User talk:Guillaume2303

Hi, and welcome to my User Talk page! For new discussions, I prefer you add your comments at the very bottom and use a section heading (e.g., by using the "+" tab at the top of this page). I will respond on this page unless specifically requested otherwise.

Page redirects

Hi

I have noticed that you are deleting a lot of articles to leave redirects in their place. More importantly I have noticed that you are not then moving the material to the redirect page.

Can you at least tag them first (or at least with merge etc.) to give people a chance to address the issues you consider exist? Acting as judge and executioner without any input from other editors is not really the best way forwards. Chaosdruid (talk) 19:38, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

• The problem is that there is nothing to merge. First of all, almost all are exceptionally badly written in EU "grant-speak". Second, none of them was sourced to even a single independent reliable source, so there is actually no sourced content to merge anywhere. Finally, regarding giving people the chance to do something, several of these articles had only a single edit, when they were created years ago, making it unlikely that there are any interested editors. In any case, the content is still available in the edit histories, so if you want to merge anything that seems worthwhile and can be sourced, please go ahead. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 20:06, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Interwiki problem

Hi! Could I ask you a question about an article on your topic? I created the art. Nature versus nurture in the Czech WP on March 17. To my surprise, bots have not been adding interwiki for two weeks now. Well, my native language is not Czech. But the text has been revised by a native speaker of Czech. So there is no doubt about the article’s style and grammar. Then what is the reason for the fact that bots do not perform their work? --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 09:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, as far as I can see, all appropriate interwikilinks are present, so there is no reason for bots to add anything. Or am I missing something? --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I see now, you added all those links by hand. Yes, that is unusual. Normally, as soon as you add 1 interwikilink in a new article, a bot comes by within hours at most and adds all others reciprocally. I don't know why this didn't happen this time (it shoudl be independent of the style/grammar of the article), but I don't know much about these interwiki bots either. You could ask User:Headbomb, who knows a lot about bots. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I meant all the articles except the English one where I had added the Czech interwiki by hand. There isn’t the Czech link in all those articles, e.g.: fr:Inné, pl:Nature versus nurture, ru:Социогенетизм или биогенетизм etc. But if it is not your topic, then I beg your pardon. Perhaps I’ll try to appeal to someone in the Czech WP because it is the Czech article that engenders a problem for bots. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 13:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Ah, I didn't check those other language versions. That is very weird indeed. But with the Czech linked from the English version, bots should pick it up here, too. You could also ask here at the helpdesk. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 13:57, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I’ve just posed the problem there. I hadn’t even knew about the WP:Help desk until you advised it. --Solus ipse Inc. (talk) 20:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• Glad I could help :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Problem with article on Common Genetic Misconceptions

Genes are not one-dimensional. This is plainly false. Please correct this error-of-fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.239.24.59 (talk) 19:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

• If you have a reliable source for that, go ahead. But don't just add stuff without providing a source. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 21:51, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A source for the fact that genes are not one-dimensional? Would you like a link to materials on what a dimension is? The number of coordinates needed to describe an object in physical space determines dimensionality. There are exactly zero physical objects in the universe that are one-dimensional; an object occupying physical space must be described by at least three-dimensions. Are you disputing that genes exist in physical space? Or is your position that molecules are not real objects? Consider the connected syllogisms below. I hope you see my point about the language of dimension. I do not use wikipedia often, and this is the first time I have ever edited an article, but it is distressing to see such a basic ontological error defended so aggressively, with my attempts to correct the error consistently blocked and ignored. There are other problems with the article, but taking the position that nucleotides are one-dimensional is as blatantly false as asserting that 1+1=3. If your position is that we ought to construct an alternative definition for what a 'dimension' is, that probably belongs in a physics wiki, not genetics.

1) All genes are strings of nucleotides 2) All Nucleotides are molecules 3) Therefore, all genes consist of ordered groupings of molecules

4) All molecules are real objects (they exist in physical space) 5) All real objects (that exist in physical space) have at least three dimensions 6) Therefore, by 3, 4, 5, all genes have at least three dimensions

As you can see, this a tautologically true (and quite boring). I hope you see my point about the language of dimension. I do not use wikipedia often, and this is the first time I have ever edited an article, but it is distressing to see such a basic ontological error defended so aggressively, with my attempts to correct the error consistently blocked and ignored. There are other problems with the article, but taking the position that nucleotides are one-dimensional is as blatantly false as asserting that 1+1=3. If your position is that we ought to construct an alternative definition for what a 'dimension' is, that probably belongs in a physics wiki, not genetics. If your position is that a gene is only a representation of nucleotides (not an actual grouping of molecules), that symbolic representation would still be necessarily at least two-dimensional, i.e., we could not depict the symbolic representation without recourse to at least two coordinates.

To put it another way, molecules have mass. Even if it is very small, we do have the ability to measure this mass. Any object which has mass has three-dimensions.

• Thank you for this lecture, but this is not the place to post it. Please also sign your posts, so that I actually know who's talking to me without having to check the edit history. WP is an encyclopedia and it doesn't matter what you or I think about molecules, genes, and whatnot. We cannot write what we think. We need to write what we can source. This article is pretty bad, but that is not a reason to make it worse by adding more unsourced stuff. If you have a source stating that these molecules are not only three-dimensional, but also that this matters and regarding them as one-dimensional strings of bases is a serious misconception, then by all means add it to the article. But without sourcing, I'll keep removing it. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 14:34, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

International Journal of Ecology & Development

Hello, just wanted to let you know that I declined your request for speedy deletion (G12) on International Journal of Ecology & Development, because the copyvio was recently introduced and an acceptable revision was available in the page history to revert to. —SW— ^gossip 14:21, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Frontiers (Academic Publishing)

Hello Guillaume2303. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Frontiers (Academic Publishing), a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: No indication that author has requested deletion. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:31, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Guillaume2303. You have new messages at Malik Shabazz's talk page.
Message added 20:57, 3 April 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

RS Butola

You tagged RS Butola for speedy deletion as non-notable. Butola is the chairman of Indian Oil Corporation, the largest corporation in India. How is that not notable? Admittedly, the article is a mess, but notability is not among its problems. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

• I guess you can read that as a claim to notability (I didn't). If you want to deal with the mess in a different way, be my guest :-) --Guillaume2303 (talk) 12:34, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4

Hi. When you recently edited Centre d’Immunologie de Marseille-Luminy, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page MAFB (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:05, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Richard Thomas Alexander, A barnstar for you!

I apologise for deleting the notification earlier, I do not know the proper protocol. Accordingly, I added the website where the dissertation is available. The manuscript is derived from the dissertation. Hopefully this falls under the scope of "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications"

	The Original Barnstar
	Thank you for your help in editing. I am new to this. I am the acknowledged expert on New College, hence the self publishing. Actually the book is out being peddled, the dissertation is online. Dr. Lucero Gwlucero (talk) 18:06, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Environment and Urbanization

I do not understand why you edited down the page on Environment and Urbanization, including removing the section on the Contents and the list of contributors that have wiki pages Rhino209 (talk) 06:22, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, Some explanations are in the edit summaries (see article history). For others, have a look at our writing guide for journal articles. If you have any questions left after that, let me know and I'll explain some more. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	For the excellent use of humor on the talk page DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:28, 5 April 2012 (UTC)