User talk:Lexor/Archive Apr 2004-Jul 2005

adminship

Lexor, A concensus has been reached by your peers that you should be an admin. I have made it so. Please review Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and keep up the great work. Sincerely, Kingturtle 16:34, 12 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Kingturtle (and others), thanks for the vote of confidence. I accept the sysop reluctantly (and belatedly!) and will use it wisely. Actually, to be honest, I would rather not have to use it all, I really want it to delete REDIRECTs, such as when a page needs to be moved and a REDIRECT exists and that kind of thing. If I could do that without sysop privileges, that would be enough for me. After a while I might ask to be de-sysoped, it that's OK. Lexor|Talk 11:11, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lexor, welcome back! I just thought I'd point out the When should we delete a redirect? page as you mentioned deleting them after page moves, which is not often done. Don't worry about not wanting to use your sysop access; it isn't compulsory. :) But if you ever do feel you want to give it up anyway, the new page for that is m:requests for permissions. Angela. 18:51, Apr 16, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Angela, I guess I wasn't too clear in my description above, actually I was referring to deleting redirects before page moves. For example breaks to breakbeat: I first deleted the breakbeat redirect (which I originally created, so it had only one history item), because prevented me moving the page to that name, the I moved breaks to breakbeat, to preserve the history of the (originally titled) breaks article. According to the policy you sent me, that's OK because I'm creating a new article at the (old) redirect. I am not deleting the new redirect that is created by the move, just to be clear. Lexor|Talk 00:40, 17 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Oh, that makes sense. Yeah, it's fine to do that. :) Angela. 07:18, Apr 19, 2004 (UTC)

Nice vandal catch

I see you finished reverting the deletions by 67.81.4.153 for me. Would have gotten to the rest first, but am lagging badly. Thanks! - FunnyMan 22:49, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Another vandal of dubious commercial origins

I also see that you've been tracking the quasi-spam efforts of User:67.20.14.42. I just happened upon the very commercial link he/she/it made on Viagra and fixed accordingly. I'm tracking down the other pages this user's edited now. -- User:Alcarillo 22:00 22 Apr 2004 UTC

Page footers

Hi Lexor, excuse me for my bad English, I'm Italian. Today morning I had change the width of a few page footers, because I think is better. Please see how would be better Genetics if the length is equal. Moreover when the page is graphically not balanced the length serves to balance visually it (see for example [1]. If you want, please, put this point of view in discussion page. For me wolud be very laborious because the language. Best Regards--Archenzo 12:28, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

OK, but it would be nice to have a consistent site-wide look and feel, for this reason I suggest you suggest this on Wikipedia talk:Page footers. ---Lexor|Talk 12:38, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Evolution

See you there? Were you just trying to talk to me? Duncharris 16:36, May 4, 2004 (UTC)

I just moved the discussion threads to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Evolutionary biology. --Lexor|Talk 16:39, 4 May 2004 (UTC)

Lexor, mutation creates the variation on which selection and drift can act, but it will never produce a change that is statistically significant. Of course, mutation should be mentioned in an article on natural selection, but it shouldn't be at the top.

Yes, you are correct, but my point is that it is still considered one of the mechanisms of evolution, and textbook on evolution or population genetics will refer to it in this manner, so it is incorrect to remove it as a mechanism of evolution. It is the "ultimate" source of variation upon which selection can act. Remember evolution can still be neutral, it is simply change in allele frequencies, whether than results in phenotypic changes is a different issue, but it is still evolution. This is one of the common misunderstandings in the general public's understanding of what evolution means. --Lexor|Talk 23:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to find it in the index to creationist claims, the best I can find is Mutations are accidents, and things don't get built by accident.

That is correct, but evolution doesn't necessarily mean getting more complex or being "built", it simply means change. --Lexor|Talk 14:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

I think it should make clear that mutation only effectively creates variation, and that selection, drift and migration are all much stronger. In terms of the abstract at the top, this is particularly important as it is important not to confuse readers. The power of mutations should be discussed however. Duncharris 12:10, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

Feel free to reword the intro to avoid having to mention mutation right off the bat, but in any sentence that mentions a list of mechanisms of evolution, mutation should be there, perhaps you could reword the para to not use that phrase. --Lexor|Talk 14:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

What do you want to do with this project, no-one seems to be signing up! The top level articles need some work. gene flow was particularly horrible, and claimed it never happened in humans. Should I descend a population genetics and put in guidelines on presentation (e.g. allele emboldened?) Duncharris 15:55, May 7, 2004 (UTC)

I wouldn't create a new WikiProject for pop genetics at this point, it might be overkill, it should be enough to deal with it under evolutionary biology. It may take a while before people sign up, 168... used to contribute a fair bit, but s/he is now gone from the project, perhaps leave a message on the talk page of Slrubenstein, as he also used to contribute a fair bit. --Lexor|Talk 23:23, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

Will do.Duncharris 12:10, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

I actually left a message on SLR's page already. Perhaps you could ask Steinsky, he runs the EvoWiki in any case, and may be willing to cross-license his contributions back to wikipedia under the GFDL. --Lexor|Talk 14:30, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

You cheeky bugger, you did it for me ;). Yes, the evowiki might be a source, as might the talk.origins archive. The problem with both of them though is that they go off on anti-creationist rants, whereas Wikipedia should generally ignore their nonsense unless they are particularly relevant. And there should be a cross-agreement to incorporate the wiki into the evowiki. Duncharris 17:30, May 8, 2004 (UTC)

---

Thanks for the invite concerning the wikiproject; I'd like to be involved. Right now though I have an article to revise and a book chapter to write so I am especially swamped, but I will check out the site soon, Slrubenstein

Expansion

Re operator, I think that the expansion after the pipe trick is automatic. (ie [[blah (category)|]] is automatically expanded to [[blah (category)|blah]]) Dysprosia 12:48, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed! I went back and ran a diff between my edit and your last edit and it was blank! That's new. When did they enable that? --Lexor|Talk 12:57, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

It's been a while, I think. I noticed it since I first got started on Wikibooks, which was pretty much just a short while after its inception, and they use the same software here, so... Dysprosia 13:19, 13 May 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionary Biology

Thanks for letting me know about the project. I'll swing by from time-to-time - much as I'm pretty glad to be out of the world of acadaemia, I still find a lot of evolutionary topics interesting... in fact, I notice that inclusive fitness still needs to be written, and that appeals quite a lot.

And thanks for the kind words about evolution of sex - it might be a bit out of date, as I haven't really followed the field since I tutored it during my postgrad days... but I don't think it's a particularly fast-moving subject. As I recall, Kondrashov's paper was a fairly big deal when it was published because there hadn't been many new theories for so long. - MykReeve 18:29, 18 May 2004 (UTC)

Mike, Sorry for the delay in responding. I know what you mean about academia, feel free to contribute where you can. --Lexor|Talk 13:53, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Quick delete job

Lexor, can you delete the redirect heredity and then move hereditary there please? Duncharris 20:50, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Lexor|Talk 22:10, 19 May 2004 (UTC)

Eating

Lexor, are you around?

we've got problems with eating, nutrition (POV towards H. sapiens) and I need somewhere to redirect phagy, polyphagy, phytophagy to. Any ideas? Dunc Harris | Talk 22:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hi Duncan, just got back. I'll try to have a look at those articles you mentioned. --Lexor|Talk 13:51, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Colors & Tables

I left the colors for a few minutes, logged off and then realized I went too far putting the entire article in three different tables/bgcolors. BF

nucleotides

Hi, I noticed you just added adenine, guanine, cytosine, thymine and uracil to Category:Nucleotides. Shouldn't these rather go to Category:Nitrogenous bases? And Category:Nucleotides be reserved for nucleoside phosphates, AMP, GTP and the like? -- Fuelbottle | Talk 09:05, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I didn't add cytosine, it was already there, but I added the others, but I'm no chemist, I always thought that the base pairs were nucleotides, at least in common biology parlance (and in the wikipedia article), hence in the common expression, "nucleotide sequence", when referring to ATGCCCA etc. I guess the finer points matter whether you're a biologist or chemist. I've never heard AMP, GTP referred to as nucleotides, though. --Lexor|Talk 13:11, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

OK, I think I see now, the adenine etc. are the base pairs between the rungs, but the nucleotide is the part of the DNA that includes the base pair bound to the ribose and the phosphate group, so it's a superset of the base itself. Feel free to correct away, although it might be a good idea to note the common confusion in the editable part of the category page. --Lexor|Talk 13:23, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think it's both a nitrogenous base and a nucleotide. I think that the difference is that there are other nitrogenous bases that aren't nucleotides. They get used in cellular synthesis of ATGC&U. Somewhere out there is a Biochem prof that expects me to remember some of their names, but she's out of luck on this one. --Cladist

Genesis '88

Hey Lexor.. no offense but stick to subjects you know or were there for. please stop modifying anything other than formatting on Genesis' 88. stylistic formating changes are ok but please do not try to remove specific context links unless they are duplicates, we generally have things there for a reason... after all I figure Wayne the guy who created Genesis knows best what goes there ;) User:Alkivar

interdisciplinary team

I disagree with your merge and think it would be better as a stub... but since I'm not going to write about it in my life time I won't revert it. (There is a large body of literature on interdisciplinary teams which is worthy of encyclopaedic examination... particularly in health care.) just thought i'd let you know. best wishes Erich 13:13, 13 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Move

Hi, I think The Descent of Man should be moved into its redirect The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to Sex as that also emphasises the most of the book that is on sexual selection. Dunc_Harris|☺ 10:21, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Lexor|Talk 10:25, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

non-coding RNA

Hi Lexor, sorry about that. Thanks for the info & for cleaning up after my ignorance. Zashaw 21:44, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

No problem. Lexor|Talk 02:31, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

dna repair and evolution

you removed the link to evolution giving the reason that all biological processes would also require a similar link. note - the rate of dna repair is inversely proportional to the rate of mutation and consequently rate of evolution. the mechanism of dna repair is intimately concerned with evolution due to mutation. Prometheus1

I don't disagree with you that it's an important process in evolution (and there is a link to the evolution article already), just that it shouldn't necessarily be part of the category, since it's more of cell biological process that has evolutionary implications, although I'm prepared to add it. In any case the category should be Category:Evolutionary biology not Category:Evolution. Maybe we should category Category:Mutation (which would be subcategory of Category:Evolutionary biology) and include other relevant processes relevant to mutation. (Also you can sign your posts by adding four tildes in a row: ~~~~). Cheers --Lexor|Talk 02:29, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I have added the Category:Mutation and have added DNA repair to it. Let me know what you think. Great article, by the way! --Lexor|Talk 02:49, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I agree, evolutionary biology is a more appropriate choice. I think also gerontology, disease, cancer and aging would also be relevant. prometheus1 05:02, 27 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thanx for your support prometheus1 16:08, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

some moves please

Sorry about this. Could you do a couple of moves for me?

• Edmund Brisco Ford to E.B. Ford
• Geoffrey Parker to Geoff Parker

Cheers, Dunc_Harris|☺ 16:30, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. Lexor|Talk 16:35, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The Chemical Brothers

Thanks very much for tidying up the article. I've been planning to go through it for a while now, but never seem to manage to get round to it. It's a big improvement. Lacrimosus 20:50, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

article series template nuisance

I noticed you made this edit so I wondered perhaps you have some extra comments in addition to mine...? I couldn't find much useful information in the documentation for templates. --Joy [shallot] 00:32, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Splicing

Hi Lexor, I noticed youre the last one to edit the splicing page, so I would like to ask you before I will do my suggestions about changes in the page. Generally I would like to add a lot of stuff but there are also some things I am not sure are correct so I ask: How is the spliceosome supposed to take part in capping and polyadenylation?

I must admit the Wiki is a first place I noticed this idea.

Regards User:Wireborne

Hi Wireborne, I'll try and take a look, but might take me a while as I just got back from a wikivacation. Lexor|Talk 11:38, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Hi Lexor - there is no hurry, for me it is a long run case.

OK, I guess you're talking about the Splicing (genetics) page right? The easiest way to proceed is to add your suggested changes to the Talk page: Talk:Splicing (genetics), and we can discuss it there. I'm no expert on splicing by the way, but a good place to start researching is the various books at NCBI: http://ncbi.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=Books (particularly look at Molecular Biology of the Cell by Alberts et al, but don't cut and paste material!). (By the way, you can easily sign your posts on Talk pages by entering four tildes in a row like this: ~~~~~. It will then magically appear with your username and timestamp. Also don't forget to indent your posts see Wikipedia:Talk pages). Lexor|Talk 11:58, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

No wories about pasting from Alberts :-))) Of course I am familiar with the book, it was one of my essential textbook (so without looking in there I can tell that it does not mention involvement of spliceosome in polyA and cap). I will try to check with the original contributor too. Thanx--Wireborne 14:27, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

COTW templates

Thanks for the message on my talk page - Template:CurrentCOTW is for the WP:COTW page and other places, such as user talk pages, to show the current COTW and past COTWs. The template for the actual current COTW is Template:Current-COTW and it goes on the talk page, like Template:COTW which is used to tag candiadates - see Talk:International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Sorry for any confusion, and hope that helps. -- ALoan (Talk) 12:59, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oh, I see. At one stage I remember this used to go on the top of the article not on the Talk page (e.g. when we doing Cairo and other a while ago). I went on wikivacation, so I guess no longer? --Lexor|Talk 13:03, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

I honestly can't remember what went on Talk:Cairo, but I'll check - I suspect it was Template:Current-COTW (with a hyphen). -- ALoan (Talk) 14:12, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I meant it used to go on the article page, not the Talk page. --Lexor|Talk 14:14, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

Ah, well, that was what we did then :) From the history, we put Template:Current AOTW (note the space) on the article page: however, putting messages for editors on the article page has been deprecated recently; the template is now put on the talk page, like the Template:COTW candidate template. Confusing, I know, but at least consistent. -- ALoan (Talk) 14:30, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UK music chart split

I see you're playing around with the List of Number 1 singles (UK) article. Good stuff! Perhaps you'd be interested in joining the further discussion at the talk page and take a look at the new 2004 in music (UK) artice. Cheers. violet/riga (t) 12:11, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did the split because it looked like it needed someone to do it, hope it's all OK. Tks. --Lexor|Talk 12:19, Nov 9, 2004 (UTC)

That'll certainly help when (if?) we change over to the new format. Thanks. violet/riga (t) 12:23, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Model (disambiguation)

Hi Lexor, I think that the Model page is more clear with sections.

Duk 18:47, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nautiloid

Thanks for the thought about merging this and nautilus. You got it right that the one is talking about living and the other is talking about living and extinct. The difference is a little larger - one is talking about a subclass, while one is talking about an order in that subclass. I've added a taxobox and made a few adjustments which should be informative along these lines. The originating author has left Wikipedia with some work left in an unfinished state, such as this article. If you have the inclination, I think some of the info should be moved to nautilus, leaving primarily the information about the extinct animals on nautiloid. Or not and I'll take a whack at it some time later. Also, consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Cephalopods. - UtherSRG 14:45, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started the Free the Rambot Articles Project which has the goals of getting users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to...

1. ...all U.S. state, county, and city articles...
2. ...all articles...

using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) version 1.0 and 2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to the GFDL (which every contribution made to Wikipedia is licensed under), but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles (See the Multi-licensing Guide for more information). Since you are among the top 1000 most active Wikipedians, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles.

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} template (or {{MultiLicensePD}} for public domain) into their user page, but there are other templates for other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace {{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}} with {{MultiLicensePD}}. If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know at my talk page what you think. -- Ram-Man 20:43, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

67.173.59.193

I've blocked 67.173.59.193 for a couple of days. Let me know if he acts up again. It seems like you've dealt with him quite a bit. You may want to clean up or possibly VfD that article on Nico Demonte if you think it's not notable (fails Google test). I've never heard of him and I'm moderately well versed on underground and mainstream electronic music. I don't have the time to keep up with a VfD right now, but I'll voice my opinion on the matter if you end up doing it and drop a note on my talk page. Anyway, let me know how it all turns out no matter what happens. Cheers. CryptoDerk 22:42, Dec 2, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Looks like the user has blanked his/her content on Nico Demonte in any case. In that case, simply wait a few days then delete the article. --Lexor|Talk 10:45, Dec 3, 2004 (UTC)

Theoretical Ecology

"Fmts, don't link a page that would be linked back here" - I'm not quite sure what you mean by this tag - could you explain (I'm not sure what I am doing wrong). Thanks. Guettarda 13:24, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I mean that Ecosystem Ecology (which should be ecosystem ecology because it shouldn't use caps, only proper nouns should be capitalized) is in the current context really referring back to theoretical ecology (which the current article), so the link would most likely be redirected back to theoretical ecology. In that case, it might be useful to bold the term (since it is clear from the context that it is more-or-less being used as a synonym for theoretical ecology). --Lexor|Talk

Thanks for the explanation - I'm sure the caps are my mistake (I've thought about changing them before but never did hoping that I would do it when I made more major revisions). I don't really think ecosystem ecology should link back to theoretical ecology - they are quite distinct, and the only reason I put all that stuff about the Odums into the theoretical ecology article was to balance it...prior to that it was mostly about metaphysics. I'm not a theoretical ecologist, but I am something of an Odumite, so I wrote about HT's role in the development of theoretical ecology. Really needs stuff about Robert May in there, and a lot of what has happened since the 1970s - I just don't have the time for it right now, and I am not competent to fill that stuff in off the top of my head. Guettarda 13:46, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I always think of the Odum's as being theoretical ecologists, if ecosystem science is sufficiently different then by all means create a new article. What I'm trying to avoid (which is unfortunately all too often the case with biology articles) is when somebody creates a new stub about a very closely related subject that they aren't prepared to expand. In this way you get stubs split off from stubs which are all really about the same thing and none of them are expanded leading to increasing duplication and fragmentation (somebody stumbles upon one article or the other and doesn't realize about the existence of the other). The best strategy is too keep all the related areas in a single article and discuss them together until a section reaches a critical mass (which is subjective, but I'd say at the very least 7-8 paragraphs) then split it out to it's own article. I'm trying a systematic refactoring of the various biology articles and to use Wikipedia:summary style to unify the disparate articles. --Lexor|Talk 13:54, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)

I know what you mean - just look at conservation biology and conservation ecology - they might be worth two articles one day, but right now there are two almost worthless stubs (which I should do something about once I have the time). I'll try to follow your suggestion. Ecosystem ecology is worth an article (again, once I have the time), but you're right, there's no need to include the links at this time. Guettarda 14:05, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Biosphere Reserve

Hi Lexor! Congratulations on all your work. Here is a comment that I first made on List of Biosphere Reserves in China but maybe you were not Watching the page so here goes:

I agree with the general intent of removing caps on non-proper nouns, but here "Biosphere Reserves" is not used in the generic sense but is indeed a proper noun, referring to the official UNESCO conservation designation. I suggest reverting to the old titles. (See World Network of Biosphere Reserves.) Lawrence Lavigne 06:51, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry, I have since figured out that it was a proper noun. I'll try and revert it back as soon as I can. --Lexor|Talk 07:40, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

I'll add UNESCO to the title, so it's clear that it's a proper noun. --Lexor|Talk 07:42, Dec 13, 2004 (UTC)

Collaboration of the Week

League of Nations is the new Collaboration of the Week. Please join in helping make it a feature article.

Ev parent cat

Interesting thoughts on categories. I would put systems theory as a sub category of evolution, but I think philosophy of science is an excellent parent category. Stirling Newberry 16:27, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Except that in systems theory, evolution is only one aspect of the phenomenon it studies, and systems theory is often more focused on changes on physiological timescales and in processes like self-organization rather than a variation+heritability+selection scenario which is the core of any evolutionary process. --Lexor|Talk 16:31, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I have to disagree, you've described Darwinian evolution, but not, for example, stellar evolution. The idea of evolution as applied to technology and ideas is not universally darwinian. This is (yet another) example of why categories are broken as designed - they don't handle Some A are a Subset of B very well, because either there is a call for the category (Some A that are B) or A gets put as a subset of B, and people get unhappy because not A are B. I'm uncomfortable with evolution as a subcat of Systems theory because, it isn't derived from Systems Theory.

What do you think is the best solution in this case? Stirling Newberry 16:54, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't have to be a subcat of evolution, but don't make systems theory a subcat of evolution, because it includes much more than evolution even in a non-Darwinian sense. Since you don't like it one way, I don't like it the other, we could just leave it out for the moment, or put a "see also" link in the category description text. Stick with philosophy of science as a parent cat. --Lexor|Talk 17:03, Jan 8, 2005 (UTC)

I think the see also idea is good, particulary because there are a number of categories which are related but not clearly hierarchical in this particular case.Stirling Newberry 17:10, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion: put systems theory as a see also category, keep systems theory the article in category evolution.Stirling Newberry 16:58, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Why you reverted the page to forbidden cooperated content ?.It was deleted because it was cooperated material from here http://www.moodbook.com/music/trance.html#goa-trance. Now what to do ?

Thank You

Thank you for your kind introduction to Wikipedia, it was very much appreciated! Cjb88 20:04, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Articles on the X and the Y chromosomes

Please see the new comment at Talk:XY_sex-determination_system. I think we need to remove two of the redirects, and allow Wikipedia to develop one article on the X chromosome, and one article on the Y chromosome. RK 22:27, Feb 13, 2005 (UTC)

Supercentenarian → Oldest person

Hi Lexor, due to your interest in articles like Aubrey De Grey, I thought you might be interested in a proposal at Wikipedia:Requested moves to rename supercentenarian to oldest person. I think this is not a good idea for reasons given in my vote there, and also because I think it's valuable in the discussion of long lives and aging research for the culture to have these concise terms such as supercentenarian. Wikipedia:Requested_moves#Supercentenarian_.26rarr.3B_Oldest_person Best, --Nectarflowed 08:46, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

wikipedia:requests for comment/138.130.194.229

Please see wikipedia:requests for comment/138.130.194.229 Dunc|☺ 16:41, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Table suffixes

Template:Table suffixes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Table suffixes. Thank you. — Xiong熊talk* 10:33, 2005 May 25 (UTC)

Music genre infoboxes

For some reason, the text on the infoboxes are all appearing as green. Is there a way to fix that? Andros 1337 15:11, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. What browser are you using? Lexor|Talk 10:34, Jun 5, 2005 (UTC)

Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 2. Andros 1337 14:42, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has just gone back to normal today. It must have been something on the back end. Andros 1337 21:20, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Category:Life

Could you post the record of the deletion discussion of this category to Category talk:Life? Without knowing the reasons for deletion, there's no way to determine under what circumstances it might be appropriate to recreate it. —Ashley Y July 3, 2005 23:37 (UTC)

Somebody summarized the discussion but did not archive it properly in a subpage, but it can be found in the following diff. Lexor|Talk July 7, 2005 10:07 (UTC)