbish. Alan16 ^talk 22:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Prod, Speedy

Not to derail the ANI thread further, I just thought I'd note here that I can sadly imagine doing that all too well. :) This remains my favorite appalling slip of the tongue. It's a bit subtle, but truly awful. --Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 01:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

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

--Rockfang (talk) 16:01, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Quick favour for damage control

Hi Tim,

Given this, would you be willing to block this account? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:26, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for commenting Tim, I only put in a talk-page request 'cause I noticed you were on-line at 2009 swine flu outbreak and didn't want to spend my afternoon rolling back spurious reverts. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 18:42, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks!

Hey, thanks for the welcome! :)) Sakimonk (talk) 00:45, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

2009 swine flu outbreak

You deleted progressions of outbreak through WHO stages. I was curious as far as reason. I grant you that name of the section WHO alert phases explained was not the best. Milik (talk) 05:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Swine Flu 2009 Table

I'd rather keep the table, even though it's opaque, it's not at all obvious what's up to date and what isn't. Keep it for now. And at the same time develop an active current section where the dates are obvious at first glance. Cool Nerd (talk) 20:44, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Partial Natural Selection?

Are there any references that you may know of advancing the hypothesis that although evolution by natural selection is a working theory of how life evolved on Earth, it may not have been (or, better perhaps, shows evidence of not having been) the only determinative factor where we are concerned?Julzes (talk) 15:50, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I found you through my Welcome by Plumbago. You awarded him something for review of Evolution.Julzes (talk) 15:53, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Continue correspondence at my page at your leisure.Julzes (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

John's Not Mad

Hi, Tim! I hear this recently aired in the UK, and it's getting a lot of IP traffic. Would you mind keeping an eye on it in case it needs to be semi'd at any point? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:07, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

GA review of "Evolution of natural selection"

As part of the GA review sweeps process (see:Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force/Sweeps, a project devoted to re-reviewing Good Articles listed before August 26, 2007), the article Evolution of sexual reproduction has been re-reviewed. I have placed the article on hold until sufficient citations can be added to the article, this point of improvement is mandatory for GA-quality articles. Optional points of improvement include: prose quality, and the guidelines issued at the manual of style for section headings, which include brevity and lack of repetition. If an editor has not expressed interest in improving the article within seven days, the article will be delisted as a Good Article. The review can be found at Talk:Evolution of sexual reproduction/GA1. --ErgoSum•talk•trib 04:32, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:SAM.png

File:SAM.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:SAM (1).png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:SAM (1).png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 12:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Pfam Wikification

Hi Tim,

The decision has been taken for Pfam to follow it's sister database, Rfam, and provide all our annotations via wikipedia. We are at the very early stages of planning and I am trying to put a group of experienced wikipedians together that have experience of this sort of scale of wikification. From the MCB pages I saw that you had an initial interest and you were heavily involved in the gene wiki project. At the moment I am only looking for an expression of willingness that we can contact you for advice and help.

I guess my main concern will be the stub generation for the 11K entries and/or finding existing pages that we can add to.

Best Wishes,

Rob Finn

RobFinn (talk) 18:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Investigation of possible frivolous DE accusation

You posted an accusation of disruptive editing on my talk page. I read WP:DE several times without finding any relationship of it to my editing; in particular, section WP:DE#Signs of disruptive editing.

Puzzled, I read the DE talk page, and at one point the light dawned. WP:TROLL was the classic throwaway charge made against editors who had broken no rule, and had no palpable intent to troll, but someone just didn't like what they said. TROLL having been banished to Meta, WP:DE seems to be the new WP:TROLL. If exploitative, WP:DE can be invoked the way "disturbing the peace" charges are used to suppress RL dissent,[42] and can be "...used to dismiss valid views trying to break the grip of those owning a page..."[43]. WP:DE is improved to at least have some behavioral specifics (#Signs of disruptive editing), but none of them apply to my edits or posts.

That makes your post a possible frivolous accusation, which if a fact, would be a violation of WP:NPA#What is considered to be a personal attack? "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence."

WP:DE#Distinguished from productive editing indirectly acknowledges that editors of significant minority viewpoints are targets of DE charges:

"Editors often post minority views to articles. ...¶... Editors may reasonably present active public disputes or controversies which are documented by reliable sources."

Furthermore, protection is provided against frivolous accusations:

"In order to protect against frivolous accusations and other potential exploitation, no editor shall be eligible for a disruptive editor block until after a consensus of neutral parties has agreed that an editor has behaved in a disruptive manner. This consensus can be achieved through requests for comment, third opinion, wikiquette alert, or similar means."

(Please reply here to keep the dialog together) Milo 04:58, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Tamiflu and Swine Flu

Tim, I think the issue with Tamiflu is that later generations of viruses would be more resistant, kind of like bacteria can evolve in a direction more resistant to an antibiotic. Of course, the microbes evolve in all kinds of random directions. These are the ones that just happen to survive and reproduce more, the "lucky" mutations from the microbes perspective.

In the formal name H1N1, the H and the N refer to two proteins on the virus's coat. Tamiflu works by attacking the N. (as I understand it, I am not a physician. I do have a fair to middly background in science) Cool Nerd (talk) 22:28, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Of Pandas and People 1987 manuscript copy.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Damiens.rf 21:39, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

I have suspected for a long time that the self-appointed watchdogs of "non-free content" didn't understand what they were talking about. Granted, my comment last night suffered from a large dose of "failing to think things through", but you explained the issue in enough detail that anyone who understood what they were talking about would realise.

I always wonder what would happen if someone tried to actually apply the NFCC rules as written. Every quote (from works that are copyright) would require a fair-use justification. Guettarda (talk) 19:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I know, the problem is that people see "image" and apply a different set of rules. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:49, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

To some extent a thought experiment, but people with the technical skills could code to force use of a monospaced font similar to Monaco (font) which looks like the typewriter lettering. Put that in a nice box and we'd have something looking the same, without it being an image. . . dave souza, talk 21:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

your block of "NootherIDAvailable"

Block evasion <-- what is the evidence that User:NootherIDAvailable is evading a block? we've seen and indef blocked this homeopathy related spammer before - can't recall the account, though <-- this does not sound like a valid reason for a block and Georgewilliamherbert never gave an explanation for the block on User talk:Dr.Jhingaadey. I want to know the identity of the checkuser who linked "NootherIDAvailable" to a banned user and the identity (previous account(s)) of the banned user. "Banned user User:Dr.Jhingaadey"<-- if "Dr.Jhingaadey" is banned, how was that ban decided on? From what I can see it was a bad block, not a ban. --JWSchmidt (talk) 03:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Dr.J is clearly active at this time:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Naturstud&diff=next&oldid=290692122

Verbal caught this and the IP has been tagged, so the list of IP socks is getting longer. It will be interesting to see if the CU identifies this or a similar IP as the one currently being used by NootherIDAvailable. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:30, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

JWSchmidt, good catch on the lack of a sock category on User:Dr.Jhingade. The talk page has previously been deleted, so we can't see its original contents. Here's the log for the userpage. When checking out the histories of the various accounts, redirects have often been made so that the user and talk pages become a circular reference. If one doesn't notice that, the history seems nonexistent or unavailable, but it's actually there, unless the page history has been blanked, which has happened in some cases. I'm sure you have already noticed that he used different spellings for his own name. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey, updating MCB talk page template

Hey, I will need your Admin assistance in relation to the MCB project. When free please look at this. Hope you can help. Thanks. Calaka (talk) 02:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Please? :) Calaka (talk) 15:03, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there (LK metric)

Thanks man. Good to hear a supporting voice in this wilderness and obviously good to know an expert in tropical disasters :) (I mean it: For example a friend of mine is afraid of taking a malaria vaccination since she lost her spleen due to a car accident. Any hints on that?). Now let's get back to the question. Honestly I do not care about the "court's verdict" :) and I even plan to vote for deletion on the last day of court's proceedings :) If there are not enough references, I hope to find some in the future (my supervisor mentioned about some book my University is planning to issue this or next year that would include this subject) and than maybe "I'll be back" :). --Guswen (talk) 00:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you:) (I made it as well in a text file).--Guswen (talk) 16:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Dear Tim, You're right in general and I was thinking about it. But I'm not sure you're right in that case. For example look at the article Metric (mathematics) which contains much more information that was available to me while I was working on my PhD, and in particular on section "Generalized metrics" which contains various types of metrics for which some axioms are relaxed (Pseudo-, Quasi, Semi- metrics, and many others). Yet you can not assign L-K metric to any of these groups as in any of these cases d(x, x) = 0 (except maybe pseudoquasimetric (?) but this one in turn is not symmetric). I think that my work is related more to metrics and their applications in computational methods than to statistics, and what I did was a generalisation of euclidean metric to random variables considered as measurements of some experiment (here quantum mechanics examples). This whole idea seems trivial from the first sight but I really haven't found any prior references. Your HIV protease in a complex with ritonavir looks great indeed but I have no idea what does it mean :) Why protease is visualised my arrows that imply some dynamics while enzyme is a molecule (?) (I admit that I am an ignorant about chemistry) --Guswen (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

One of your figures is being discussed in Origin of Species FAC

Tim, the figure:

which I believe you created, is being discussed at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/On the Origin of Species/archive1. I am not sure that the comment is valid, but it might be helpful if you could comment on it. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 20:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Objections_to_evolution#History_of_objections

As per your recommendations, I have carried out some changes. When you are able, feedback is welcome and if acceptable update(s) of the To Do List. - RoyBoy 03:39, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

On the Origin of Species

The article blew my mind, for wont of a better way to express it. It came together at a higher level, for me, than even the History of evolution did. All the building blocks of thinking on the subject are there. I just don't know how to express the experience. Regards, —Mattisse (Talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Stan Gooch

Hi Tim. im not sure why the Stan Gooch page has been listed for deletion, could you please let me know what i can do to ensure it stays on wikipedia.

DanDNA (talk) 08:44, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Tim. ive removed as much of the talky material as possible, if you get a moment please let me know if we are any closer to a safe article. i am fairly new to this submittal procedure, so bear with me. also, much of the material on Stan Gooch is now 20 or so years old, and is difficult to source on the internet, which is why it would be a shame to not have a page for him just because there is no material readily available.

best wishes dan —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanDNA (talk • contribs) 11:16, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer's personal attacks

Hi Tim, I wonder if you could have a look at User talk:BullRangifer#Personal attacks and perhaps leave a comment there. No problem at all if you don't have the time to wade through the diffs; it's not too important. --Hans Adler (talk) 15:13, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Another source request

Hola Tim, could you grant me the kindness of this article? If it helps, it is doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67159-0.

Thanks! WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 15:06, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Another another source request? pmid = 15943644 pretty please? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 01:13, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Please Contact

Re: Article : Hydrazine sulfate In your current statement on hydrazine sulfate, you are accepting false in formation, information that totally misrepresents the medical literature. As an example, the current piece on hydrazine sulfate states that the California (Harbor-UCLA) controlled clinical trials of hydrazine sulfate found no statistically significant survival improvement or other benefit due to this treatment. Whereas what the California studies actually reported was: "For PS [Performance Status] 0-1 patients survival was significantly prolonged with hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (P = .05). The survival at 1 year was also significantly increased (P = .05) for hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo (42% v 18%, respectively" (Journal of Clinical Oncology 8:9-15, 1990). Nothing could be clearer than that.

The current piece on hydrazine sulfate is full of misrepresentations such as the above. They are offensive to the American public and in their lack of accuracy may actually be very harmful to our cancer patient populations. Please contact:

                   Joseph Gold, M.D.
                   Syracuse Cancer Research Institute
                   Phone: 315:472-6616
                   E-Mail: jg@scrinst.org

Judytaylorgold (talk) 16:55, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

"offensive to the American public"?? Hmm, when you use words like that it immediately sends up a red flag. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The abstract of the paper in question says, "Considering all patients, survival was greater for the hydrazine sulfate compared with placebo group (median survival, 292 v 187 days), but the difference did not achieve statistical significance." This is consistent with the wording in the article. Judy Taylor Gold's complaint shows a lack of understanding of the proper way to use statistics in medical studies -- significant differences within subgroups are not meaningful unless there is a significant effect in the overall population. Further discussion should probably go to the talk page of the article. (Apologies Tim for intruding on your talk page.) Looie496 (talk) 17:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You might like to compare here! Physchim62 (talk) 17:22, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

You have been nominated for membership of the Established Editors Association

The Established editors association will be a kind of union of who have made substantial and enduring contributions to the encyclopedia for a period of time (say, two years or more). The proposed articles of association are here - suggestions welcome.

If you wish to be elected, please notify me here. If you know of someone else who may be eligible, please nominate them here

Please put all discussion here.Peter Damian (talk) 10:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Hey

Tim: it is the editor sometimes known as Kendrick7. I wanted to say: sorry for insulting you a few weeks back. I tried to get my account unblocked so I could apologize, but, well, you know how the idiocracy works. Apparently giving me a chance to apologize would be unseemly, and as such I've been banned forever. I do, however, wish you would understand the underlying importance of WP:PRESERVE, or what it used to say, to the nature of the project, or at least, that is my prayer. Meh, you probably don't, and are just some editor who thinks we shouldn't be a project which contains all human knowledge, but you never know. Oh well, whatever, time to reboot my modem I guess. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No hard feelings, in fact I can't actually remember who you are. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, glad to hear. Of course, I'm banned nevertheless. LOL. That's much of the problem with this place. Full of drama queens who want to create drama where none exists. I was always just trying to write an encyclopedia, or help write rules to enable others to do so. No good deed goes unpunished. -- 209.6.238.158 (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Note about reviewing Articles for Creation submissions

Hi, Tim. Just a quick note about reviewing AfC submissions, as you did here. Please remember to add the decline parameter, |D|, and the reason parameter, |nn|, onto the existing {{AFC submission}} template, rather than adding a new one. Adding a new template causes confusion for editors (because there are multiple reasons provided), and can result in submissions being miscategorized. The other parameters mentioned in the reviewing instructions refer to the |ts=, |u=, and |ns= fields, rather than the literal phrase "other parameters." Also, please do not sign the template after you edit it. I have corrected the problem, so there's no need for you to do anything to the submission, but I just wanted to let you know for if/when you review more submissions in the future. Thanks, The Earwig ^{(Talk | Editor review)} 02:44, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Egalitarianism

Hi I was interested in your view that Wikipedia is egalitarian, and rather like a democracy. Is this a part of Wikipedia policy? I couldn't find it anywhere. I don't think collaborative work that often requires expert judgment should be egalitarian. It wouldn't work in the ordinary workplace, for example. I also think that Wikipedia is about building content that is essentially neutral. I get very frustrated by special interest groups that persistently slant the article coverage away from the balance required in a standard reference work. The article Ayn Rand is a classic, on which I eventually gave up. I thought the decision to ban Scientology IPs was excellent. That required a distinctly non-egalitarian approach. So, in summary, I am a little puzzled by your view. Peter Damian (talk) 17:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Egalitarian in that we all have the same rights and responsibilities and that we all face the same penalties if we hinder the goal of the project. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Well then Scientology IP's don't have those rights. And you are an admin. You have the right to block me, I don't. Wrong from the start. And why on earth did you become an admin, believing in the 'egalitarianism'? Peter Damian (talk) 20:31, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the right to block you, I have access to a tool that allows me to enforce policies. Unless you violate policy, I have no "right" to block you. If you violate policy, I can enforce the penalties that the community decided on. Rights are not conditional. Saying I have the right to block people is like saying a policemen has the right to arrest people, this is not really true. Tim Vickers (talk)

I wish more admins actually believed that. (I accept that you genuinely do). Also, I don't have a tool that allows me to enforce policies like WP:NOR. That is why I would like to be able to consult or appeal to something like an Established Editors committee. That is a right I would dearly like. Peter Damian (talk) 20:51, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

One of the long-term problems with administrative enforcement of policy is that content policies are not as easy to enforce as behavioural policies. Unless an editor's breaches of things like NOR and V are egregious, they will never be blocked. However, you can take the other view of this and argue that no editor will ever write completely accurately and dispassionately, so around the ideal of complete NPOV is a grey area were our personal opinions prevent neutrality. This was one of the major issues that prevented the adoption of the Wikipedia:Neutrality enforcement proposal. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:03, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Just butting in for a musing. One of the long-term problems with administrative enforcement of policy is that content policies are not as easy to enforce as behavioural policies. This sounds like an excellent argument for admins who also have expert or good content creation skills. Such requirements though are routinely dismissed at RfA with the argument that adminship requires a different skill set to editing and its perfectly possible to be a good admin without being able to judge and edit good content. What are your thoughts on RfA's in this light? --Joopercoopers (talk) 23:46, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Expert admins are very valuable, but no admin can do everything. I'd say both type of admin are valuable. I've supported people in RfA who have little "Wikipedia space" experience, but lots of experience in a particular subject area. However, you don't need to be an expert on medieval history to deal with WP:AIV or WP:AN3, so an admin with little "article space" experience can still do very valuable work. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Hmm - I can't argue with that. The trouble is though if someone's elected an admin on a WP:AIV or WP:AN3 ticket, there's nothing stopping them ill advisedly inserting themselves in content disputes in subjects they know little about. My perception, perhaps misguided, is there is a dearth of expert admins and an overwhelming imbalance of gnomes. I wonder what can be done to address this? Or should we just slate it on the perennial list of 'broken RFA' problems? --Joopercoopers (talk) 00:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Talk:Ethanol induced non-lamellar phases in phospholipids

Taking a look at GAN I see that you are going to review this article; however according the article's talk it is not even nominated (or has ever been). I believe it has to be fixed. Bests.--Garrondo (talk) 07:23, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Balance of conflicting interest

You might find the article on Corporate governance interesting. See in particular the section on balance of power. Apologies if I sounded rude, by the way. Peter Damian (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Biomass Hydro Dynamics

Thanks for going through that page of twaddle with enough care to find bits of obvious nonsense. I went ahead and speedied that page. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 18:36, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Photosynthesis lead section

Hi there,

I'm not really happy with your changes in the photosynthesis article. The first paragraph of this article should provide information about the ecological context of photosynthesis.

"The first paragraph should establish the context in which the topic is being considered, by supplying the set of circumstances or facts that surround it.
As written in Wikipedia:Lead section.

So, information about autotrophs vs. heterotrophs, and that photosynthesis provide the carbon for essentially all organisms, should be in the lead section.

And you just removed that part...

Kasper90 (talk) 10:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Hydrophobicity scales

A have posted first GAR comments on that GA nomination at Talk:Hydrophobicity scales/GA1. The article needs much work and more comments will come. Materialscientist (talk) 22:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

thanks for offer

I don't use email. Could you put it somewhere I can access it? Or else add something to the image description that makes more clear the limitations and simplifications that the image represents? Use of "endemic" or "major subtypes"? Thanks. WAS 4.250 (talk) 19:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the other edit:

"The viral hemagglutinin protein is also responsible for determining where in the respiratory tract a particular strain of influenza will bind." No, it is responsible for determining which cells it can invade, so sometimes it can't invade any of some species cells, sometimes it can only invade some bird species intestine cells and so forth. Limiting it to talk of respiratory tract is human-centric and inaccurate.

"Strains that are easily transmitted between people, but which usually cause mild disease, have hemagglutinin proteins that bind to receptors in the upper part of the respiratory tract, such as in the nose, throat and mouth." Glossing over the fact that past pandemic strains have hemagglutinin proteins that bind to receptors in the upper part of the respiratory tract by using the word "usually" is highly misleading.

"In contrast, virulent strains such as H5N1 bind to receptors that are mostly found deep in the lungs." H5N1 is a subtype. Asian-linage HPAI H1N5 is a "virulent strain" like no other so the plural is inaccurate. He has one example here, not enough to draw broad conclusions.

"This difference in the site of infection may explain why the H5N1 strain causes severe viral pneumonia in the lungs, but is not easily transmitted between people through coughing and sneezing." It is known that this is the reason that it is not easily transmitted between people through coughing and sneezing, which is why pandemic strains can't have this quality. Other factors have more evidence explaining the deadliness which is more than just causing severe viral pneumonia. See H5N1 genetics.

Not every paper some expert writes is gold. People have to pump those papers out to get funding and status. If this accurately represents the paper, then the paper is garbage. WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:01, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

comments on latest draft

"This difference in the site of infection may be part of the reason why the H5N1 strain causes severe viral pneumonia in the lungs" I find this misleading without mention of other factors mentioned at H5N1 genetics for why the strain is so deadly.

WAS 4.250 (talk) 20:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your swift and decisive action today. Again, it was a tough call for me because I do support the organization and particularly this cause. However, Wikipedia is Wikipedia and we all must abide.

Anhow, here are a few more instances of the external link to the lobbying group which you may have overlooked:

• User:Skinwalker
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Userboxes
• User talk:Shot info

Thanks again for your attention and action on this matter. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:38, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

GM Food controversies - awesome work

Tim,

Just a note to say thanks for all the work you did on the Genetically modified food controversies page.

It reads pretty well now I reckon. You really have done a great job of sumarising the two opposing points of view on this one.

Nice one. Ttguy (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Flagr

Nope, that looks pretty good. Thanks. Bueller 007 (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Block of 75.4.132.23

Please note that you've indef'ed an IP address, so you may want to set a shorter limit on that block of yours. --  Netsnipe  ►  14:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Indef blocking of IP addresses...

Regarding: [44]. IP addresses are often shared, and even if not may be periodically reassigned and as such it is usually unwise to indefinately block one, even for WP:NLT violations, and especially with one with so short a contribution history as this one. Could you, perhaps, modify this one to a reasonably long, but not indefinate, time, say 1 year or something like that? Gracias. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 14:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Evolution categories

At Creation–evolution controversy you recently removed the Category:Evolutionism (thanks!). However, the history of that article was that User:Oashi had just removed Category:Evolution, replacing it with Evolutionism. I restored the categories to the previous state. Is that correct? Also, in the hope that you understand the structure of the evolution categories, would you please have a look at the many interesting changes being made by the above user. I just asked Hrafn whether Category:Evolutionists was created once before and deleted (which is my vague recollection). I'll look here for any answer. Johnuniq (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

• Did you mean to G4 delete Category:Evolutionism or Category:Evolutionists? You deleted the former (good), but cited the latter (WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 25#Category:Evolutionists)). Johnuniq (talk) 03:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

User talk:75.4.132.23

This user seems to have a message for you. --(GameShowKid)--(talk)--(evidence)--( 02:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Relating gene pages by protein interactions

Tim, any opinion or guidance on this issue before we move forward? Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 09:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Citizendium Porting

I believe you prematurely close the MFD for this, however I won't make a big deal of it as there does seem to be consensus to keep it. I had to log off after I MFD'd the project, so I didn't know until it was too late that the MFD would be closed.

However, my reason for MFDing the project, is that it seems to be against the best interests of both WP and CZ. WP is not meant to be a mirror of CZ, nor is CZ meant to be a mirror of WP. I think both projects could benefit from using each other as sources, but each should use mostly original content.

One point was raised that I have a COI. I'm not sure if you agreed with that particular bit, but I feel I need to address it somewhere, and here seems as good a place as any. I have no COI, in either direction. Unlike many of CZ's contributors I am not a "pissed off ex-wikipedian". I think both projects have fundamental flaws, and both have key strengths. If CZ and WP ever became "enemies", resulting in mudslinging, flamewars, or even legal BS, I would not take sides. I believe both projects share a common goal but go about it slightly differently.

Drew Smith What I've done 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: Grief porn AfD

Thank you for the notification, Tim. In all honesty, the article's development has been slowed by some disruptive editing, but I will try to develop the article along the lines I had been pursuing before the slow-down began. Is it possible for you to withdraw the AfD for one week, and allow me and others to develop out the article more, so as to address your concerns. If, at the end of the week, you feel that it hasn't sufficiently improved, you could still nominate it. I'd just like a little time to address your issues. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 23:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

On plain language

Re: [45], I don't think I could explain the problem in plain language without being sitebanned. :) MastCell ^Talk 17:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm suffering from WP:TLDR with that discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think someone may have spat in your soup. MastCell ^Talk 18:48, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

It is very odd, I think I'll file the whole situation under "ignore" unless it starts to impact an article. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that's the way to go. MastCell ^Talk 20:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

re Socionics

Concerning your input on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Socionics: the book you linked to isn't about the psychological typing, but about an AI thing which does appear to have some notability. I wouldn't object to an article on the latter, but that's not the article we have at the moment. Mangoe (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Transcription factor article rating

Hi. Back in September of 2008, you rated the transcription factor article C class. Since then, the article has undergone significant revision. Do you think the article is still C class? If so, what do you feel are the major deficiencies that prevent the article from being rated B class? One of the difficulties in writing about this subject is the diversity of structures and mechanisms of this large protein family so it is difficult to know what aspect is in most need of improving. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

"I am tjvickers_ on IRC"