User talk:TimVickers

Welcome to Tim Vickers's talk page. Today is Friday, December 27, 2024; it is now 11:22 (UTC/GMT) Please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~). Place comments that start a new topic at the bottom of the page and give them ==A descriptive header==. If you're new to Wikipedia, please see Welcome to Wikipedia and frequently asked questions. Talk page guidelines Please respect Etiquette, assume good faith and try to be be polite.

This talk page is automatically archived by Werdnabot. Any sections older than 25 days are automatically archived to User talk:TimVickers/archive 5. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 17:37, 25 December 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Hi

Hi Tim I didn't know how else to reply to your message so I guess this is the only way to express my sincere apologies for recklessly editing charles darwins page, I dont know what came over me, I realise that charlie is an inspiration for species all over the world including myself. I can only hope you will forgive me.. yours katie zimzalabim...yes thats my real name I'm from morrocco..

DNA FAR

DNA has been nominated for a featured article review. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to featured quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, articles are moved onto the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Remove" the article from featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Reviewers' concerns are here.

Photosynthesis

Need help with catalyst induced artificial/natural photosynthesis. Applications in genetic engineering, biofuels, iron fertilization/ocean nourishment.

Barnstar

(Moved to user page)

Barnstar

Hey Tim,

I think this makes the the 4th barnstar I've awarded here on WP...

• Moved to trophy cabinet.

Homeopathy article

Dear Tim Vickers

I hope this is the right section to write this.I may have put it in the wrong place before. I would like to ask for your opinion regarding the recent edit problems in the Homeopathy article. I apologize for the length of the message.

I did not do any “edit war” and I don’t know why it was perceived that way.

I had many objections about the Neutral Point of View of the Homeopathy article and have been trying to discuss this with all the editors for a month.In the discussion page it is stated that we should not edit anything in the article if we have not reached a consensus.

Later on we discussed with wikidudeman if it should be added in the introduction that Homeopathy has some therapeutic effect based on published studies, which have the same qualifications with the cited articles. He agreed. The user Wikidudeman replied that.:

The version 2 days ago did all of that. It mentioned that no clinical studies have proven the efficacy of Homeopathy and that some studies have shown results above placebo. However that has all been deleted by Jim62sch and OrangeMarlin since then. Wikidudeman (talk) 20:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC) I deleted it? Really? Got proof? •Jim62sch• 21:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Mostly OrangeMarlin. 1 2 Though tagging a section as POV when it's clearly referenced doesn't help much either. Nor does saying it needs to be "taken out and shot". That's very unhelpful. It's not constructive. Wikidudeman (talk) 21:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Could you possibly be any lamer? •Jim62sch• 21:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Insults aren't helpful... Wikidudeman (talk) 21:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

No one took any action to revert the edit. I tagged the specific section under dispute and gave 5 specific reasons in a long paragraph summarizing my objections. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Homeopathy SM565 - why The neutrality of the introduction and "clinical trials" are disputed.

I did not delete or edit anything thinking that the discussion about the controversial matter should be open and should invite the individual reader to investigate. Is this wrong?

My tag was removed and I kept tagging it. The other users, who disagreed with our opinion (me and docboat ) kept removing the tag. In other words they did not want to announce in the article that there is a disagreement about Homeopathy’s efficacy in the discussion page.

Of course I made more than 3 edits ( tags) and Adam Cuerden blocked my account: The reason given for Sm565's block is: "WP:3RR after warning, with a side of particularly rude and vitriolic POV-pushing.".! I’m pretty sure Adam Cuerden –as everything was happening fast - did not have the time to see who had been really vitriolic and rude, who reverted wikidudeman edit without discussion, who used insults and he blocked the wrong account. I’m sure it was an honest mistake and he will recognize it.

I respect all the labor from the serious editors here even if I may disagree with them. But if they don’t even want to accept publicly in the article that there is disagreement on Homeopathy’s efficacy there is not even a chance for a consensus.

In my opinion, the only consensus, which is rational, is that there are 2 different opinions on Homeopathy’s efficacy supported by scientific evidence from valid sources. Both should be stated proportionally. http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/321/7259/471/ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=retrieve&db=pubmed&list_uids=14734789&dopt=medline

Even if the pro-homeopathy view is held by a minority, it is an important enough minority, it exists even in the World Health Organization. A WHO draft of a paper supporting homeopathy triggered an article in the BBC and criticism in the Lancet. This pro homeopathy view in addition to homeopathy’s principle objections (cited of course) on the criticism and the qualified studies which support HOmeopathy should be included in the article - I do believe. Even the main editor of the article agreed with me as you saw. I don’t see any serious and bona fide excuse not to do it or at least not to state that the issue is under dispute.

Finally, I think that the examination of the history of the behavior of the editors could be a valid critirion in evaluating my comment.

Iwould like to hear your opinion -if you have the time - about this issue.

Thanks for reading.--Sm565 04:03, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I note that we played bat'n'ball over the reference to the NHS position on homeopathy. Given a careful reading of the source, it does not support the view which has been purported to it, thus I am (once again) removing it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.216.70 (talk) 16:16, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think that your reading of the NHS position is extremely misleading -- although I agree that the other citations do support the view (and clearly so) the citation regarding the NHS is taking what is effectively a deliberately non-position, and attempting to suggest that it purports a position which it does not. NHS trusts fund on the basis of a number of reasons, including scientific studies and results. The NHS currently actively funds and researches. 86.130.216.70 22:51, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Whether one believes that homeopathy works or not, the particular citation from the nhs is a sumarry article on nhs direct, which could equally be used as a citation that "... people believe that much of the research conducted into the effectiveness of homeopathy is not representative of routine homeopathic practice ...". The other citations I agree support the view, but this one is particularly poor, as it does not suggest the position it is being given. IRL I work in an area where the specific verbage of text is extremely important, and this citation (which you insist on having here) simply does not state what has been ascribed to it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.216.70 (talk) 08:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Ox phos SVG diagrams

All done, sir :) Took me a while, I know—I hope they're accurate! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I just redo them from scratch using the PNG as a basis. There are automated "tracing" utilities, even in Inkscape, but the results are awful. It's no bother at all, though; the worst part is my taking so long :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Welcome :) I completely forgot to add them to the article when they were done. I only noticed because I was updating my gallery at Commons. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 21:06, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Could you tell me more?

I would like to learn what in my arguments was "exceptionally intransigent and uncooperative". I would very much like to learn from my mistakes. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  18:38, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

As the author of close to 20 Featured articles and 10 Good Articles I used to be under the impression that my (rather frequent) contacts with reviewers are rather positive; hence my surprise at your comment. As Daniel has admitted in his FAC, it was his first review - something I was not aware at the time of the review and which certainly explains some of the misunderstandings we had. Nonetheless I believe that I throughout my discussion with him at Kiev Expedition (1018) I have acted in a manner consistent with WP:CIV, and I addressed all of his (and your) points (note that addressing doesn't mean I had to agree with them). A civil difference of opinions is a perfectly normal part of an intellectual discourse. Again, I would like to see which statements I made struck you as "exceptionally intransigent and uncooperative" - forgive me, but if someone criticizes me so harshly I like to get to the bottom of this, so I can learn from my mistakes (or clarify some misunderstanding).-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  23:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course we are all entitled to our own impressions. I would nonetheless ask you - in your free time - to review the discussion again. I think your description of my behavior (as cited above) was highly unfair, and I would appreciate it if you could present a specific citation that you view as fitting such a description. Forgive me, but I believe such an accusation, particularly when used on a highly public forum like RfA, should be either backed up with a diff - or refactored.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. While I think I was rather cooperative, the current comment is certainly much more civil. I believe it is crucial to moderate ourselves in order to maintain a pleasant working atmosphere on the project. Take care, -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Veganism

Hi Tim, I'm just closing the GAR for Veganism, where the main concerns were NPOV issues. I agree with these concerns, but notice that you did not raise any during your initial review for GAN. Since I have great regard for your judgement, I wonder if you could check the archived discussion and give me your opinion in the light of my comments there. Possibly my POV antenna is too sensitive, but I believe the concerns are genuine. Thanks, Geometry guy 19:00, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I can't do that, I disassociated myself from that review when it became clear that I and one of the editors on that page were unable to work together in a constructive manner. User:Gosgood took it over for me and did an excellent job, you might want to get in touch with him. All the best Tim Vickers 23:24, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks anyway Tim. I wasn't actually asking for you to get involved, just looking for some personal feedback (e.g. by email), but I entirely understand if you don't want to comment. I already contacted Gosgood, but thanks for the suggestion. Cheers, Geometry guy 23:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Virus

Hi Tim, thanks for your encouraging words. I have more-or-less done all I can with virus for now. I need to step away from it for a while and perhaps get feedback from the (younger) lads and lasses at the lab. Would you have time to read it through? I speak Russian better than I can write this Wiki code, especially when it comes to hypertexting references.

Best wishes

Graham

PS My (completely black) cat is called Nochka. Her name comes from the russian word for night. GrahamColm 18:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

World tb2005.png

I don't know if I am looking at the wrong data, but WHO report says that S. Korea has 80 TBs per 100,000. But the map says it is over 500 per 100,000. Can you check it? (I tried to change the image, but I didn't know what license type I was supposed to use. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:World_tb2005.png) Thanks

216.165.62.207 04:15, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

why did you move my comments?

And I would like some of my issues addressed. There seems to me quote mining and cherry picking in these subjects and I was treated uncivilly. Also views of African-Americans are not adequately represented. Imbrella 13:34, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You've got post!

Emailed you. Cheers, Skinwalker 13:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim

What was the cite he/she removed? I can't find it...but hey don't worry the whole goddam thing has been pretty volatile of late if you follow my drift! ;-) hope ur doing well over in St Louis or wherever you hang out these days. Haven't you got a birthday coming up soon? well, keep on truckin, etc. cheers Peter morrell 21:04, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, I will ponder on the lost cite tomorrow. Yes, re your hazy memory, that's where teaching keeps you on top of the subject. Is it a powerpoint type talk? Anyway have a great birthday! cheers Peter morrell 21:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have now checked all the diffs and I cannot find any missing cites which I personally placed. thanks anyway cheers Peter morrell 05:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

mechanisms and processes of evolution

there are numerous fields what i was thinking to cover, like co-evolution, microevolution, macroevolution and lots more things. don't worry i will add my actual work too. give me some more time to edit this page. kindly don't delete this page. Sushant gupta 13:01, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ummhhh... fine i will be deleting all your content from the article and try to add only my content. happy now! thanks for the help and advice. (i actually want to try once to write an article on such an interesting topic) Sushant gupta 10:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

would it be correct if i talk about general misconceptions regarding evolution in the article. Sushant gupta 11:33, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

today i could only wrote 2 sections. i will cite sexual selection tomorrow. i will soon try to renew the whole page. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:07, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

---

i need to prepare for my exams and i might not get much time to insert any new section in place of your sections. so can i please continue with the section which are currently placed in the article. if you have any problems regarding those sections then i am ready to rewrite them but it will take few weaks for me to make them perfect; like those of yours. thanks, Sushant gupta 09:43, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Good job

Of cleaning up homeopathy. It will of course have to be repeated after a while, just as in the past. But I think the present state is a good standard to revert to if needed. DGG (talk) 14:49, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thanks for your msg; regarding your view that the homeopathy article is now ready for FA, I am not sure and I think the idea really now needs floating on the talk page and then we can see what all the other folks think. Maybe you can do that later today so we can see what the reactions are? thanks Peter morrell 06:48, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think nominating it as FA would be best if it's not even GA status yet. It was GA status a few weeks ago (for only a few days) and I think we should make it a GA status prior to nominating it for Featured Status. That's my opinion at least, though we could always go ahead with FA if you want. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 17:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

for you!

Moved to trophy cabinet

Influenza categories

Hello, I wonder if you would be interested in reviewing my proposal for new and reorganized categories for the influenza pages. Regards—G716 <^T·_C> 04:25, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

mechanisms and processes of evolution!

i have done all the possible things what i could have. is it looking fine. well all is yours in this article. thankyou very much tim for leting your content exist in this and previous article. i would be only active on weekends now due to upcoming exams. cheers Sushant gupta 09:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Hello again!

Hi,

I think we corresponded breifly a few months ago. I've been meaning to contribute a lot more to the MCB pages but haven't had the heart to take time off from writing (my dissertation) to writing for leisure (g). Fortunately, the writing part is done and I am settling in nicely. I think I mentioned the ACS Chemical Biology WIKIspot journal club. I just joined the journal as a staff member this week. I'll be contributing a lot more to wikipedia now that I'm settling in my day job, but I was told by others here that you had some wonderful ideas on collaboration between the MCB wikiproject and ACS Chemical Biology. I am definitely on-board and ready to kick-start that. Thanks for your time. Antorjal 14:33, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Your ideas are excellent. I was thinking about taking it a step further. I'm going to be writing an editorial soon enough for ACSCB. A good topic would be collaborative efforts and experiences with wikipedia. Would be good for publicity and I'd mention a few wikipedians I know who are working on the MCB project (such as yourself). Then we could see if this could be highlighted somewhere here on wikipedia itself. Send me a message or an email if you'd like to bounce other ideas. Thanks. Antorjal 19:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Both good suggestions. Nice to see Enzyme kinetics as an FA up on the mainpage! :)Antorjal 19:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Bolding

Hey, Tim, I started to fix some of the bolding at Enzyme kinetics per WP:MOSBOLD, but I wasn't sure if those terms were bolded for emphasis and should be switched to WP:ITALICS, or just debolded. I'll leave it to you :-) I'll be traveling that day, so I won't be able to help vandalfight the mainpage. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:18, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Template:Evolution4

Hi Tim, well is the following template serving any purpose. i mean template:evolution3 already exists. thanks, Sushant gupta 12:30, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

mechanisms and processes of evolution- i have nominated for GAC. i won't be available here for a bit long time. kindly maintain this article. thanks, Sushant gupta 14:13, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Dunin Family Spam

This is not a personal attack rather a recitation of facts. These editors (admins now) have been personally responsible for protecting these useless, vain and ponderous articles relating to Elonka Dunin and her family. What are you going to do about it? Past editors have actually been banned for attempting to remediate this spam - it is disgraceful! 72.107.35.156 22:37, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Dysgenics, Human and Human evolution

Hey Tim, I've put up a notice at the fringe theory noticeboard, any thoughts or input you have would be appreciated. Looking through his history it seems like the matter is something of a personal crusade for aruno3. – ornis⚙ 02:21, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

MOS change

Hi Tim: I read it and thought it was fine. Thanks. I've snooped around your user page: there's an "m" missing from "from" in the shiny things cabinet. And I love the absence of dots in your work-list. I'm waging a battle with the dot-manics at Wikipedia:Naming_conventions_(people)#Middle_names_-_abbreviations_of_names, and here. Tony (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim

I agree with your comment about preferring to work with civil editors. Right on to that. However, do you know how I can access the wiki image bank? I just want to check if there pics already in there for certain subjects, such as embryology and histology slides. It would be helpful to view the whole bank of images and check them by name or as small thumbnails. Do you know if this can be done? thanks Peter morrell 12:42, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Many thanks for the link, Tim, that's just what I needed. Oh, and how come your cat's called Loki? why? cheers Peter morrell 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mischief, heh? well have you introduced her to a ball of wool or a 3 foot piece of string? Hours of great fun awaits you if you haven't. She's a beauty. cheers Peter morrell 17:11, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I had no problem with that 'tangtango image thingy' the other day but today for some reason I cannot access it in spite of repeated attempts...any ideas? thanks Peter morrell 15:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A reply would be nice! Peter morrell 21:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim, no probs; oh, its been saying that all day! hrumph! cheers Peter morrell 21:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Image:Random order ternary mechanism.svg

Hi Tim—congratulations on getting Enzyme kinetics on the Main Page! I was going over the article and noticed that Image:Random order ternary mechanism.svg looked like a JPG embedded into an SVG. I've been incredibly bold and replaced it with an actual SVG. I hope you don't mind; if you do, please revert to your version. Best as always, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:13, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Your comments!

I have replied on the talk page of the article. Sushant gupta 15:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

replied on the talk page. kindly see to it. Sushant gupta 14:59, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Request

Could you add "Category:Main Page" to the bottom of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page? I recently discovered http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Main_Page_alternatives which can be found through Category:Main Page. I tried it in a sandbox, and it works fine there. I asked about it on the main page talk page and was ignored. WAS 4.250 16:56, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. WAS 4.250 17:22, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

A book to keep in mind

I am reading this book right now (On Food and Cooking: The Science and Lore of the Kitchen (ISBN 0-684-80001-2, 2004)). And it made me think of the peer review of Bacteria, in particular the section "Significance in technology and industry" which always had a weakness from the lack of top-notch sources. This book is really a different approach where the details of chemistry and historical methods are given a decent treatment. I am not knowledgeable enough to recognize any deficiencies in the chemistry, but the treatment is detailed enough to articulate which things are not yet understood by scientists. I just wanted to drop you a note about it because I can imagine it might be useful to you in future articles that need a information for the "practical" section.--BirgitteSB 20:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Virus

Did any relevant information get lost in the rewrite of this article? Can you refer me to your version as mentioned by the anon on the FAC page. - Mgm|^(talk) 19:48, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Enzymes

Hi Tim,

I support you on the units issue, although you might want to introduce the words "most common units in the relevant scientific literature". Unfortunately, I have to dash off to my adult-education class, so I can't anything to the debate just now. But something nicer is in the works, un petit cadeau mainly with you in mind. Please check out Daisy's work on 4-hydroxybutyrate dehydrogenase and let me know what you think. We've been gone too long from the MCB community and I thought this might be a nice revenir and souvenir. Ta-ta, and wish me luck — I have a test tonight! :( Willow 22:00, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Soooo — I guessed that this was your favorite class of enzymes? It does make for a good beginning, so that we can get our bearings and think about how to improve such articles. Daisy is eager for suggestions from everyone at the WP:MCB. I'm going to try to finish them tonight, but I'm leaving tomorrow morning to visit my sister, and won't be back until next week. I still have to pack as well!  :( Hoping that you like your oxidoreductases, however many there are, Willow 23:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

PS. You might want to move one or two articles to a simpler name, or maybe connect it by redirects to an existing article that I missed or to a redlink such as those on List of EC numbers (EC_1). I wasn't always sure which name to choose; some of them seem overly complicated and others overly simple. It was a hard balance to strike. Also, my wikilinks to metabolic pathways seem to need work. :( Willow 23:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Link to afd

Hi Tim. I noticed you deleted article Dom Passantino with the wrong link to AFD in the summary. The result of the first afd was "no consensus" thus preventing the article from being deleted. It had to process to the third AFD which you closed as delete that the deletion was justified. It happened on September 27, a fairly long time ago but I still want to notify you in case you make the same mistake again. Cheers. @pple complain 09:34, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Categorization of Homeopathy

Tim, I saw your query on the article talk page. This came up during the parapsychology issue at WP:FA, and I raised the question here. I like categorizing these articles as Health to bring them under the WP:MEDMOS umbrella of requirements at FAC. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Tim:

Thanks for the feedback on my talk page. Cheers, Wanderer57 20:32, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Review!

Dear TimVickers,
Thank you for your participation in providing me with a critique in my recent editor's review, archived here. I read and take each person's comments very seriously, whether or not the content is critical or praiseworthy. I look forward to working with you in future Wikipedia projects.
-- Miranda

Asperger syndrome

Is AS still on your watchlist? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Same ole, same ole, allegations of POV still. I thought WP:NPOV#Undue was understood last time around. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Sadi Carnot

Hello,

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

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

Just a quick head's up - you've mis-spelt Sadi Carnot as Saudi Carnot in your evidence section (x6). Carcharoth 22:41, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Oops! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

flu vaccination

Sorry. I just reverted your addition to Human flu as it was unsourced and I believe it to be inaccurate. I think the main difficulty with vaccinating humans for flu lies in the rapid evolution of the flu virus. If the current strains of flu never ever changed we could be successfully vaccinated against them all I would think. WAS 4.250 21:37, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Methyltransferases

Hey Tim,

So, I'm really sorry, but Daisy and I got tired of all those oxidoreductases, so we're taking a little vacation among the methyltransferases for a change. :) I didn't get them all, but at least we made a good start.

One problem we're having is how to make the first letter of the article title lowercase — do you know how to do that? It's rather annoying to have rRNA (guanine-N2-)-methyltransferase come out as RRNA (guanine-N2-)-methyltransferase, don't you think? Bleah :p Thanks for any help or insights in advance! :) Willow 23:12, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I kind of fixed some of the -ate endings to -ic acid, although I was uncertain about phosphate, isoaspartate and similar articles.

Thanks very much for the {{lowercase}} link to get the various RNA enzymes OK! :) I've started back in on the oxidoreductases today, as you can see. Do you think I should finish them off first before moving on to the other fives groups of enzymes (transferases, isomerases, etc.), or do you think I should do a smattering from each category and then gradually fill them in? It probably doesn't matter, but I was just curious whether you had any opinion, any pre-vision or foretelling from your dreams ;) Willow 21:11, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

TATA box binding protein

Shouldn't TATA box binding protein redirect to TATA binding protein instead of Transcription Factor II D? I think TBP is a protein in the TFIID complex and has enough unique biology to warrant its own page. Forluvoft 03:38, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

The pandemic vaccine puzzle

FYI: CIDRAP (Center for Infectious Disease Research & Policy - Academic Health Center -- University of Minnesota) has an interesting series of articles called "The pandemic vaccine puzzle" available here containing:

• Part 1: Flu research: a legacy of neglect
• Part 2: Vaccine production capacity falls far short
• Part 3: H5N1 poses major immunologic challenges
• Part 4: The promise and problems of adjuvants
• Part 5: What role for prepandemic vaccination?
• Part 6: Looking to novel vaccine technologies
• Part 7: Time for a vaccine 'Manhattan Project'?

WAS 4.250 18:59, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cell Signaling

Hi there. I noticed you listed "Enzymes, enzyme kinetics, enzyme inhibition and pathogens" as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. These interests may intersect with WikiProject Cell Signaling, which I invite you to join. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Help request

I was planning on removing a miscellaneous section from the Scriabin article. I know I've seen something on Wikipedia's policies that says you shouldn't have trivia. Do you know where I can find this info so I can put it in the discussion article? Thanks.  Stewy⁵⁷¹⁴ 01:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for helping  Stewy⁵⁷¹⁴ —Preceding comment was added at 01:43, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: Admin?

Hi there, many thanks for the offer! It has crossed my mind in the past but I while I would give it a go, right now I feel I would not stand up to closer scrutiny in any nomination! I feel that I still have a lot to learn about aspects of wikipedia and my lack of knowledge on all the polices would most certainly let me down! Andy^reply 17:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

FeloniousMonk

Hi Tim, can you check out the current edit war at Jonathan_Sarfati, I am no fan of creationists but to describe a letter to nature a note as FeloniousMonk (talk · contribs) is insisting on doing there appears to be a tactic to trivialise the work. I agree he is probably fighting fire with fire but that type of in your face escalation makes articles become highly unstable and leads to edit wars. Basically he is creationist baiting and that will make them a pain in the butt for everyone else too. David D. (Talk) 19:06, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input. i now realise that FM is ignorant of the Nature set up and assumed it was a letter to the editor, at least I hope that is the reason. Seems strange to fight so hard for something you have no clue about. You'd think he would at least listen to input. I expect he assumed that since I disagreed with him I must be a creationist. David D. (Talk) 19:25, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Possible copyvio at RNA Biocatalysis

I was getting ready to remove sourcing and link to a nn blog when I realized the copy may have picked up from the blog, not the other way around...the blog has the same content and similar dates as the wikipedia article, which was created by the same editor who added the blog to several articles. In any case, the article needs a lot of work, and I don't have the expertise in either copyvio or biowhatevers :) to determine what to do ... would you take a look at this and Virtual colonoscopy (link I removed from VC is here: http://www.pulasthi.info/2007/07/vertual-colonoscopy.html )? Thanks. Flowanda | Talk 16:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to stay calm

I understand what you mean. The problem is that it becomes very difficult to express things within Wikipedia when you actually do suspect someone of wrongdoing. My experience is that a retaliatory flurry of accusations tends to come from the guilty, not the innocent. When the discussion took the turn from whether Sadi was a bad actor to the idea that I had caused the whole problem by being tenacious in trying to get something done, I started to look deeper. I found what I thought was a smoking gun, although everyone seems inclined to discount it as nothing more than a cap pistol.

Anyway, I've put in my recommendation, documented my reason for it, and I'll try to sit quietly while I am sanctimoniously accused of bad faith by someone that assumes that I had an ulterior motive for trying to get Sadi banned. Once the arbitration is over, I expect that I will be getting blocked on a weekly basis, so I'll try to do my best in the small windows of opportunity I get.Kww 17:19, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Re:Admin?

Hi, thanks for the offer but I have no intention of becoming an admin, now or anytime in the foreseeable future. I do not see the point in going through a grueling week for something I probably will not use often (or ever). :) On another note, please keep doing your good work on MCB articles; we need all we can get. - TwoOars (Rev) 21:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

...

It's called looking out for other users and warning them of the dangers of having their personal information available publicly.--Snakese 21:05, 5 November 2007 (UTC)