User:JWSchmidt/Talk from 2007

Immune system

Hi there, could I ask you to have a look over one of the MCB FA candidates? Immune system went into the process in rather a poor shape, but has been improved a lot. Do you have any suggestions or feedback? It's candidacy page is here (link). Thanks. TimVickers 20:56, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

cognitive entities

"Some remarks on an experiment suggesting quantum-like behavior of cognitive entities and formulation of an abstract quantum mechanical formalism to describe cognitive entity and its dynamics" <-- Do you have a copy of this? --JWSchmidt 05:33, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I do not have a version ready to email. However, my son has a paper copy of the full text. --Julia Neumann 07:11, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 18:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Anna Nicole Smith / Reactions Section

Thank you for removing the PoV entry I posted of Perez Hiltons' defacing of her photos, although I do feel that that information should be readded later, albeit without a POV (his continuing critiscm of her after her death) - but thank you for removing the part where I had added "mock sadness". If you could also kindly give the section an introduction it would be lovely as well. Peculiar to be doing this all with in less than twelve hours of her death.--Ozgod 03:42, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

FAR notifications

For almost a year, I have personally checked every WP:FAR to make sure the article talk page is noticed, and have made multiple notifications to every WikiProject I can find that may be even remotely related to the featured article. FAR notifications remain on talk pages for at least a month, the period of review, although most run longer. Any time an editor shows an interest in working on article deficiencies and requests an extension, the review period is extended beyond the month. Also, original nominators are notified on their talk pages. In fact, I've been criticized for overnotifying. I'm curious what article you found that was demoted without notification? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:11, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

"the article talk page is noticed" <-- by placing a template on a talk page with no edit summary? Wow, that's really "going the extra mile" to give notice! --JWSchmidt 04:50, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how FAR can force other editors to use edit summaries, but once the article is at FAR, we do our best to make sure everyone involved is notified. I responded here. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Titration Data

Bling!

Those graphs look very nice, nothing like my amateur Excel crap. Personally I like the one with horizontal gridlines, but I'd defer if there are many other graphs on WP w/o lines for the sake of consistency. The data on the graph strikes a good balance between simplicity (not too much data & numbers) but still showing the important features. I'd capitalize "ml" to "mL" but other than that it's all good.

The pKa was determined by taking the equivalence volume, dividing it in half, then reading back the pH from the volume. e.g.: Part A (Trial 1), Veq was determined to be at about Vt = 10.05 mL, where the large spike in the slope occurred. 0.5 Veq = 5.025 mL. Reading backwards, the pH at that Vt was 4.69 (linearly interpolated between the nearest two points if need be), which is the estimated value of pKa. On the second trial the estimated value was 4.73 (The true value is 4.76). Quick justification why it works:

The Henderson-Hasselbalch equation:

${\textrm {pH}}={\textrm {pK}}_{a}+\log _{10}{\frac {[{\textrm {A}}^{-}]}{[{\textrm {HA}}]}}$

At 0.5 Veq, half the acid is neutralized, so the concentration of acid, HA (which is assumed to not disassociate to any significant degree), is equal to the amount of neutralized acid NaA (which fully disassociates into the A- ion). So [A-] = [HA], therefore [A-]/[HA] = 1, log 1 = 0, and finally pH = pKa.

Slope data columns are what I used to objectively determine the inflection points, but there was still a degree of estimation because of the noise in the data, which gets worse with more and more complex calculations.

How to plot the derivatives is the $64bil question, because the data becomes quite noisy. For the actual article, the technical bits I don't think are that important, so the ones that are worse could be left off; the oxalic acid titration on lab7a.xls looked to be the best. Trying to visualize this in my head...but it would be best if the lines don't cross for clarity's sake, maybe on the same grid, just stretched apart? The slope plots don't have that much meaning by themselves outside of trying to find the equivalence points, so they should be kept in the same image and aligned at least.

Thanks again,

-- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Replying here because of the request for comment at WP:CHEM :) There is an accepted way to calculate the first and second derivatives if your data paints are equally spaced, which gives the value of the derivative of a (smoothed) polynomial curve with the coefficients optimised by a "least-squares" criterion. I will dig out the reference, but it is very easy to apply to raw data in an Excel spreadsheet. In France, we teach students to look for the second derivative (where it cuts the axis), not the maximum of the first: the French solution is better if you are doing everything by hand, as you eliminate the error in estimating the maximum, but is not used by automatic machines as the gain in accuracy with very small additions is negligeable.

As for the aesthetic considerations, I prefer as few grid lines visible as possible, just to give my opinion :)

Thanks for all your work on this topic, Physchim62 (talk) 18:02, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

My data is too noisy to easily see the second derivative zero, so I had to resort to using the max of the first. Trying to fit the curve as is to a polynomial plot in excel proved pretty pointless, the fitted line was not even close to the curve. I would have liked to determine an ideal equation to fit the data to with Maple or the like, but deriving the equation was too complex for me; you make it sound easy, can some simple transform (log?) of the data make it fit a polynomial? -- atropos235 ✄ (blah blah, my past) 05:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

The necessary coefficients are given in Savitzky, A.; Goloy, M. J. E. (1964). "Smoothing and Differentiation of Data by Simplified Least Squares Procedures" Anal. Chem. 36:1527–39; along with the formal derivation. Unfortunately, I don't currently have access to a copy of this article :( The procedure is very easy to put in place once you have an Excel file of the data points. Physchim62 (talk) 18:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Credentials

Hi!

I see you've been asking some questions about the process by which another user was able to verify my real-life identity and that the person concerned (the real-life me) has a PhD. He and I could be colluding on a hoax, of course, but if you trust him the method we used is otherwise pretty watertight, so I'll just describe it again - I wrote to him with my email that I use for Wikipedia business, giving him a fair bit of detail about me. That took him to my page at my university, which provided him with information about my qualifications and also gave a totally different email address for people to write to in order to contact me. He wrote to me at that address, and I wrote back confirming that I edit here as "Metamagician3000".

I think that lots of people associated with universities - grad students, post-docs, academics, whatever - could do exactly the same. The only inconvenience is that they will need to have a separate email address for their Wikipedia business from the one they use for university inquiries, but that would be common, and besides it's easy to go and get a free account for Wikipedia stuff. This exercise should reassure them that they can use Jimbo's proposal without compromising their identities. They can also get more detail verified if they want (e.g. the field of their research), as long as that amount of detail is available on their university's site. I wasn't especially interested in doing that, and this wasn't really about me, but was just a test of the system. I guess I'll keep that nice PhD box, now I've gone to the trouble of getting it there, but you won't see me big-noting myself about it.

I hope this clears things up. Whether doing this sort of thing is a good idea is still debatable, of course. The place to debate it is the talk page for Jimbo's proposal (I can't recall whether you're already one of the people taking part there).

All the best, Metamagician3000 12:25, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Hi, could you please take a look at this section of my talk page, and also at Special:Contributions/216.16.55.28. I've stepped into something I know nothing about, simply through reverting vandalism on Jimmy Wales. Someone else turned up at my talk page and pointed out that Archimedes Plutonium might be objecting to the link you added to the talk page, though in fact his vandalism started before that. I'm rushing out in a few minutes, but perhaps you might consider removing that link if it violates WP:BLP. I can't find the link in the article anyway, so I don't really know what the IP is complaining about. Cheers. ElinorD (talk) 12:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you very much for your comments at the AfD. I'd be very happy (having voted 'weak keep' myself) if the AfD turned out as delete for the reasons you state. You may be interested in this as well; I'd be curious to know what you think of that. Regards, --Keesiewonder ^talk 17:05, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks for your note. Sounds like you are even more frustrated than I am ... Please let me know if you think of a way I can help somehow. You may have noticed the 'out of the blue' note right above your post on my talk page from Buburuza. I have to say the first thing that crossed my mind when I read that was it was another impersonator or some such of the same person. Keesiewonder ^talk 20:56, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Your note

Hi JWSchmidt, I don't think that I was actively involved in any 'dispute' on these policy pages, in any case not since Jimbo's recent intervention. I did periodically support stability, as I believe that having core content policies change routinely while editors are editing is counterproductive in principle. The issue is simply that Jimbo stated that he accepts that WP:ATT is a canonical policy that incorporates WP:RS, WP:NOR and WP:V, but he preferred to see those component pages remain in some explanatory capacity, while tracking ATT in substance, and to have a straw poll to get more community input about the concept. There was a request made on the ATT Talk to protect the pages while this process is being sorted out, and after verifying that they were indeed being modified, even as the poll was being drafted, I agreed with the need for stability and protected them. If any admin feels differently, they can reverse me. Crum375 16:11, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

CRICK

John, please see: http://orpheus.ucsd.edu/speccoll/testing/html/mss0660a.html#abstract

for all his personal papers; I am sure that there is some ccntent here that could be used to improve the article; this repositary of his personal papers is not very well known by the way. Assuming he used it, not even Matt Ridley credits it in his book; I do wonder if he used it?

regards, Martin

ps 2007 is going to be be a good year for books: biographies of Perutz and Crick [2#) and now another book by Watson is scheduled for September publication by Random House... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.71.198.244 (talk) 12:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC).

Undernet

UMWELTSFORSCHUNG

Dear JWSurf,

Various motifs, transgressions which are occurring on the Undernet philosophy projects

1. Skept`s #philosophy project continues as populistic trash. It is the most pronounced failure since Owens #camp and Johngurus #philosophicus.

2. the #philosophy2 project has been negated in toto.

3. the new project of relevance is #phenomenology - it appears unrelenting.

4. Kruto has gone insane as star emperor, and must be suspended in toto.

5. #philosophicus project is a failure.

Taking these theses together, your BIG RING project has never been more compelling. #PHENOMENOLOGY supports an effort under your aegis to revive the BIG RING in toto.

Thanks for the "blast from the past". Somehow I had gotten in the habit of imagining that Undernet was lost in one great and final netsplit. Good luck with your philosophical efforts! --JWSchmidt 19:38, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Dar JWSurf,

what are your thoughts about re-starting the Big Ring project? For those unfamiliar with the objective, it was intended as a re-design of the UNDERNET philosophy projects qua comprehensive space: #philosophy, #philosophy2, #aporia, #vernunft, #philosophicus, #wittgenstein.

Regards, Fabio Damascus Jr.

I'm totally out of the Undernet loop and I will not have time to get back into it. I wish you luck with any efforts you make towards supporting IRC discussions with website resources. --JWSchmidt 22:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fabio Damascus Jr. - serbian trash. your illegitimate son rommel was last seen taking the slow boat to africa.

JWSurf: you have restarted your hermit kingdom on wikipedia, I wish you well. clown is apparently deceased but I can confirm that the following are alive: martek, kruton, & skept. repeat turd burglar aleko is prolonging his life with hiv cocktails. All is well.

REGARDS, INTHEKNOW corporate M&A, freshfields bruckhaus deringer

Prostanoid synthesis

Hello there. I spotted a question in the Science Reference Desk ("Prostacyclin and Thromboxane") concerning a diagram I created, Image:Prostanoid synthesis.svg, and I'd like to thank you and Nunh-huh for catching my error. It's fixed now, and I apologize for the inaccuracy. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

history of biology

John, I'd love to have your thoughts on history of biology overall. I've done all I think I can without some serious critiques and suggestions from other knowledgeable people. It's on peer review and WP:GAC.--ragesoss 06:31, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi. I had a quick look through your talk pages, and you seem to have received only two barnstars. You deserve another. [By the way, you might consider copying the barnstars onto your userpage.] Axl 12:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

		The E=mc² Barnstar
		JWSchidt, for numerous contributions to scientific articles. Axl 12:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

User:Mr.Z-bot

Are you sure you have "hide bot edits" on for your watchlist? I don't think it is a default setting. How old are the edits in question? Any edit before 14:07, May 13, 2007 will show up on a watchlist (unless you don't have it show minor edits) as that is when it was flagged as a bot. There were 25 trial edits before that, to make sure it functioned properly before it was given a flag. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 15:35, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

"How old are the edits in question?" <-- They were fresh in my watch list just before I left a message at the bot's talk page. --JWSchmidt 15:54, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Again, are you sure you have your watchlist set to hide bot edits? I just tested it on mine and they don't show up if bot edits are hidden. If they are not hidden, they appear as

(diff) (hist) . . mb Wikipedia:Articles for creation/2006-04-16‎; 03:40 . . (+385) . . Mr.Z-bot (Talk | contribs) (Linking article categories and templates, substituting AFC templates and unsigned)

The "mb" indicating that it is a minor, bot edit. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 16:27, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Doh! You are correct. My hide/show bot edits was set to show. --JWSchmidt 17:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Have you considered cleaning out your watchlist? I haven't even gotten to the 2007 archives yet. The ones I'm working on now are a year old. Mr.Z-mantalk¢ 18:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Crying of lot 49.jpg

Hello, JWSchmidt. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Crying of lot 49.jpg) was found at the following location: User:JWSchmidt/Art Gallery. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 23:12, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:TheCryingofLot491967paperback.JPG

Hello JWSchmidt, an automated process has found an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, such as fair use. The image (Image:TheCryingofLot491967paperback.JPG) was found at the following location: User:JWSchmidt/Art Gallery. This image or media will be removed per statement number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. The image that was replaced will not be automatically deleted, but it could be deleted at a later date. Articles using the same image should not be affected by my edits. I ask you to please not re-add the image to your userpage and could consider finding a replacement image licensed under either the Creative Commons or GFDL license or released to the public domain. Thanks for your attention and cooperation. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:54, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Evolution of photosynthesis

Just so you know, I've modified your March 2004 image displaying the evolutionary path of photosynthesis in bacteria. DS 13:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

puberty

I did not understand how you thought Val's paper disagreed with the article, as it does not seem to address the mechanism for the sex difference in adult heights, which was where you put the fact request tag. If you can explain, I can probably explain, and make our article clearer. alteripse 00:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Onechectomy

I saw you are in the Animal Rights WP and was wondering if you are against Declawing animals or Onychectomy? The userbox is located at {{User:PatPeter/User nocatdeclaw}}

So just copy the title as you are viewing and put it with the {{ }} and w/o the [[ ]] to your userpage. -PatPeter 18:24, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Me in your sandbox

Hi, just wondering why I appeared in a checkuser line in your sandbox about a year ago. Was merely editing a few Brandt-related articles around that time enough to draw suspicion? I can assure you that I have no other/previous accounts. Maybe you could remove me from your list, you have me associated with some pretty...distinguished...company there. Cheers, heqs ·:. 14:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Image:Sequencing.jpg

Hi JWSchmidt,

I saw how a link to genetic sequencing was shown on the front page of Wikipedia. I saw your picture of Image:Sequencing.jpg. Would you have the original picture, without the coloured text and lines? The diagonal lines that connect to the coloured text are a little pixelated, but I could fix it if you like.

Thanks, Michael2 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Indole-3-carbinol

Hello, JWSchmidt - I've just made significant contributions to the Indole-3-carbinol article. It was pretty sparse before. While I'm a scientist and engineer, and (almost) and expert in nutrition, cellular biology is not my strong suit. If you would, please read the sections I've added (starting with the second sentence, "Controlled studies have been performed ..." and ending in "The G1 phase is marked by synthesis...", plus the footnotes; and particularly the 2nd para.) and make any corrections, if they are needed. Especially, please scrutinize my contributions regarding cellular activity. I believe it is all correct but want to make sure. Thanks! -- Gekritzl 22:16, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Very nice, and well done. Yes, I agree with your ideas, thanks. The article was so sparse when I came across it, and indole-3-carbinol seems so promising, we should add all notable studies and facts. Thanks again for your input. -- Gekritzl 11:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Crick

"Crick has been the subject of a huge number of biographical works published by professional biographers (or close acquaintances) in books and journals that have editorial oversight and fact checking." Can I have a list of them all please as soon as possible? Preferably here

Martin

91.108.19.133 18:21, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Ha ha. Nothing to it. Just let me grab my magic wand. --JWSchmidt 19:26, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi John, you know perfectly well that there has only been the ONE biography to date, so why did you bother to exaggerate? (I guess you must have finally finished reading it at last!) As for "editorial oversight and fact checking", what about Horace Freeland Judson's amazing review of Matt Ridley's book in "Nature" last October? So I won't hold my breath for your list after all. I am bemused by the thought of you grabbing 'my magic wand', are you a Harry Potter fan? Fortunately Bob Olby's book - the definitive, scientific biography will give you something to get your teeth into and to interpolate into your article, once published by CSHL Press..surely there must be something from Matt Ridley's book still worth recording into your article?

Martin

91.108.21.79

John, I am so sorry to have to publicly pick on you again on this point: "There are few biologists with more published biographical information about them than exists for Crick." but there simply is NOT! There is only Matt Ridley's short biography from last year, so where is the rest? And to be brutally honest, there are a lot of useful references from "Francis Crick: Discoverer of the Genetic Code" which could be added to 'your' (I know it's not really your's) article, which for whatever reason you have chosen not to. This debate reminds me of Alun/Wobble and 'his' article on Rosalind Franklin - from which he has now retired as it were. Incidentally I do know the almost authoritative answer on the LSD question, but it is not for publication here. The whole LSD issue is grossly overrated in my opinion and debate should cease! Far better to spend your time re-reading Matt Ridley's recent biography of Francis Crick please and improving the article? Martin

Nitramrekcap —The preceding signed but undated comment was added at 15:21, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Lay off the personal attacks John, either on "public" forums or on individual users' talk pages. Hostility does not lend itself to collaborative and productive working. I edit in good faith, and I challenge you to demonstrate otherwise- you won't be able to. If you continue with these attacks, or if they escalate, I will certainly be taking further steps. Hopefully that won't be necessary and we can work together. I believe the various discussions are providing fruitful new avenues to explore by way of a compromise. Badgerpatrol 17:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Specifically (not an exhaustive list):

• Until you address these deficiencies in your editing, I will continue...
• I'd be happy to let the Arbitration Committee decide if you are suited for editing this article.
• User:Badgerpatrol has demonstrated a skill for cherry-picking sensationalized gossip from opinion pieces and other unreliable sources...
• User:Badgerpatrol refuses to address these issues there, apparently preferring to come here to forum shop...
• User:Badgerpatrol's approach to editing the "Involvement with psychedelic drugs" section of the Francis Crick article has been an unproductive waste of time...
• The refusal by User:Badgerpatrol to participate in a reasoned and responsible effort to make informed decisions...
• If this "news" source had editorial integrity then I think it would now retract the absurd story it published. This is the caliber of editorial oversight that User:Badgerpatrol brings to Wikipedia ...
• I suggest that User:Badgerpatrol take this crusade to a new Wikipedia page, Sensationalized, absurd and refuted claims about drug use by famous people....
• I agree, but the collaborative editing process has to play itself out. Sadly, Wikipedia is swarming with editors who make it difficult to improve the encyclopedia...

All of those are unwarranted (and factually inaccurate) ad hominem jibes that manifestly do not conform to Wikipedia's policies on site decorum (e.g. WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA). As an experienced editor, I doubt if you genuinely need to be told this - I invite you to canvass the opinions of any other reasonable, experienced and impartial editors, who I strongly suspect will agree with me. Please desist from ad hominem attacks and other PAs. Such an unnecessary distraction and escalation of this honest content dispute really is an unproductive waste of time. I have tried at all times to concentrate on improving the article, I have tried to compromise and be conciliatory, and I have where possible solicited and acted upon the views of the wider community in an effort to build consensus and work towards a lasting compromise. Please show some effort in reciprocation and I hope we can bring this episode to a mutually agreeable conclusion. Badgerpatrol 23:04, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

John/Badgerpatrol - can one safely assume that this debate is now well and truly over please?

91.108.63.96 18:17, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Why 10 dimensions?

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but all Wikipedia articles must meet our criteria for inclusion (see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Since it does not seem that Why 10 dimensions? meets these criteria, an editor has started a discussion about whether this article should be kept or deleted.

Your opinion on whether this article meets the inclusion criteria is welcome. Please contribute to the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Why 10 dimensions?. Don't forget to add four tildes (~~~~) at the end of each of your comments to sign them.

Discussions such as these usually last five days. In the meantime, you are free to edit the content of the article. Please do not remove the "articles for deletion" template (the box at the top). When the discussion has concluded, a neutral third party will consider all comments and decide whether or not to delete the article. --h2g2bob (talk) 17:10, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

I've put the article on Oxidative phosphorylation up for FA. Any comments or suggestions at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Oxidative phosphorylation would be very welcome. All the best Tim Vickers 20:24, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

John,

Sorry I forgot your e-mail address, but please see:

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=546341

Keep up the good work, my friend! NIL DESPARANDUM CARBORUNDUM!!

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 18:14, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

Cell membrane

The Cell membrane article received heavy editing today by new/unregistered users, which I noticed at WikiRage.com. The article may benefit from a good review. According to Wikipedia Page History Statistics, you are one of the top contributors to that page. If you have the time, would you please read over the article and make any necessary changes. Thanks. -- Jreferee ^(Talk) 08:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

MCOTW

JFW | T@lk 12:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

MY REPLY TO BADGERPATROL, JOHN

Why did you copy this template [1] on to John Schmidt's talk page? Badgerpatrol 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not "BADGERPATROL", I was trying to moderate this overheated debate over FHCC and LSD, which to me seems pretty pointless. The heated discussion says more about Wikipedia and the poor relationship between you (whoever you are) and John Schmidt, than FHCC/LSD by the way.

Although I naturally support John's views as I think he has done more than anyone to create the Francis Crick article - in the same way as Alun and REF - what must non-Wikipedians think of this argument? I hate to think! I hope John can be allowed to respond to your last response and then go to Arbitration over the whole issue rather than dragging Wikipedia's name and FHCC's reputation through the mud. I have had arguments over REF with Alun but respect his commitment to the REF article, unfortunately I cannot say the same of yourself in the same way as for FHCC.

As a distinguished, old friend of mine says to me "ENOUGH!"; alternatively 'get a life'? Martin

ps Bob Olby's biography of FHCC is scheduled for February 2008 by the way, with an entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography before then; did you ever finish Ridley's biography?

Consciousness Banished

Please note the difference between verifying that someone has claimed XYZ, and verifying XYZ itself. The article on the Flat Earth society quite legitimately states that they believe the Earth is flat. It does not need a reference to the effect that the Earth is flat. 1Z 17:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Benedict's reagent

Hi

I've reverted your edit [2] to this article because we try to avoid being a guidebook or manual, per WP:NOT. If you disagree, let's discuss in Talk:Benedict's reagent. --Rifleman 82 17:37, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Your response here was not particularly helpful: please read Wikipedia:Vandalism for more information on what we consider to be "obvious vandalism". Physchim62 (talk) 20:14, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Archimedes Plutonium

Why are you reverting a nice, respectful page on a gentle eccentric who is an inspiration to thousands of people? He is more notable than "lonelygirl15", and she has a page. There is no sense in which a page on "flat earth" or on "archimedes plutonium" gives thier views any more or any less credibility.Likebox 16:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that you have never seen evidence that Archimedes Plutonium is worthy of a wikipedia article. How about Brittany Spears? How about Thurston Moore? He is a minor celebrity in his own world, and he is a role-model for me personally. his "Plutonium Integers" inspired me to go and study mathematical logic. There are consistent models of arithmetic where some of his crazy-sounding ideas are correct, although not all of them. Many other people have called him a "legend", a "notable crank", and a "usenet celebrity". As for unverifiable personal information, that is covered in the Wikipedia guidelines on Biographies of living persons, and I adhered to them. I am sure it will be no problem to make sure these standards are adhered to in the future. I believe that a person with so much original thinking and such a voluminous output will outlive all the rest of us in history.Likebox 18:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

And my advice is that you find out if your opinion is a majority opinion before imposing it on everybody else.Likebox 19:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Obviously, I think you are not improving the encyclopedia, or I wouldn't be debating it. I think you are doing vandalism. There is a very large number of people who agree with me, as is evidenced by the debate on the nomination for delete. I don't know. Maybe there's a large number of people that agree with you. But I'd like to see a vote or a debate on the issue. The nomination for delete was a joke--- the "keep/delete" ratio was at least 2:1.Likebox 20:01, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

That is your personal opinion, and you are perfectly entitled to it. My personal opinion is different. You can't impose your opinion on others, and neither can I. If more people agree with you, by all means, delete. But to make it sound like a matter of objective review is a mischaracterization of the process.Likebox 20:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Why, are you an administrator? If so, just type in "Archimedes Plutonium" on google, and count the reference hits. If people want to find out about this person, where do they go? Be sensible. Just because he's eccentric and print media is sometimes slow to catch on does not mean that he is not notable. He is more notable than "Alexander Abian", who has a page.Likebox 20:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I understand your point better--- you mean the administrator that performed the last review pulled the plug because of his judgement that there were too few reliable sources. There are three essnetial differences now. First, I cited the DISCOVER article, which was not there before. Second, Plutonium himself objected to the page before, because it was so disrespectful. I think the new article is respectful. Third, I stayed away from unverifiable autobiographical information, which littered the old article. This is why I think it deserves a new review.Likebox 20:54, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

nice base-pair images on James D. Watson

Hey, thanks for the base-pair images on James D. Watson. They add a great deal of clarity to the article. A picture is worth a thousand words. -- Terry Carroll 21:11, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical question removal

"I am taking zinc" was what did it. The guy clearly was asking, in earnest or not, whether he couldn't skip the flu shot this time and ride it out on the zinc alone. The question was so idiotic that I believed he needs real help, not the well-intentioned baloney he'd get here, and other idiots reading it might be inclined to skip their shot too if they were tending that way and got an answer that suggested in the slightest that it might be OK to do so. Any answer at all amounts to medical advice, whatever the current thinking in the medical community is about the efficacy of zinc in preventing viral infection. This is all in the assumption of good faith, which is an effort for me at the best of times but is stretched by so asinine a question as Mr. Extreme's. Why do you ask? I would have thought it was obvious. --Milkbreath 14:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I just saw what you put on the user's talk page. What are you doing? You said "this is not true". It is. Your Wikiversity help desk is not the Wikipedia "reference desk". You should read the guidelines at the reference desk before calling me a liar to a third party. --Milkbreath 15:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Your reply to me was meticulously disingenuous, and your message to the user was irresponsible and mendacious. I feel no urge to answer your point-by-point. My justification for removing the question will stand on its own merit in any open forum. I have lost interest in your opinion on the matter and will not discuss it with you further one-on-one. --Milkbreath 15:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

tabs info

(Here's a copy of my reply on my talk page) I don't think there is anything like Wikipedia:Portal/Instructions for tabs. The only documentation I know of is the code itself of each portal and the comments in the code. When I made the tabs on Portal:Free software, I copied the code and comments from other Wikipedia:Featured portals that had tabs. I think I managed to simplify the system a little and I think I added a little bit of extra commentary, but that's as good as it gets. Tabs are a pain to set up, but once they're done, they never need maintenance, so they're worth doing. Hope that helps. --Gronky 21:26, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Two Years Richer...

Not sure you did what you intended to do with this article... NeilN 05:44, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks like you did - sorry, never seen that type of protection before. Usually pages are salted to prevent re-creation. --NeilN 05:52, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Protected deleted pages. Hope this helps. --NeilN 06:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

And here Wikipedia:Protected titles --NeilN 06:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Enzyme kinetics

Thanks for the explanation about its spate of vandalism. I don't always check the main page, and I had thought that people simply had an upcoming exam. Thanks again. --Kyoko 15:01, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI notice

Just a note. You're being mentioned at ANI. I assume it's related to Sadi but I think the rollback or whatever you are using isn't working right. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I had reported you at WP:AIV and WP:ANI since i was am to vandal procedure, and not aware that you are an admin. But what led to my confusion was rather misleading edit summaries. You seemed to be rolling back article to very old versions, that too to many unconnected articles. Could you please explain your edits? Regards. Lara_bran 10:46, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I know why you're reverting, but are you throwing the baby out with the bathwater with some of these edits? Would it be easier just to edit out the rubbish Sadi Carnot added, rather than revert all the good faith edits everyone else made? The reverts are also losing most of the interwikis, categorisation, etc, that's been done. Neil ☎ 11:07, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi there

A proposal to make the kind of discussion I've been struggling through on the Enzyme kinetics talk page a bit simpler to conduct is at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style#Units_of_measurement, I would be very grateful if you would comment. Tim Vickers 16:59, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello, An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, David Mestel^(Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC) David Mestel^(Talk) 19:19, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

RFC: Speciesism on discrimination template

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Discrimination#RFC:_deciding_if_specieism_should_be_in_the_template

Hi I thought you might be interested in commenting on this request for comment. -- Librarianofages 03:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Medical advice on the Ref Desk

JWS, could you please participate in the discussion on the Ref Desk talk page? There's no reason to continue the metadiscussion on the Desk itself. It gets in the way of the function of the Desk, and fewer people will see or consider your comments when they're in the wrong place. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades(talk) 18:27, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cell Signaling

Hi there. I see you've participated before on WikiProject Cell Signaling. If you still have an interest in Cell signaling, you might like to know the project has been revived. If you'd like to participate again, please do. If that field is too broad, feel free to create mini-projects or task forces dealing with whatever focused subject you feel comfortable with. Biochemza, 13:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Corticospinal tract

Hi JWSchmidt! Thank you so much for all answers you give me on the Science Reference desk. I have added some of the information you explained for me on Corticospinal tract. For most statements I found a proper reference, but for one of them I referenced to the discussion instead - for want of better. Maybe you can change this into a proper reference? Thank you! Lova Falk 19:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Your edits to Wikiversity

I am concerned by your recent edit to the Wikiversity article, which included as an edit summary an accusation of trolling on my part. Wikipedia has a specific policy on trolling, WP:TROLL, which defines the behaviour as "deliberate and intentional attempts to disrupt the usability of Wikipedia for its editors, administrators, developers, and other people who work to create content for and help run Wikipedia." I added a notability template to the article because, in violation of WP:N, the article does not assert its notability. It is standard practice to tag Wikipedia articles which lack assertions of notability so as to protect worthy articles from being deleted; my edit was entirely in the spirit of advancing the encyclopedia. You may not be aware, but Wikipedia has a policy of assuming good faith; I encourage you to familiarise yourself with it so that you may avoid difficulties in the future. Let me know if you need any help with any of the above, I realise it can be a little overwhelming at times to keep track of all the relevant policies. Best of luck, Skomorokh ^incite 17:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems this article is a bit of a hot button for you. The rest of your edit summaries seem perfectly civil, [3]. I'll remind you again to read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA.--Crossmr (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made my point about why I feel those templates are appropriate to the article. If you'd like to discuss them civilly, I'd recommend doing so at the article talk page. The "mission" not withstanding, it doesn't exempt an article related to the foundation from the same standards as any other article.--Crossmr (talk) 05:50, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to discuss the article civilly, feel free, otherwise, happy editing.--Crossmr (talk) 06:10, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. I added the comment back under my own name. Inadvertant deletion of my comment. I meant to replace it with my signature since I was at a friend's computer. Landerman56 (talk) 14:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

'bad police'

If you'd like to discuss the validity of a block I make, I would be glad to do so. Claiming that my block is bad, or that I a member of some 'bad police', without contacting me, seems misguided. — Carl (CBM · talk) 17:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Carl Sagan

Because it was vandalism. It was random and unsourced. Imasleepviking ( talk ) 20:36, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I can't believe we're having this discussion. It was clearly vandalism, and just in case, I checked the article and it said nothing about small. Therefore vandalism. Don't be so quick to trust random additions just because they seem sensible.Imasleepviking ( talk ) 01:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

WikBack

Thanks for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts. If someone other than you registered in your name (or if you have no idea what this is about), please let me know immediately as it may be an imposter. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 01:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for checking. I did register at the WikBack forums system. --JWSchmidt (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)