User talk:Antony-22/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

DYK nomination of Space policy

Hello! Your submission of Space policy at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Dravecky (talk) 10:17, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Space policy

—HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 06:02, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Professor Fine's class

Hi Anthony, I have "talked" with Dominic and also my mentor about my subject. I have considered airport racial profiling for my article and when I did some searching on Wikipedia it does state that I can create a new article. I guess I'm confused on what I can and cannot write? Before I start my research, I thought I should check with you first for any thoughts. Dabenson (talk) 22:58, 10 February 2011 (UTC)denise

Hi Denise! The "you may create the page" message is a standard one that always pops up when you search for an article that doesn't exist. I think something like Racial profiling in airport security would be a good candidate, being that the article Racial profiling doesn't talk about airport security, and vice versa. There is a short related article Flying while Muslim, which has a lot of discussion on its talk page, which makes me a bit worried that this would be a controversial topic. If you do choose to write this article, it will be especially important that you stick to neutral, reliable sources and avoid original research. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:55, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Space policy of the United States

Materialscientist (talk) 06:02, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Nice job on the U.S. Federal Budget article

Hello Antony: Thanks for doing a great job editing the article; never looked better.Farcaster (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thank you! That article was actually fairly organized and well-written, just really long, which makes this kind of rearrangement much easier. Of course, there's still more work to be done.... Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:13, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for archiving, etc.

Due to a brain f@rt, I missed the archive move on Talk:Molecular electronics and have put a note about it on the page so others don't make the same silly mistake. Nucleophilic (talk) 14:30, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

Barnstar

		Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar
		For making a cool, happy template, {{New user article}}, for marking students' new articles and trying to prevent them from being bitten, I award Antony-22 this Wikipedia Ambassador Barnstar. Thanks! Sage Ross - Online Facilitator, Wikimedia Foundation (talk) 15:57, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Yay! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:42, 10 March 2011 (UTC)

Tax

Dear Antony-22, my content forks to new articles rather than existing articles were quite intentional. Many tax articles are cluttered with very minor points and short on coverage of concepts. You're a chemist. Consider if the article Chemistry had 10k on purity levels of laboratory chemicals (reagent grade, etc) but was missing anything on equilibrium or bonding. This is the condition several of us are trying to remedy in the tax area. Please consider the level of detail when moving detailed forked material back to a broad article. Regards, Oldtaxguy (talk) 02:34, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Saying hi

Hi J, I saw your post over at Talk:Benefits for United States veterans with post-traumatic stress disorder and that reminded me to drop by. I'm involved with planning Wikimania 2012 (in DC, hope you can make it). Did you get to FNANO this year, or other interesting conferences? I get the sense that a lot is being accomplished in a short time. - Dank (push to talk) 19:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I just heard about the news this weekend about Wikimania in DC, sounds exciting and I'll definitely be there! I didn't get to go to FNANO this year but I did hit the Biophysical Society conference in Baltimore last month instead.

Funny you should drop by just at this moment. I was actually about to drop you a line because two of my articles are up for peer review right now, DNA nanotechnology (review page) and Nucleic acid design (review page), and I'd be happy if you could give any feedback on them. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'll reply at the two review pages. - Dank (push to talk) 02:32, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for Foresight Nanotech Institute Feynman Prize

Materialscientist (talk) 18:03, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DYK for 2012 United States federal budget

The DYK project (nominate) 00:04, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions!

Thanks so much for all of the suggestions for improvement of the satellite cell (glial) page. My group mates and I will be working to improve the article further this week. One question though- I liked the idea of changing the title of the article to remove the parentheses-- how would I go about this since we didn't make the page to begin with, but have edited it from its original stub form? Thanks! LaurenMalishchak (talk) 03:16, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy they were helpful! To move a page (i.e. change its title), look for the down arrow to the right of the "Edit" and "View history" tabs, this should bring up a menu that says "Move". Anyone can move a page; for heavily-edited pages it's usually a good idea to post a note on the article's talk page to see if there are any objections within a few days, but in your case your group seems to be the only real editors so I'd say you can just go ahead and move the page now. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:16, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Would this be useful List of climate change initiatives for Regional climate change initiatives in the United States ...

Would this be useful List of climate change initiatives for Regional climate change initiatives in the United States ... and Climate change policy of the United States and Climate change in the United States. I am looking forward to reading what you have done. Happy editing. 209.255.78.138 (talk) 21:00, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Further reading in DNA nanotech

It is a gray area, and the major issue is this: once such list is indiscriminate, authors will fill it up (because it is the easiest way to promote their recent article; recent examples "A very thorough review of DNA systems.."; "A good review" - their good is my bad). Allowing paywalled items in refs is one thing and in further reading is another - hard to evaluate whether it is suitable there - who has access to them all? I don't. Many editors follow a hard line - no further reading at all; wikipedia article should provide information supported by references, not a collection of inaccessible links. Materialscientist (talk) 07:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't meant to be an indiscriminate list of all papers, it's a limited collection of reviews and books that someone interested in learning about the field would find to be accessible and helpful. Which sources should be included is of course subject to editor review, and I have no problem removing individual items that are inappropriate. Your point about editorializing in the comments is a good one, but that can be fixed with a quick copyedit rather than removing the whole section.

As far as the external links, inclusion of links to groups was discussed at the recent peer review, and I was going to cut that down to groups that are actually mentioned in the article (all of whom are referenced from secondary sources in the History section). There are one or two more links I think are useful but cleaning out the rest is probably a good thing. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

It is very hard to keep new editors from adding new group links, new reviews, etc., when they see examples in the article, especially an article on nanotechnology where the sources are so many. There is one more thing to consider: editors are not graded on WP, meaning you can not put yourself in a position of judging which journal review should be there and which not - we can only go by secondary sources which recommend a review or maybe by number of citations on Web of Science. Links to group pages are discouraged if they provide no educational information which could expand the content of the article - it does not really matter if the group is mentioned in the article (normally it shouldn't). Materialscientist (talk) 00:26, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I was just seeing the same kind of problem on ANI concerning Evolutionary psychology. Wikipedians' ideas of what should and shouldn't be mentioned are so different from professors' and students' ideas that we wind up pushing many of the gifted ones away. Antony, I think the kinds of objections Materialscientist is raising are going to be multiplied at FAC. Support would help ... do you know anyone else in DNA nanotechnology who considers themselves a part-time Wikipedian, or might be interested? - Dank (push to talk) 01:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Materialscientist: I can live without the external links to the groups; I suppose people can get the links through Google them if they're interested. For further reading, just because vigilance and discretion is required to maintain the section doesn't mean that the whole section should be omitted. Reviews and book chapters are already considered secondary sources, so we don't need yet another source to show that they are notable; the MOS specifically refers to "editor-recommended publications" so editor discretion is sufficient for this section. Also, DNA nanotechnology is a fairly small field, and I would guess that there are tens, not hundreds, of available reviews to choose from.

In my mind the quality of the article is more related to whether non-specialists and laypeople can gain some understanding of the article's subject by reading it, rather than finely combing what ought to be in the further reading or external links. Of course the latter should follow guidelines and be improved, but what I really want a PR or FAC to focus on is suggestions for improving the former. If style issues are emphasized over content, it strikes me as being a color of the bike shed kind of situation.

Dank: I did ask my (real-life) colleagues for feedback, but none of them are Wikipedians AFAIK, so that won't help at FAC. I know maybe two or three Wikipedians who are biologists who might have some insight though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:52, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

In the sense you're defining it in this article, that's true, and that will help a lot ... as long as we can get people to agree that the narrow definition is the appropriate one for the article. - Dank (push to talk) 20:56, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

"DNA nanotechnology" is a term that's been consistently used in the literature to refer to a fairly specific body of work. It's completely unlike the term "nanotechnology" in that sense. The definition I've used in this article is based on what the secondary sources say. If it's used in a different way in some source I'm not familiar with, I'm happy to take a look at it and add it to the article if appropriate. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 06:26, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

On an irrelevant note, nanotech articles are in a disastrous state on wikipedia, wherein information is dumped by numerous newcomers, and apart from vandalism/spam reverts, few editors do anything useful there (me included). Thus frankly, I was glad to see your work. It would be great if you kept going. FAC is known as an exhausting process where lots of time will be wasted on all sorts of silly formatting (caps/no caps, dots/no dots after initials, etc.) yet factual problems will be missed. I would recommend DYK (fast, wide exposure for 6 hrs granting some copyedit and comments on the talk page, etc.) and GAN (slow, but sometimes thorough). I am nearly ignorant in biology (DNA-wise), but would help where I can (never mind my cleanups :) Materialscientist (talk) 06:45, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

What he said ... except that FAC has become more manageable recently for many types of articles, and I think this is one that would do quite well at FAC. I do a lot of prose and MOS reviews at FAC. - Dank (push to talk) 11:20, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

I had kinda expected that there would be a lot of style nitpicking, and I can deal with it for this article. I'll certainly keep going regardless of out this FAC turns out, and your cleanup edits are certainly appreciated, Materialscientist.  :) Most of my previous work on nanotechnology articles has been reorganizing existing content, improving start- and very bad C-class articles into articles on the C/B threshold. I've been doing more content creation lately and have gotten a bunch of DYK's.

There really ought to be a nanotech WikiProject; of the 29 articles in Template:Nanotechnology, 12 are part of no WikiProject at all, and the rest are covered by a hodgepodge of twelve different WikiProjects, of which none covers more than 6 of those articles. The lack of attention and consistency definitely shows in the quality of the articles. I've thought many times of trying to get such a WikiProject together myself, but I just haven't gotten around to it yet. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:48, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

I know. We've got no real materials science or spectroscopy project either. Too many projects will scatter participants - they are too few in our fields. WP:CHEMS (and sometimes WP:PHYS) currently cover most mat. sci. and nanotech topics. Some areas are covered by a few experienced editors only (like geology, metals/alloys, etc), and it is often easier to talk directly, or at the article talk page. As to rearranging, keep in mind that most nanotech articles are poorly watched and thus the original information is mostly from newcomers (self-advertisements, transient news, etc.), not from encyclopedia builders. Materialscientist (talk) 04:05, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

Please take the Wikipedia Ambassador Program survey

Hi Ambassador,

We are at a pivotal point in the development of the Wikipedia Ambassador Program. Your feedback will help shape the program and role of Ambassadors in the future. Please take this 10 minute survey to help inform and improve the Wikipedia Ambassadors.

WMF will de-identify results and make them available to you. According to KwikSurveys' privacy policy: "Data and email addresses will not be sold, rented, leased or disclosed to 3rd parties." This link takes you to the online survey: http://kwiksurveys.com?u=WPAmbassador_talk

Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments, Thank You!

Amy Roth (Research Analyst, Public Policy Initiative) (talk) 20:35, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

xkcd

Why are you changing otherwise acceptable pages to pander to users of some webcomic?

We didn't accept it when Stephen Colbert told his followers to vandalize wikipedia, and we shouldn't accept your philistine idiocy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.189.154.1 (talk) 13:51, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

You misunderstand the point. No negative edits have been made by me, only constructive ones. If a few constructive edits are made as a result of a webcomic's topic, it's not exactly idiocy. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 17:33, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

Ocean acidification misunderstandings with chemistry, carbon, and the usage of organic and inorganic ...

How do I get an editor who understands the difference between organic (carbon in molecule) and inorganic in Chemistry, and "organic" and inorganic"'s other current means in the article Ocean acidification. Two editors are editing the article inaccurately to say "inorganic carbon cycle", which is impossible as a carbon cycle would have carbon in some molecules. Is there a list of editors to call-in who understand this? If you don't know, do you know who might? 99.43.139.176 (talk) 02:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Not all carbon-containing compounds are organic (in the chemical sense). Notably, carbon dioxide and carbonate ions are considered to be inorganic compounds, mostly for historical reasons. I'll take a look at the article and see if I can clear things up. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:19, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for you input, please see Talk:Ocean_acidification#.22Inorganic_carbon_cycle.22_can_only_mean_carbon_not_from_living_organisms_... also. 99.109.124.21 (talk) 03:54, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Since you have science background, how is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries?

Since you have science background, how is Notability determined, regarding Talk:Planetary boundaries? 99.181.136.39 (talk) 03:24, 28 May 2011 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10