User talk:David D./Archive8

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————

Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

You may

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter

The project main page has gotten a facelift!
When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look.
New project feature: peer review
I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to.
Project progress
The article worklist
We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it!
Collaboration of the Month
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand!
Finally...
The project has a new coordinator, Clockwork Soul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process.
Clockwork Soul, project coordinator 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.

RNA interference peer review

Well, I have finally gotten a round tuit and done some extensive work on RNA interference, which is now up for peer review here if you want to take a look. IIRC, you are considerably more knowledgeable about the history and specifically earlier plant work than I am; any comments or fixes would be great. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 02:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Remove Sources

On the article Cactus cat, you removed a link in a Sources section. Don't do that. You claimed it was "self-promotion"; it probably was. Nevertheless, the article was based on it; (in fact, the article was a dangerously close paraphrase of a single source, which we really shouldn't do. In any case, removing items listed as sources is a big no-no; if the source is spam, get the article deleted, or sourced from somewhere else; don't just remove the link. Thanks for your attention. 71.128.189.190 (really User:JesseW/not logged in) 00:43, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, don't shoot the messenger. I may have felt bothered to do something about it if you had come here voicing a pleasant concern. However, your chiding and patronizing message here makes me wash my hands of it. David D. (Talk) 01:49, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I applogize for the tone; I was in the middle of fighting with someone on the phone, and I guess it leaked into my comments here, as it shouldn't have. Regarding the page, I marked it as copyvio; it'll be deleted eventually. Glancing over a google search for the term, I didn't immediately see further sources. I think the copyvio template is sufficient for now. Again, I'm sorry about my tone in the previous message. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:51, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I accept the gracious apology and likewise apologise for snapping. Since I have not come across you much on wikipedia I was not sure if this was your normal voice but obviously not. Thanks for sorting out the copyright issue. I just saw you added that to the article immediately so my fix it yourself type comment was OTT. David D. (Talk) 05:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cellular respiration

Didn't mean to revert this, somehow I got a blank page, thought it was empty and needed a stub. Sorry about that, never had that happen before. Must have been a wiki error of some sort! Thanks for fixing it. Isoxyl 03:12, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, i noticed what you had done and understood why. I had not considered it vandalism at the time. David D. (Talk) 17:35, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RNAi FAC

FYI, I moved RNA interference to FAC here, so please continue with any further comments/criticisms/glowing praise there ;) Opabinia regalis 06:19, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amazing and enlightening gift! :)

Thank you so much for your most excellent gift; I'm just delighted! It's really a double gift, since it makes the page beautiful, and opened a window in my little brain through which I can glimpse how all that stuff works. I'd always wondered about everyone else's page, but it always seemed so daunting. So you're getting more than a double helping of thanks from me :) Willow 22:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Peppers?

Cute ;) What made you think of peppers? Opabinia regalis 03:59, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It reminded me of "hot papers", I know, corny! I did not search too hard for a good image. I just wanted to see if it was possible and to see if others liked the concept. David D. (Talk) 04:07, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh, I get it now... that, sir, is an impressively bad pun ;) I do think it stands out better with an image rather than just bold text; I know it's the thing to do these days, but those highly formatted citation templates drive me nuts, and make the whole list hard to read. There are probably other heavily-cited articles that could use a similar treatment - I don't know why I hadn't thought of it till now, but I like the idea of highlighting the major works in a field - but I don't have time to go looking right now; can you think of any? Opabinia regalis 07:40, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Antioxidant FAC

Hi there. I wondered if you had time to review this article? The FAC nomination is here. Thank you. TimVickers 05:14, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citizendium message

Hi David,

I just got your message over at Tim's Talk page, where I replied. What was it that you wanted us to consider? I'll be gone soon, though, so don't be surprised if I can't reply for a while. Thanks again for your wonderful update of my Talk page; I enjoy it and wonder at it every day, Willow 18:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Just thought you should check it out. See http://pilot.citizendium.org It is a new wiki that it much less tolerant of vandals and has fixed versions of articles, reviewed by experts, as well as working drafts. Otherwise it is similar to wikipedia, but much much smaller. Another difference that it aims to be family friendly. Not sure if it will take off but an interesting concept. i'm glad you enjoyed the changes i made to your talk page. It was fun to do it. David D. (Talk) 18:19, 2 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Value

I noticed you appear to be involved in biology articles or WikiProjects relating to biology and human processes. This article, on a method for evaluating biological utilizations rates of proteins in humans and animals, was started in August and is in need of the attention of an expert. We are having trouble locating one and the article desperately needs it. This method is used constantly in bodybuilding magazines and products and is the subject of much misinformation and half-truths. On the other hand it does appear to have some value. Please help if possible. In case you're wondering why I picked you I just looked through some Science WikiProjects and biology articles and your name appeared a lot in one or both categories. Incidentally if you decide not to do this for whatever reason there's no need to reply. I'll just take it you're busy or uninterested and leave it at that. Thanks. Quadzilla99 22:36, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is a WARNING, you will be reported Ragib for Systematically following me and Vandalizing the articles I worked on

+++YOUR COMMENTS ON MY Page+++++ Adding spam and irrelevant external links Please do not add a very large number of unrelated external links to articles. See WP:NOT for what Wikipedia is NOT. If you continue adding such links, you will be reported to the administrator's noticeboard. Thank you. --Ragib 10:44, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Warning

Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. --Ragib 10:52, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

+++++MY COMMENTS++++

Dear user Rajib, please don't vandalize the articles I have worked on, instead of improving the articles you are just deleting the "reference list" for the article, this has gone on for couple of articles, you are systematically following the articles I worked on and vadalizing them, I will shortly be reporting you to wikipedia Administartors. Consider this a Warning!!!!. If you want to improve an article you dont take out its reference list. You could have contributed to Wildlife of Bangladesh, I even asked for help on your page, but the article remains at square one after so long while you have had lot of time arguing with me and vandalizing my other articles. Please do not remove this comment from your page, let other be warned too of your great credibility and coopretaion.

Atulsnischal 20:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CAn somebody please talk to Ragib, one argument that started with him on Bengal monitor page has led to an ongoing onslaught on the articles I have worked on, instead of improving them, he is been removing Reference list from my articles, following the idea from another user David D., can you please talk to both.

Thankyou Atulsnischal 21:09, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you expand on this? I'm not sure what you are trying to say here? Are you giving me a warning? Or are you informing me of a warning you have given to Ragib ? David D. (Talk) 23:28, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like he has copy-pasted the same thing into ANB/I, my talk page, and your talk page. It is equally unclear to me who he is addressing, the first part addresses me (misspelled) and then the second part seems to address someone else. This user has the habit of doing this, i.e. copying same comment to as many talk pages as he can, no matter how tangentially related the talk pages may be to his comments. --Ragib 00:11, 6 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution

I understand the way you feel. If GA really leaves, that's terrible, and Samsara's edit summary was unnecessarily rude. But it doesn't do anyone any good for you and pschemp to get into a fight over this. It really doesn't help anyone. Guettarda 19:26, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reality check. David D. (Talk) 19:31, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the support. It was a bad edit I must admit, and I over reacted. Bad day boiling before I logged onto Wikipedia. Thanks for reverting Smooth Muscle article-a childish reaction on my part. I do need a break!!!!I do thank you for your kind words and support. Perhaps I will return with my sanity after a break. GetAgrippa 21:45, 12 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-automated taxonomic list generation OK?

Hi David,

Daisy woke up this morning in good voice and produced a List of Archaea genera. Is that what you had in mind, maybe, kind of? Any suggestions would be most welcome! :) Willow 17:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey that looks pretty good. You may want to break the list up a bit, maybe into phylum? It would be nice to add some other facts too; hey don't look at me! Nice thing about lists is that they accomodate red links too. Sorry to hear you're branded witht he L word at work :( David D. (Talk) 19:53, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any idea why there is only one class of Crenarchaeota? Are the classifications to order, rather than class, based on phylogenetic distances? In that phylum it would seem more appropriate to assume the mutation rate is a bit slower rather than most of the diversity has been lost. David D. (Talk) 19:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thanks for your friendly welcome which is one of only two friendly messages I have recieved so far (apart from the initial one by Someone called friday). Im not an expert on anything really, but I do like to see things presented neatly and clearly so I will try to help where I can--SlipperyHippo 18:08, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi SlipperyHippo (is Slippo a good contraction? ;) ), I actually like the shorter leads so it looks good to me . I guess Friday likes them a bit longer. Glad to be able to welcome a new comer. Hope you have a good experience here. David D. (Talk) 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think 'Slippery' might be nicer! Thanks again.--SlipperyHippo 18:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slippery it is. David D. (Talk) 18:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be a very friendly person. Do you mind me asking if you are British or American?--SlipperyHippo 21:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Born UK live US. A hybrid? David D. (Talk) 21:56, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ah I thought I got a sense of the Brit in you. Im from UK and still here.--SlipperyHippo 22:21, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David

Hi there, if you've got the time I'd be grateful for any comments and suggestions you might have in the peer-review of metabolism. The page is Wikipedia:Peer review/Metabolism. Thanks! TimVickers 00:58, 22 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Another FAC

Hi David,

It never rains, but it pours? ;)

Encyclopï¿½dia Britannica is also at FAC, just above Metabolism. If you're looking at the latter, could you maybe throw a glance at the former? I hope that you can support it, but any thoughts or comments would be most welcome. Thanks very much! Willow 02:04, 26 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Willow is, as usual, ahead of me. TimVickers 23:15, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Above, but not ahead; Metabolism just got made into an Featured Article! :D

Poor Encyclopï¿½dia Britannica is still getting herself spruced up, while everyone else is going to the party. :( Any help or suggestions you could give would be great - thanks, David! Willow 23:15, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Barrett v. Rosenthal

The above-entitled arbitration case has been closed and the final decision published at the above link. Ilena (talk · contribs) is banned from editing Wikipedia for one year and is banned from editing articles and talk pages related to alternative medicine, except talk pages related to breat implants. Fyslee (talk · contribs) is cautioned to use reliable sources and to edit from a neutral point of view. He is reminded that editors with a known partisan point of view should be careful to seek consensus on the talk page of articles to avoid the appearance of a COI if other editors question their edits. For the arbitration committee, Thatcher131 12:45, 27 March 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Essjay controversy

Glad I got your position right, then! It is very good to have someone coming in and looking at the article with fresh eyes; your observation is entirely sensible, from my perspective. Unfortunately, there are a few editors on each side of the question who indeed are still checking the rings on the tree stumps. (On the other hand, I will admit to being very prickly about a few issues related to this article too!)--Risker 01:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Disgusted

David, I would like to register my feeling of disgust at reading your diatribe against StuRat on the RD talk page. Whatever you feel about StuRat's actions, nothing can excuse your personal comments such as "StuRat has a problem" and your accusation that StuRat was somehow responsible for Lightcurrent's ban. Your post was unconstructive and simply serves to further polarise and personalise the debate about appropriate behaviour on the RDs. If you can think of anything you can do to repair some of the hurt that your post has caused, I urge you to take that action so as soon as possible. Gandalf61 22:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My post reflects my extreme frustration with him. Being polite and patient has had no effect.If he cannot parse simple arguments then he does have a problem. And I, for one, am fed up of being played for a fool. David D. (Talk) 22:09, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way StuRats problem is that "he wishes to poison each discussion". If you thought I meant anything else you are overeacting to my message. As far as Lightcurrent is concerned, he made a genuine effort to find a compromise by writing the guidelines as well as soliciting ideas and discussion. If StuRat had come to the table to help find that middle ground Lightcurrent would not have got so frustrated. I am not implying StuRat was directly responsible but his actions made it inevitable. As far as polarising the debate, StuRat has already achieved that one hundred fold more than I ever could with one, frustrated, post. David D. (Talk) 22:40, 3 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, there has been a spate of reverting on your talkpage because Light current (talk · contribs) has been attempting to edit using IPs and sockpuppets. His edits have been reverted according to our policy on indef blocked/banned users. Rockpocket 02:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, do we really want to go diving in the dumpster of history on the reference desk's talk page? My only comment: I disagree that StuRat is to be held responsible or even to be seen as a cause for that particular ban. QED per Rockpocket's aside. ---Sluzzelin talk 02:09, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(Unindent) Oh for pity's sake Rockpocket. Reverting a space? Enough already, there are plenty of banned users posting in article and article talk space - not to mention on policy and policy talk pages, AN/I and AN. Give it a rest, you are not helping anything here and you are annoying anyone who has David D.'s talk page watchlisted for any reason. Let David D. deal with the "vandalism" and banned users on his talk page by himself. Risker 02:32, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David, I'm rather surprised that you suddenly took such a negative tone at the Ref Desk. I don't quite understand it, either, as we seemed to be having quite a civil discussion up to that point. I was actually wondering if someone might have hacked your account from the sudden negativity. I hope we can get this discussion back on a civil tone, and, for myself, have tried not to respond in the same negative tone (by suggesting we should all ignore you, for example). StuRat 05:27, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How are you, David? It's a long time since we have had any direct communication, and just wanted to let you know that I continue to admire the clarity of your thought, your forbearance and your patience. If ever I can assist you in any way please do let me know. Clio the Muse 10:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a personal attack to criticize someone's behavior. How on earth could we deal with problem editors if we don't say things like "So-and-so engages in >insert problematic editing description<, as seen here"? Sure, in an idea world, no editor would ever lose patience. Also, in an ideal word, no editor would go out of their way to try other editor's patience. Friday (talk) 14:40, 4 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

wikiprojects/RFA

I too "like the idea of emphasising participation in projects as a long term goal." My concerns were merely about how far thsi would go and how it would be done, mentioned at a very early stage so that they can be taken into account as the idea developes, rahter than being a suprise later. DES ^(talk) 22:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Idea for stable versions

Hi David,

Can I try out an idea on you? I've been brooding about Wikipedia and Citizendium, and the ideas of stability and reliability. There are so many topics out there left undone, whereas people can edit in circles indefinitely on other articles. Perhaps we need a ratchet mechanism, a way of saying, "yes, this topic has been done well enough for now; let's move on to another topic." A stable version could also be reviewed by outside authorities. There are also the problems of persistent vandalism of high-profile articles, ever eroding at our best articles.

As I guess you know, several people have proposed a two-tier approach to Wikipedia, in which edits would not go "live" immediately but be vetted somehow, taking away the vanity temptation of vandalism. Others have suggested different types of "stable versions".

A different solution occurred to me today, although perhaps it's been thought of already. The WikiProjects could be allotted their own namespace into which they could put stable versions of their favorite pages, pages that they deemed good enough for a real publication. Very few people in each WikiProject (say, one or two, by election) would have the power to upload or change pages in that namespace. Work (or vandalism) could continue in the Main namespace, but nothing need be uploaded to the stable namespace until a significant improvement had been reached, as voted by the members of the WikiProject. Moreover, if people were together in the Wikiproject, they might well turn to making another stable article, rather than tweaking the last one. Giving real power to the Wikiprojects (beyond that of an individual editor) would also encourage people to join them, making them more like medieval guilds.

Of course, there may well be drawbacks; I'm wary of too much organization, and could imagine that the power might be abused. But it might allow the people who really care about an article to put it beyond the reach of malice or mistaken self-confidence. What do you think? Willow 22:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the stable, vandal proof pages in Citizendium make it much more attractive for editors who are fed up with vandal fighting. i think this might be a good idea, especially for wikiprojects that are well organised. David D. (Talk) 16:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Message on my page

you left a message on my page what was it for?--68.201.118.165 15:07, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

which edit? i don't think i have edited your page? David D. (Talk) 16:01, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I forgot to sing in. This page-->--Mphifer254 16:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, I remember, that was your grammar edit to Human. See the Human talk page for context, I had assumed you were the same user as the IP. Sorry for being cryptic. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but I figured out the reason I wasn't able to edit the article was because I wasn't signed in...(duhh lol).--Mphifer254 16:41, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for your help with the banned user who keeps vandalising my user page. Your reverts and vigilance are very much appreciated. Alun 07:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Request

Hi David, I've replied briefly to your comment at WP:ANI#Wikistalking because I think you may not have noticed the most relevant information. I'd be grateful if you'd review and comment further. Thanks, Gnixon 17:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

I replied at ANI David D. (Talk) 18:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks David -- great advice. Sorry you've got to be *prodded* here in addition to reading all the content on the other pages. Over and out, TxMCJ 19:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, sincerely. Gnixon 19:22, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion on Durin's talk page

I replied there to your rant (also have a long rant that has nothing to do with what you said...) Pascal.Tesson 19:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Wow, that was fast

Thanks for semiprotecting the cloming article. David D. (Talk) 16:16, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome. Because i saw it in WP:AN/I. -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me upï¿½} 16:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DNA

Thanks for helping with this, the FAR came as a surprise to say the least! TimVickers 04:09, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was stunned too. But these changes are making it better, so that is a good thing. David D. (Talk) 04:10, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Vandalism

The Introduction to Evolution article has apparently been discovered. So many vandals, perhaps they are still feeling the spirit from Easter. I predict even more attacks in the future; since this one is simple enough that they understand it (sort of the Ken Ham approach). Most of the challenges have been ridiculous attempts by some very bad spellers. It will be interesting to see if anyone attacks from an intellectual angle, similar to what you contend with on the main page. --Random Replicator 00:44, 29 April 2007 (UTC) [reply]

License tagging for Image:Itk GNF1Hthumb.png

Thanks for uploading Image:Itk GNF1Hthumb.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 18:12, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Angry flame

Feel better now you Darwinist/Evolutionist/Atheist primate!!!!! Orangemarlin 23:21, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you'd never arrive, better late than never ;) David D. (Talk) 01:38, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

re Cloning again

Could you consider extending the semi protection status of the cloning article? It expired on May 1st. See what has happenend since. http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Cloning&action=history Can semiprotection be used for an extended period or is this frowned upon? This article seems to be a real magnet for juvenile trolls. David D. (Talk) 20:12, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. lets hope with the arrival of summer, in the northern hemisphere at least, that these vandals will have better things to do with their time. David D. (Talk) 21:04, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

;) -- FayssalF - ^{Wiki me upï¿½} 21:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amino acid metabolism

I thought that as the catabolism of the majority of the amino acids either feed into pyruvate and then into acetyl-CoA (alanine, serine and cysteine) or acetyl and propionyl CoA directly, (the branched-chain amino acids and threonine) that this was a useful generalisation. I missed out pyruvate as it isn't nearly as important an intermediate as acetyl-CoA, which is the center of both anabolism and catabolism and where the majority of catabolic pathways converge. I deliberately designed this figure to be as broad and simple as possible. (I do admit I stole the basis of the figure from A survey of the energy transformations in living matter by Krebs, Kornberg and Burton) TimVickers 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number that are ketogenic vs gluogenic are simlar but admitedly there is some crossover (See the following figure [1]) I have to say I have never seen it simplified so extensivley as the Burton diagram you cite, I am more familiar with these type of diagrams.[2] [3] [4] Another issue is that the text does not clarify the confusion and there is a disproportionate emphasis on the urea cycle. I'll try and rewrite that section a bit to clarrify the diagram. David D. (Talk) 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the amino acids that feed to oxaloacetate are the exception, but I omitted these for the sake of simplicity. If you see pyruvate as just an intermediate in the formation of acetyl-CoA it lets you bring all these pathways together into one simple diagram. It's not the standard way of splitting up the pathways, but it is a useful unifying principle. TimVickers 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the removal of pyruvate and agree that acetyl CoA is probably the more central metabolicm intermediate. I still think it would be better to have a second arrow from protein into TCA cycle. I this way it is still kept simple and any potential confusion can be clarified in the text. Then simplicity is maitained without the loss of accuracy. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHUN

Consider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and i see that they have marginlised themselves into irrelevance anyway. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Oh, sorry, I should have explained it on the RFA page. I'm going to revise what I wrote there to make it more clear. Thanks for pointing that out. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, judging from your talk page it seemed a little out of character. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Amino acid metabolism

I thought that as the catabolism of the majority of the amino acids either feed into pyruvate and then into acetyl-CoA (alanine, serine and cysteine) or acetyl and propionyl CoA directly, (the branched-chain amino acids and threonine) that this was a useful generalisation. I missed out pyruvate as it isn't nearly as important an intermediate as acetyl-CoA, which is the center of both anabolism and catabolism and where the majority of catabolic pathways converge. I deliberately designed this figure to be as broad and simple as possible. (I do admit I stole the basis of the figure from A survey of the energy transformations in living matter by Krebs, Kornberg and Burton) TimVickers 22:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think the number that are ketogenic vs gluogenic are simlar but admitedly there is some crossover (See the following figure [5]) I have to say I have never seen it simplified so extensivley as the Burton diagram you cite, I am more familiar with these type of diagrams.[6] [7] [8] Another issue is that the text does not clarify the confusion and there is a disproportionate emphasis on the urea cycle. I'll try and rewrite that section a bit to clarrify the diagram. David D. (Talk) 22:39, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the amino acids that feed to oxaloacetate are the exception, but I omitted these for the sake of simplicity. If you see pyruvate as just an intermediate in the formation of acetyl-CoA it lets you bring all these pathways together into one simple diagram. It's not the standard way of splitting up the pathways, but it is a useful unifying principle. TimVickers 17:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the removal of pyruvate and agree that acetyl CoA is probably the more central metabolicm intermediate. I still think it would be better to have a second arrow from protein into TCA cycle. I this way it is still kept simple and any potential confusion can be clarified in the text. Then simplicity is maitained without the loss of accuracy. David D. (Talk) 17:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SHUN

Consider. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:07, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, and i see that they have marginlised themselves into irrelevance anyway. David D. (Talk) 18:14, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RFA

Oh, sorry, I should have explained it on the RFA page. I'm going to revise what I wrote there to make it more clear. Thanks for pointing that out. Wooyi^{Talk, Editor review} 20:32, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, judging from your talk page it seemed a little out of character. David D. (Talk) 20:33, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Guidelines

Hello
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Good work in your use of the hidden archive. This appears to work pretty well so far in cutting short the off-topic sniping. Hopefully, if used appropriately, we can use it to keep things focused. Rockpocket 21:41, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I copied directly from the first two. I wonder who did those ;) David D. (Talk) 21:50, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, jimfbleak 09:54, 10 May 2007 (UTC) Hi David, can't see any problem with my talk, so as you say, weird. jimfbleak 05:11, 12 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for experimenting with Wikipedia by creating the page Life/Gallery. Your test worked, and the page that you created has been or soon will be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. --Finngall ^talk 22:14, 14 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh no!

Now how can I make sure this matter receives the attention it deserves? Oh well, I suppose you've saved me the trouble of digging up a bunny with a pancake on its head. Friday (talk) 20:02, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your attention is more useful elsewhere. Actually, anywhere else. David D. (Talk) 20:07, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well put...

Somehow I missed your post at the village pump a few days ago. Just had a chance to read it now, and all I can say is your arguments are well put. Glad you're on the side of advocating for the idea (and actually contributing, no less).... Cheers, AndrewGNF 00:15, 16 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Images for evolution

Hi there. A point to notice is that some of the people on the talk page contribute to the article, whilst some only contribute to the talk page. TimVickers 22:04, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks liek Adam has it covered anyway. David D. (Talk) 22:06, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've never had so much guidance and yet so little help when writing an article before. It can become a little frustrating. It feels better now I have vented. Thank you! TimVickers 22:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is it with evolution and sweater curses? Just don't hit the reference desk. It can be even more frustrating. David D. (Talk) 23:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aaaargh! AAAAAAARRGH! TimVickers 20:07, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the discussion out of the straw poll. I can't believe I've wasted almost an entire day dealing with this. TimVickers 22:12, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, I can't comment any more tonight. What do you think about drawing a representative tree with the minimum representatitve species (based on that data set)? Obviously it could be done (see my example on the talk page) but this seems like OR as well as not being a real tree. What do you think? David D. (Talk) 23:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be asking for problems. One of the things I have been trying to do with this entire article is to base it solidly on real peer-reviewed research. By doing this I hope to be able to prevent ID and creationist weaseling in the future. TimVickers 23:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You do know that the theories of evolution have been put to the test by many famous social psychologists/sociologists that say its impossible for the languages that we have to be based on evolutionary processes, right? So don't think too much about evolution vs creationism, because both require a lot of faith in stuff that would have required far too long for us to ever witness and prove. SanchiTachi 04:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page

It actually crashed my browser loading it this morning. I've changed the archive bot setting to 3 days and compacted all the inactive threads until then. TimVickers 15:30, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I see now, I thought that was a severe compact. Especially given you had just commented in the very section you archived. David D. (Talk) 15:31, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help!

Silence has deleted a section I just added on the evolution of complexity. I am too annoyed with him to deal with this in a calm and dispassionate way, so could you please go and have a look at this and see what you think? TimVickers 22:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to step back from the article for a few days. Progress is getting more and more difficult and I am spending most of my time justifying my edits on the talk page to Silence and this is leaving little time to actually improve the article. I wouldn't mind so much if he were either polite or actually contributed in a positive way, but all he seems to do is complain on the talk page or delete new material from the article. As you can tell, I'm not in a positive frame of mind, a short break should do me good. TimVickers 02:31, 20 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Apologies if there has been any confusion. My comment on the actual page apparently caused some offence, and from an organisational standpoint, was somewhat difficult to handle: messages were coming rather fast on several pages, and nor was there an intention to delete any comments (I now assume I did.) Were they undeleted?martianlostinspace 17:00, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On further review I saw your comment further down. My edit resoted the information you deleted and hiopcrite then restored the comment you had made. Everything appears to be in order now. David D. (Talk) 17:02, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks.martianlostinspace 17:05, 21 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clio is back

Clio is back, David, thanks to you and the many other decent people here. You will find a note of explanation on my talk page. Love Clio the Muse 00:02, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AGF

Hey, it's okay. I have my own suspicions, and have had about many things in the last few months, but it never seems to go well when people start with the "What's the link? Why are you doing this? Sockpuppet!", even if their accusations are completely true. Much better to ask polite questions, politely point out what has recently happened, and keep your eyes peeled. If someone then acts disruptively, they should be pulled up for that. If someone (hypothetically) had a sockpuppet account, but it wasn't used for vote-stacking or edit-warring, but rather for trying to make edits and starting discussions without being judged by the behaviour of their other account(s), I actually have no problem with that. As long as they're subtle and not disruptive. If someone started a discussion because someone else asked them to, I'd rather they admitted this, but it wouldn't make me dismiss the discussion out of hand. But again, if they were disruptive they should be pulled up for that.

Just my observations :-) Skittle 18:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, just jaded I guess ;) David D. (Talk) 18:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When I feel like that, I tend to wander around Meatballwiki. Try this or this for some feelings of deja vu! Or what about this? And I often ponder linking this into discussions... Skittle 19:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yes, how do you feel about removing the bit I've hidden below, so it looks like you just spontaneously asked? ;-D

one of my favourite formatting techniques

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

What alignment does Hirakawacho (talk · contribs) have with Eptypes (talk · contribs)? This user started the Featured article candidates/Psychology page, that was tended by Paracit (talk · contribs), who is a sockpuppet of Eptypes (talk · contribs). Is this a conspiracy to disrupt? We should not play this game if it is insincere. David D. (Talk) 17:42, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While of course, with all the tomfoolery that has happened around here, we are all suspicious of motives, particularly when someone who has previously been silent around here suddenly appears and brings up a recently contentious issue, we must be careful not to throw accusations around too freely. That way lies a witch-hunt O_O Hirakawacho appears to be a steady editor with a respectable history. There could, of course, be some deep conspiracy behind this, with sleeper accounts acquiring respectable histories. It could be that some user has emailed Hirakawacho, or even hacked their account! However, I'd say the simplest thing is to ask Hirakawacho.

Hirakawacho! What brought you to the reference desks? What prompted you to make this suggestion? Pardon my curiosity, but we've had some upheaval around here :-) Skittle 17:57, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the amount of discussion on this page such an innocent question (with surprising connections) stretches the benevoleance of AGF beyond sensible limits. I am just pointing this out since until Hirakawacho addresses the sincerity of the question I see no reason why anyone should waste more time on this issue. David D. (Talk) 18:04, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Skittle 19:23, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey skittle, thanks for all the links and advice , very funny and wise :P David D. (Talk) 19:24, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Enjoy :-) Skittle 19:52, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Biology montage (Citiendium)

Hi, I chanced upon Citizendium's biology article and was very impressed with the montage showing the varieties of life shown in the title image. Would it be possible to use that image in this encyclopedia's article on biology or, if not, could a similar one be made? Brisvegas 23:50, 26 May 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Peer-review of evolution

If you had some ideas on how to improve the Evolution article, could you contribute to the peer-review? Thanks. TimVickers 20:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FAC now. TimVickers 05:18, 3 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

David D.bot

Comes online. _{(thats the right thing to do, of course, I was just amused by a (very rare) example of genuine wit among the childish dross. Rockpocket 07:00, 4 June 2007 (UTC))} [reply]

Image tagging for Image:Four Dungarees.gif

Thanks for uploading Image:Four Dungarees.gif. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided source information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 08:08, 5 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Not sure how it would help

As he's an admitted sock of a banned editor who exhausted the patience of the admin who'd been permitting him to edit, I don't see how bringing it to AN/I could possibly help him. Friday (talk) 20:05, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if the other admins were overwhelmingly supportive of the ban it would help him understand his situation more quickly. David D. (Talk) 20:52, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

True. Under the assumption that he doesn't understand his situation, it seems reasonable. He seems like a kook to me, so I doubt he can be reasoned with. But I suppose it doesn't hurt much to keep trying either. Friday (talk) 21:09, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably right about the reasoning. There are Loomis like qualities to the arguments being presented. Have you noticed how the ref deak really brings out some bizarre editing qualities in users? Its the Mystery Spot of wikipedia. David D. (Talk) 21:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is weird that way, yeah. I've often wondered if the apparent large number of kooks is really just one or two silly kids playing games. This guy has a history of using lots of socks, I noticed. Also just noticed that THB who I remember being problematic was blocked a while back for non-ref-desk-related sockpuppetry. It does surprise me when some of these people claim to be adults with jobs- if their real-life persona is anything like online, I don't see how that could be possible. Friday (talk) 21:33, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Admin

Yes, I feel you are right. I have been away for three months and if I run for admin right now, I would most likely fail in the nomination. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 01:42, 7 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Carla Baron cover-up

I expect you are keeping an eye on my and her histories and talk pages User_talk:Psychic_profiler. She is notable enough for her own article.

BTW, this talk page is a nightmare for me to view since boxes cover large parts of it. I use 1024 x 768, which is quite common. -- Fyslee/talk 14:03, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree, this is a misuse of BLP protection. See what I wrote on badlydrawnjeff's talk page. Are the boxes at the top a mess? It is fine on my browser but I know there are differences depending on which is used, which browser are you using? David D. (Talk) 15:09, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Like it or not, I use the most common one -- Windows Internet Explorer, and have Windows XP. The box that causes problems is the "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia" box. It covers the text on the top few comments. -- Fyslee/talk 18:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback. I'll try and fix it. David D. (Talk) 18:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Banned User and the Ref Desk

I note your "same old, same old" comment on the Ref desk Talk page. How does an editor tell if the questionner is a banned user? I would rather not waste time on banned users or trolls, but I am having some difficulty telling a bewildered question from a (possibly) young questionner whose first langusge is not English from a silly question from someone who just wants either to be noticed or to tie up resources, especially if I am to assume good faith and be polite. Any experience or "checking" mechanism you can share would be appreciated. Bielle 18:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any user with a dynamic IP cannot be banned since they can switch IP numbers as they please. Nevertheless, their style of posting is often similar and the range of IP's they use is often relatively small. So, you can never be sure, but by combining the style and IP information it is possible to pick them out. With respect to the specific example you cite, for more information see this thread. Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Continual_anon_sockpuppetry_from_LC David D. (Talk) 18:37, 8 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So many of the questions sound like 14-year-olds giggling about their audacity that I just assumed that, for the most part, this was the case. I won't worry about it a lot. If you notice me getting sucked into a series of sillinesses, I'd appreciate a "word to the (not-so) wise". Thanks for responding. Bielle 02:29, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A good rule of thumb, for this particular user, is that if the IP begins with 88.108... through 88.112... then its probably him. However, even comments within that range should be treated with good faith as long as they are constructive, as its always possible it is another user from the same range. However, the ratio of contructive edits to trolling is very small. Rockpocket 02:42, 10 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question about color use

Would you please direct me to the page that explains all of this to me? I really would appreciate it. Please post it to my talk page if you do not mind. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain what you did. ----CrohnieGal^Talk/_Contribs 14:08, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The welcoming

How'd you git that Welcoming thing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nikro (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure I understand you? David D. (Talk) 00:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Surprised?

I am. So much so, I think its still worth keeping an eye on. Rockpocket 08:25, 11 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks

Thank you for reverting the vandalism on my user page, much appreciated. â¦Tangerines BFC â¦Â·Talk 19:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

white text

Thanks for the heads up. No one else has mentioned it. What browser do you use (so I can check myself)? ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 23:21, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Safari with a mac running OS10.3.9. I looked at other pages and the problem seems to be on Barratt talk page alone. Very strange. Clearly the others did not have an issue since they responded to your points. David D. (Talk) 01:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again. I'll cross my fingers for now. Please let me know if you see it on other pages, if perchance we meet again. ॐ Metta Bubble ^puff 02:47, 14 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:Nikro

I saw your messages on the user's page and my observation on the user behaviour suggests that they are a bunch of children at play and have stopped worrying about them since they are restricting themselves now to userspace. I see they are not doing anything useful to wikipedia, but do not have the heart to do anything about it. Shyamal 05:04, 14 June 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Mission - How can you be sure

You on a mission ATM to rv all posts you think may be LC? How can you be sure its me him?

Good point may be there are other 88 IP's that post with your exact style. Now I'm confused, maybe you're really not you but one of them? They should make a new show called the 88. Files. Who will play you? Or them? Is Friday the smoking man? David D. (Talk) 02:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Discussion" to "Talk"

Hello, David D.: Several days ago you commented on the proposal to change the label "Discussion" to "Talk" for greater newbie friendliness at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Talk Pages. You were opposed to the change on the grounds that it might encourage "chat" rather than content discussion on the talk pages. A.Z. has summarized the discussion to date on the point, and amended his summary after a call for a correction by Qiddity. Do you have anything more to add before we request a view on whether we have consensus, or would you like to comment on consensus? Bielle 19:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on TenOfAllTrades's talk page for him to better explain his position. I think it's possible to have a real consensus on this, to change the tab to "Talk". There are new arguments on the thread, but there are still three users opposing (or maybe two, depending on Ten's answer). A.Z. 19:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Admin nomination?

Hi! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to inquire if this is the right time for me to be nominated as an admin. Your thoughts on this matter would be useful! --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 07:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My candid opinion would be it is too early. Typically admins are involved in many situations where they interact with other users and have to explain their actions. Your recent contributions include very few meaningful interactions or discussions with other users. Most of your edits this month have been housekeeping type edits which might explain that lack of interaction but i think this might be a thorn for you given you have only been back a month. I could be wrong about that thorn and clearly you can be trusted. What is you main reason for needing the tools? That is probably the most pressing thing to formulate in your mind since in the last month there seems to be no need. I hope this is useful for you. David D. (Talk) 14:16, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]