User talk:Stigmatella aurantiaca/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stigmatella aurantiaca. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
|
Welcome to Wikipedia!
Just wanted to stop by and welcome you to Wikipedia and say I like what you've done with Microbiome. I had planned to work on it a bit, but time constraints prevented me from advancing farther than an outline, so I'm glad you came along when you did. I think you're still working on it, but I'll try to chip in as we go along. Getting to Good Article status would be cool (I just did Metagenomics), but no worries if you're not interested.
Looking forward to seeing how it all turns out. Best regards, James Estevez (talk) 08:35, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
Hope I'm not giving you too much to keep up with at once :) I enjoy helping a competent editor learn the ropes, but don't want to overwhelm. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
- Also hi, SandyGeorgia asked me to have a look at this: I've added a couple of links and suggested on the talk page a way of checking for articles to link. Similarly, I'm no expert in the area and a lot of it is over my head, but I did think you'd strayed away from the source into misrepresenting the issue of Lamarckism and Darwin's theory. [ dave souza, talk 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC) ]
- Well, Rosenberg has pointed out the resemblance to Lamarckism in several articles, and even though I personally would not agree, the articles are out there. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, I don't doubt that the claim is being made, the thing is that Lamarckism nowadays refers to something which Darwin always accepted, but which wasn't the central part of Lamarck's theory: see Le pouvoir de la vie: The complexifying force. That's not really relevant to the article, so I've removed their names and left the more modern theories. [By the way, I've added a copy of my signature above for clarification, responses in the middle of comments can cause problems with following the thread]. . dave souza, talk 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Well, Rosenberg has pointed out the resemblance to Lamarckism in several articles, and even though I personally would not agree, the articles are out there. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- It will be good if you can tighten the article up by avoiding digressions, at the same time as a non-expert I'm puzzled as to how this differs from the current non-Lamarckian explanation of the evolution of endosymbionts: I thought mutual benefits were part of evolutionary theory, but Lamarkism was rejected. As the theory is potentially disputed, we should be careful to present disputed statements as the views of proponents rather than as views of Wikipedia, so I made a small alteration doing that. Hope that's not too much to take on, think of it more as giving a pointer to improvements. . dave souza, talk 10:12, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I find myself agreeing with you more than disagreeing. The key aspect of the hologenome theory is the claim that the holobiont (organism plus resident microbial population) is the selectable unit of evolution. So the proponents of the hologenome theory have introduced a bunch of neologisms to the literature, but do they really add anything to mainstream evolutionary theory? My personal opinion (whoops, danger, danger, keep neutral point of view) is maybe not so much, particularly when I notice so many examples cited in support of the hologenome theory involve systems that are spread by horizontal gene transfer (whoops, danger, danger, avoid original research). In my former career, I was friendly with people on both sides of the debate, so it's a hard path to take. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, writing using only secondary sources can be tricky for an expert! However, WP:NPOV doesn't mean treating all ideas equally, its WP:WEIGHT section requires us to be clear when views have only minority acceptance in the field. As discussed in WP:STRUCTURE that may be obscured by putting criticism in a separate section rather than relating responses to the arguments as they are put forward, so something to think over. Thus it may be best to point out the mainstream view of topics in each section, using sources that compare this idea with more established explanations. Another clarification will be needed in the lead section, which should summarise the article including the aspect of the debate: see WP:LEAD. Sorry about all the acronyms, hope that explains them a bit. . . dave souza, talk 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Again, I find myself agreeing with you more than disagreeing. The key aspect of the hologenome theory is the claim that the holobiont (organism plus resident microbial population) is the selectable unit of evolution. So the proponents of the hologenome theory have introduced a bunch of neologisms to the literature, but do they really add anything to mainstream evolutionary theory? My personal opinion (whoops, danger, danger, keep neutral point of view) is maybe not so much, particularly when I notice so many examples cited in support of the hologenome theory involve systems that are spread by horizontal gene transfer (whoops, danger, danger, avoid original research). In my former career, I was friendly with people on both sides of the debate, so it's a hard path to take. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 13:19, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
Now that Dave (who knows more about the topic) is on board, I'm unwatching, having done all I can to guide you on the stylistic issues ... one thing you could do is continue searching PubMed for PMIDs and PMCs. And figger out how to change that redundant heading; we should avoid having a section heading repeat the article title, per WP:MSH. Best regards, and pls ping my talk if I can ever help on anything. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Hey, I don't know much about the topic, and don't have access to the journals behind paywalls. Hope we can get more expert input, . dave souza, talk 15:08, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
- Both of you have been really helpful, though. Most university, college, and community college libraries offer a community category of library user. I'm twenty minutes from a medium-sized university and twelve minutes from a community college, and I visit both quite frequently, often departing with a half dozen PDFs loaded on my memory stick. When given a choice, I try to use open-access references, but sometimes you just can't. (sigh) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 16:17, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
I cleaned up this article a little bit. One of the things that irked me the most was the way that the original article hyped a single commercial product. I tried to put FastPCR in context, but the article still smells a bit like an ad. However, I don't want to unbalance the article by loading it up with side-by-side comparisons of the different available software packages. Have I done sufficient de-commercialization, or should I do more? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 05:27, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
- My only comment is that it seems a little too technical. You might want to give it a little more context so that the layperson can understand what it's about. The general rule is "write one level down," so if it's a topic that undergrad students might be studying, write so that a high school student could understand it; if it's a topic that a post-grad student would be studying, write so that an undergrad could understand it.
- As for your question, I would say, are there other similar applications on the market that serve a similar function? And are they equally widely used, or is FastPCR really the main one that everyone in that field uses? If there are other commonly-used alternatives, it would be a good idea to mention some of them. —JmaJeremyTALKCONTRIBS 02:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
{{helpme}} Please double-check that I have performed the merge properly. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
I've already corrected three mistakes. That probably means that I have more that I haven't caught ... Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 02:53, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
- Assuming you got all the important info in to the J. Craig Venter Institute article, you did everything right. Good job! Prodego talk 02:51, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
- (Also, have a barnstar! Prodego talk 02:54, 22 March 2012 (UTC))
Hi!
I noticed you uploaded a raster version of a vector graphic due to a potential bug - I'm just wondering if you've reported this bug to the bug tracker at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/ ? If it's reported there, the developers may actually be able to fix it. :) [stwalkerster|talk] 17:48, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
It's raining barnstars
| File:Detective Barnstar Hires.png | The Sherlock Holmes Barnstar of Exceptional Diligence from a Newcomer in Contributing to Scientific Articles | |
| Conferred for the strong commitment to scholarship you've demonstrated in your edits to multiple scientific articles. The great majority of even our very experienced editors are much too casual in their presentation and sourcing for articles about science, but you're not! I've only seen one or two other relatively new editors exercise the kind of care you do, and I'm grateful for it. Thanks! – OhioStandard (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC) |
Hi, Stig! I wasn't quite sure what theme to employ on this barnstar, but I think choosing Holmes for his painstaking exactitude and attention to a level of detail that others often ignore is appropriate in your case. Thanks so much for working that way; it's very encouraging. On a side note, these links may be of interest, since I understand you've been traveling to your local Uni for access to journals. You might also be pleasantly surprised and find you already have JSTOR access ( often coupled, btw, with ProQuest NewsStand, InfoTrac, & etc. ) via your local public library. Have a look at this list re JSTOR to see whether you might already have free access available: A library card is a beautiful thing. Best regards, – OhioStandard (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
In your edit at 08:12, 15 March 2012 to Needle-exchange programme, you wrote "(edrughab.com is not a reliable source, and even it doesn't say that the AMA "strongly" supports NSP. Is there a reliable source (see WP:MEDRS) saying so?)"
Would the following two references be acceptable?
- Yoast, R.; Williams, M. A.; Deitchman, S. D.; Champion, H. C. (2001). "Report of the Council on Scientific Affairs". Journal of Addictive Diseases. 20 (2): 15–40. doi:10.1300/J069v20n02_03. PMID 11318395.
- Stancliff, S.; Agins, B.; Rich, J. D.; Burris, S. (2003). "Syringe access for the prevention of blood borne infections among injection drug users". BMC Public Health. 3: 37. doi:10.1186/1471-2458-3-37. PMC 317318. PMID 14633286.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
The second reference quotes from an AMA policy statement from 2000 that uses the word "strongly" but also uses language not often mentioned in these discussions. Distribution of needles and syringes
- must be under physician guidance.
- should be in conjunction with addiction counseling.
The web page quoted in the second reference that contains the AMA policy statement is unfortunately no longer available. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:31, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
If you want, it's only a short drive to the university library, and thanks to electronic access, I should be able to get a full-text copy of the first reference which I can post on Google Docs for you to view. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 10:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- The sources you mention are perfectly acceptable to my eyes. Will you readd the material I deleted, or should I? Gabbe (talk) 11:13, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
- I can do it, making sure that I note that it is not a totally unqualified endorsement, but that the AMA endorses it in conjunction with addiction counseling. Also, the tense is important, since for all I know, the AMA could have shifted its position in the twelve years since that policy statement. I rather doubt it, though, from other secondary and tertiary references that I've seen. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 11:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
Request to re-evaluate and discuss BodyMedia
I was the person who initially input the data for BodyMedia. I did in fact go thru PR, but they were instructed to be factual not self-promoting. Which I will agree that they absolutely failed at. We put a call out to anyone who'd consider editing the information who was not from the company. I have been monitoring the page. I see that it was edited to some great length but can not speak for whoever it was that edited it. I don't know them and they appear to not be a regular editor.
For my own identity I'm an advanced beginner at WikiPedia and was just trying to fill in accurate information. I am a Mac app writer. So I don't really know the depths of the technology. That all being said; I'd request that you look at the edits and evaluate if you feel the edits are less promotional, if the editor seems to be doing this of fair motivation and whether or not the news tag is worth removal.
I'd ask if you do have any comments or suggestions or glaring examples that you put them on the pages talk sub-page so that people can know what needs to be examined by respected WP Editors.
Thanks again for taking time on this. Andrei Freeman. Lordandrei (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
FYI
Hi, Stigmatella aurantiaca. Just an FYI: I received an e-mail from User talk:Will1604 with concerns about the merger of The Institute for Genomic Research into J. Craig Venter Institute. I have left a note on their talk page advising them to discuss it with you first. Cheers. — CactusWriter (talk) 18:54, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Hi, I responded to Will1604 on User talk:Will1604. It has been proposed in November 2010 that The Institute for Genomic Research be merged into J. Craig Venter Institute. Since there had been no discussion about this proposed merge in a year and a half, I just went ahead and did it. I didn't archive the discussion because there was no discussion; likewise I didn't provide a consensus of the non-existent discussion. The merger just made sense at the time. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 22:45, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
- Okay -- no problem. "Just made sense at the time" is, of course, the best approach to everything. :-) Thanks for responding on their talk page. — CactusWriter (talk) 17:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
Good one
... this. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
Thanks!
Thanks for your patience reviewing my GAN! I see that you too have a GA nomination, I wish you good luck with that! (I'm particularly interested, as interferometry happens to be something relevant to my research right now...)
See you around, SPat talk 01:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Removal of Physics project ratings
I noticed that you removed several physics project ratings over the last few days, requesting a new review of the articles. WP physics does not have a formal review process. You are perfectly entitled to update the ratings yourself. Just make a good faith judgment of where the article currently ranks on the quality scale (see WP:ASSESS).TR 11:02, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
I'v opened a review page for this article (Wikipedia:Peer review/Michelson–Morley experiment/archive1) - maybe this helps getting it to GA status someday... --D.H (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
Talkback
Message added 21:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
non-breaking hyphens
Your insertion of cryptic codes for non-breaking hyphens is not a good thing; most editors will have no clue what they are, so someone is likely to turn them back to ordinary hyphens, or perhaps minus signs. If you think a non-breaking hyphen is needed, there's a WP template for that: Template:Nbhyph. Like this: ‑. Sorry about the poor name, but some people prefer short. For the exponents, though, use a minus. Dicklyon (talk) 03:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
The usage of hyphens in numerals was a mistake… I hope, just an ignorant mistake of a bold newbie. But if more edit warring on minus signs like [1][2] occurred in the future, then I will insist that you have being blocked for content disruption at the edge of WP: sneaky vandalism. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:53, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Look, all I want is to be able to write a negative number in the exponent where the negative sign is guaranteed not to separate from the numeral at the end of a line. Inserting the standard unicode symbol for a non-breaking hyphen was deemed unacceptable. OK, so I substituted the Wikipedia ‑. I was annoyed, and my comment reflected my annoyance, and it was wrong of me, I admit it. Can we just get on with things now? Where in WP:MOS does it say that I'm not allowed to use non-breaking hyphens to keep numbers written in scientific notation from breaking up? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- 10−1 10−2 10−3 10−4 10−5 10−6 10−7 10−8 10−9 10−10 10−11 10−12 10−13 10−14 10−15 10−16 10−17 10−18 10−19 10−20 10−21 10−22 10−23 10−24 10−25 10−26 10−27 10−28 10−29 10−30 10−31 10−32 10−33 10−34 10−35 10−36 10−37 10−38 10−39 10−40 10−41 10−42 10−43 10−44 10−45 10−46 10−47 10−48 10−49 10−50 does your browser really breaks any of these numbers apart? My Firefox does not. If your one does, give a screenshot please. And just remember: the minus sign is not a hyphen. It is not a whatever kind of hyphen or dash. It is a math symbol and not a punctuation mark at all. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
I saw it happen once with Chrome, and that one time got me very, very upset. I don't know if it is something that can be reproduced at will. Sort of like you never can tell exactly in advance when a librsvg bug will ruin your SVG illustration, forcing you to substitute a PNG. I'll give it a try tonight. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 19:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- What namely did you see to "happen once with Chrome", eh? Broken typolamerography such as 10-1, perhaps? I'll willingly consider you questions about SVG (BTW there is a tool commons: Commons:SVG Check exactly for "telling in advance"), but let us finish with −es first. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I forget if it was ten-to-the-minus on one line and the exponent on the next, or ten on one line the the minus-exponent on the next. And while SVG Check greatly reduces the number of broken uploads, it doesn't tell me how to fix the SVG. Sometimes I can fix the SVG, but usually I still find myself exporting to PNG. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I forgot to mention that SVG Check doesn't catch everything. I was very upset when SVG Check repeatedly told me the fonts would render one way, and they actually rendered another. I've since learned always to convert my text to paths if I don't want to risk surprises, but that brings up its own set of issues, like if I want to edit the text. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- (watching, ec) you asked the first person ... - look above where you posted, the person is on vacation, you shouldn't be disappointed about no answer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; though my wikibreak message is semi-permanent, I'm actually on vacation in the mountains right now. With pricey internet, though. Stigmatella, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I didn't just go back to the hyphen; I changed to a minus, which doesn't normally allow a line break like a hyphen does. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- I see. Hyphens, however, are what are available using a standard keyboard, and I saw them break using Chrome, hence my becoming upset. Do you keep a list of different forms of the dash/hyphen/minus on hand? When separating page numbers, for instance, I don't always have available an ndash that I can copy and paste, so I type ampersand ndash semicolon rather than having a bot correct my use of what a keyboard inserts. Is this considered a bad practice? I do see its use mentioned on Help:dashes, so I presume that is a sanctioned practice. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:28, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Would ampersand minus semicolon be acceptable for a unary negative symbol? Or is ampersand minus semicolon only for the binary subtraction operator? Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:39, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, ampersand minus semicolon is the right character. Below your edit box, you can use the 'Insert' menu's 'Wiki markup' section to find special characters, too. For ndash, if you have a Mac, it's option-minus; if Windows, ask Bill where it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Uh, I see. ≥ ± − × ÷ ← → · § ‽ Third character is a minus. Sure looks like a "-" to me. Live and learn. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 23:55, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please review my addition to Help:Punctuation#Dashes. Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:13, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- I also added much the same language to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Hyphens so if you could check that over, it would be much appreciated. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 00:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Incnis - Why the "OMG" in your edit remarks? I suppose somebody who has a history of inserting invisible rude comments in their edits can't help themselves, so I'm taking no offense. I understand you now. Cheers! :-) Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 08:12, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes, ampersand minus semicolon is the right character. Below your edit box, you can use the 'Insert' menu's 'Wiki markup' section to find special characters, too. For ndash, if you have a Mac, it's option-minus; if Windows, ask Bill where it is. Dicklyon (talk) 23:43, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Yes; though my wikibreak message is semi-permanent, I'm actually on vacation in the mountains right now. With pricey internet, though. Stigmatella, sorry if I wasn't clear, but I didn't just go back to the hyphen; I changed to a minus, which doesn't normally allow a line break like a hyphen does. Dicklyon (talk) 22:34, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks! Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2012 (UTC)
Incnis - What I saw was something like 10-5 breaking, using the keyboard hyphen. Now that I know about the symbol selection, I can write 10−5. Stigmatella aurantiaca (talk) 01:31, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
- Please see Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Numbers which mentions this section. --Mirokado (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Null edit
See Help:Dummy edit Art LaPella (talk) 14:49, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
SVG version
Hi, I noticed this image of yours in the list of "diagrams for conversion to SVG", where you mentioned that you used inkscape for the original. Could you upload the original SVG image som that others can derive from it? Of course the animation would not be possible in SVG as of current support on wikipedia, but it gives the opportunity to correct the image.
(The image in question)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zerodamage (talk • contribs) 10:07, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
| | This is an archive of past discussions about User:Stigmatella aurantiaca. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 |