User talk:TimVickers

Welcome to Tim Vickers's talk page. Today is Saturday, May 25, 2024; it is now 14:40 (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 20 days are automatically archived to User talk:TimVickers/archive 6. Sections without timestamps are not archived.

Archives Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6

RfA candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Numberguy6 0 0 0 01:36, 1 June 2024 6 days, 10 hours no report RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report Last updated by cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online at 14:36, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

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.

for you!

Moved to trophy cabinet

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

Thanks for the guidance

Thanks for the guidance Tim, I'll start using the sandbox.

Re: Favour

Hey. Once again, thank you for nominating me. To be honest, you already nominated most of the people that first came to my mind to nominate for adminship! Haha. But I will definitely keep an eye out for potential admins, both in my own admin work and my regular encyclopedia building. Being an admin for only a day has exposed me to so many people who are active in the tedious tasks of things like nominating pages for speedy deletion. I'm sure with a little more experience, I'll be able to identify those who meet the "requirements" (so to speak) for becoming admins, and I'll gladly nominate and/or coach them to assist with your goals. I like the bar that you've set for me: three in a month. I'll do my best to meet it. Cheers, CP 05:33, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to let you know, I haven't forgot about this. I've identified three that I think would be good, I've just got to check their contributions before I ask them if they'd be interested. Cheers, CP 23:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Aeropyrum pernix

Hello Tim. Can you please explain the meaning of the following:

"The type strain is Aeropyrum pernix K1, JCM 9820, Japan Collection of Microorganisms, The Institute of Physical and Chemical Research (RIKEN), Wako-shi, Saitama, Japan."

What is 'type strain'? Can I include the above statement in the article? I nominated the article for DYK. They are asking me to expand the article. Can you help me? Regards, Masterpiece2000 (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Regards, 02:42, 26 November 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Masterpiece2000 (talk • contribs)

DYK

On 26 November, 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Xenobiotic metabolism, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

--WjBscribe 11:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hepatitis B

Hi Tim, good news, we got Hepatitis B virus rated as a GA, which I'm pleased about. Just waiting now for someone to pick Rotavirus from the list. I am working now on Herpes simplex virus and Hepatitis C virus but progress is slow as usual. Thanks for the help with the writing and tweaking all the figures. All the bestGrahamColm^Talk 19:33, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, sorry to be a pain! I have made a new version of Image:HBV genome.png, but the old one remains stuck in the article. When you click on the old one the new one appears. (I flushed my cache, didn't help). I don't know how to fix it. Do you? Best wishes. GrahamColm^Talk 19:42, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

DO11.10

I was going to say that I was named after the greatest, most awesomely useful transgenic mouse ever... but then I might be a little biased :-) --DO11.10 (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Those were great!! Ah, scientists after my own heart... I really felt his pain when the smallpox guy had to give up his collection to the CDC. --DO11.10 (talk) 01:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Special thanks to you for nominating me! I will try to make you proud (or at least not regret it <grin>).--DO11.10 (talk) 22:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy edit

You reverted my edit with "No, this has been discussed at length before - see Talk:Homeopathy/Archive 19" Perhaps you could be a tad more specific -- it's a long page. I, on the other hand, did read through the citation that purports to back up the original statement, and made the change I did. Maybe I went way wrong, and need a learning experience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Friarslantern (talk • contribs) 21:55, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_19#Directly_opposed_to_what.3F

and

Talk:Homeopathy/Archive_19#Third_para.2C_first_sentence

Out of curiosity, which of the three references supporting this sentence did you read? Tim Vickers (talk) 21:59, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will read up on these. To answer your question, I read both articles cited in the section you reverted. There are two references there, I'm not sure which would be the third (?) Friarslantern (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Ullman sockery

Heya... you asserted on the checkuser request that Lozier11 was registered after Ullman's block. This isn't accurate. If you check the logs for the sock account it was registered 6Sep2007, but it made no edits until today's revert. I still find it suspicious, of course. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

EMBO Encounters article

I read the article. It looked good! Hopefully it will help bring more interest to Wikipedia from the scientific community. Looking at all the new articles from ProteinBoxBot, there's a lot of work to be done.... Cheers. Forluvoft (talk) 00:43, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia Research

I just sent you an e-mail about an interview for my thesis research. Let me know if you're interested in participating--I'd love to talk with you!

Jkomoros (talk) 17:31, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous 3RR at Homeopathy

This edit is against the consensus and is POV. And besides, it's crap. Can you help out? I'm not going to risk a 3RR block over this. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 00:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

unprotection of Homopathy

Go on. I tend to be more willing to protect controversial articles than uncontroversial ones, and there was a short period where it looked like it could be getting bad. Adam Cuerden ^talk 22:16, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

In the "You don't see that everyday" department

WP:RFA is empty! I think you cleaned out every possible candidate in a few weeks; it's your fault :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:33, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Fork substitution

As a previously interested party, I draw your attention to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rhodesia&oldid=175026836#More_irrational_reverts and I seek your acquiescence in the edit I propose.

You may also wish to comment here, if you choose: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alice.S&oldid=175027524#Edit_war Alice.S 11:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Triple crown

I, Durova, am pleased to bestow this triple crown upon Tim Vickers for outstanding content contributions to important articles. Thank you for building a better encyclopedia. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Your Majesty, I was especially impressed to see where you concentrated your energies. Special thanks for directing your focus toward imporant high level articles. Durova^Charge! 19:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Astrovirus and Astroviridae

Dear Tim, I want to merge these but I need some guidance from you. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 18:44, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Nicotinamide adenine dinucleotide

Is there (or will there be) a separate article on NADP? Your comments re: the GA nom imply that there will be, but I don't see any indication in the article itself that such a page exists. If NAD & NADP will be treated on separate article pages, that fact should be made prominently and repeatedly clear. If there will be a single article, then it should treat all aspects of both compounds. --EncycloPetey 21:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the new version of the article should pass GA and is very close to qualifying for FA status. However, I will not (in fairness) be reviewing the article this time around, since I have now contributed significantly to the article. --EncycloPetey 18:50, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

EMBO article

Excellent to see your work, and that of the WikiProject, recognized by EMBO. I also like how they say how people can sign-up and help. [1] --Aude (talk) 01:13, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Mitochondrion

Surely, Dr. Vickers. I removed the section in question because it was unscientific. The fact that mitochondria have 70S ribosomes is not evidence for endosymbiotic theory; it is merely a sensible result of the theory. Indeed, mitochondria are similar to bacteria, thus it it sensible that bacterial ribosomes are more befitting of them. The evolution of 70S ribosomes in mitochondria thus could have been possible without endosymbiosis ever occurring.

Someone already reworded the section; I'll let you decide its destiny...I'm no doctor! Enz1 01:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, leave it as it is then. The problem is that the majority of people reading this define "evidence" as either experimental data or statistically significant relationships. This particular factoid is a supposition that remains irrelevant to proving the theory. I don't see how my initial argument is wrong, either. Enz1 01:19, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

DNA

dear tim, if you think the links are inappropriate feel free to delete, i am not interested in spamming, or any kind of promotion, i just want the wikipedians a good user experience. any ways i apologise that you found the links inappropriate. sorry. by the way i am a Biotechnologist from india.and u? Shekharsuman 18:00, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

ok thats cool,Nice to meet you Dr vickers, hope to meet u some time in my next trip to US, :-) Shekharsuman 18:10, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Influenza

Hi Tim, visitation seems an odd word to use. Why not just use tourism? --GrahamColm^Talk 18:28, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for changes to "Evolution"

Hey, I'm a relatively new user and I noticed that you have done quite a bit of work on the Evolution article, so I thought I'd suggest my ideas to you because I am busy with some other personal Wikipedia projects at the moment.
I think that the Evolution article is getting too long and I would like to suggest making seperate pages for the "Mechanisms" and "Outcomes" sections. I think this would be fairly easy to do. (I would do it myself, but...well I already said that I'm kind of occupied for the moment.)
Also, if you could possibly expand the section on "Applications in Technology," I would appreciate it. I was wondering what other applications that evolution has in technology and I figured that you would know where to look better than I do. Thanks. Thingg (talk) 03:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re: hey thanks for letting me know so fast, and I'll have to agree with that consensus. Still, there must be a way we could make the article a little smaller; its a beast right now (<104 kb). ~Thingg —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thingg (talk • contribs) 04:11, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy....again

I made this reversion. I read the article, and the authors in a background statement said that homeopathy "seems implausible." Which set them up for their analysis. At the end they concluded that Homeopathy is nothing more than a placebo effect, which makes homeopathy implausible. Oh well. I do get tired of selective interpretation of scientific articles. Now I need to drink again. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 07:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought FAC

I have just nominated History of evolutionary thought for FA. Your participation in the processs would be very welcome. Rusty Cashman (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

E-mail proposal

Hi. Nice to see you helping out at the policy proposal on privacy of emails that was started in response to the User:Durova incident in which critical evidence needed for the community to evaluate admin behaviors was repeatedly deleted and oversighted (forcing people to go to Wikipedia Review to read a version identical to that which Newyorkbrad said was valid) while User:!!'s subsequent selective quotation and summarizing was allowed to stand. It is a shame to see the same back-room canvasing uncovered in the e-mail used to push though a poorly thought out proposal, but with you involved I am hopeful sanity will win the day. For an example of the commonsense more-transparent behaviors that are in fact the community norm I show you from [2]:

"Perhaps it's a good idea to forward or post the emails? Initially, Scott sent Adam a 'legal threat' by email. Then Adam posted it on the Cuba talk page. Then I lobbied successfully to get Scott blocked indefinitely. So, the Sgrayban case demonstrated that WP:NLT applies not just to the Wikipedia namespace but also to Wikipedia email. 172 | Talk 06:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want, you can go ahead and forward them to my account, and I'll review them to see if I can make a case for an indefinite block based on the emails. 172 | Talk 06:20, 4 June 2006 (UTC)"

The whole "quoting email" thing is a misunderstanding, anyway. Privacy is about privacy of information, not the specific formatting of that information. Sometimes the fact that an email was sent at all is private. Sometimes, only some specific fact is private, like a real life name or a password. The most superficial look at the redaction of classified papers will show that what is private/secret varies widely from the fact that something even exists to a mere redacted number.

Anyway, I'm trying to be on a wiki-break, so don't bother responding to me personally; but I hope you find this useful in thinking about what guidelines are best for wikipedia. Thank you for everything you have done for wikipedia. You are an inspiration. And now back to non-wikipedia activities! WAS 4.250 (talk) 14:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the help

Yeah, I did notice all the refs. That seems to happen with articles like that. I've seen the same thing happen with the video game console articles (yeah, I'm interested in them. **hangs head**). Also, I don't have any problem with articles being that size, I'm just trying to look out for those Wikipedians that still have dial-up connections. (Yeah, I still remember those days. Whoever made the comment about "the good old days" obviously did not live in them...) So yeah, thanks for the help. Now I'll stop clogging up your talk page with my wandering, irrelevent comments....Thingg (talk) 16:15, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Hello, TimVickers, and thank you for welcoming me to Wikipedia! Although I do have to warn you that I was originally an uncyclopedian. --Deepraine (talk) 17:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Relax, writing something funny actually takes more effort than mere editing. That and I use these pages too much myself to try and stick in anything. After all, professors tend to have a poor sense of humor when it comes to research projects. --Deepraine (talk) 21:42, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

--Deepraine (talk) 22:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Amusing blog

I just loved this quote: Why should these homeopaths be worried about declining income? Wouldn't diluting their income make it stronger, according to homeopathic principles?OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Troublesome voter

I may need help dealing with this case: User_talk:EncycloPetey#Transhumanist_RfA_.26_Uncivility if the individual will not desist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:42, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I have tried several times to activate my user e-mail, but have yet to successfully receive a message. I am getting Wiktionary mail just fine, and through two of the lists I subcribe to, but not from Wikipedia or from a friend who has been trying to send to me. I'm not sure if the failures are related. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Please try sending a message once more. I might have finally tracked down the problem. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:25, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the test worked this time, thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

A question

Hi, Tim. This is just to let you know. I got this message from Coren_bot: [3]. The text was copied from a Pfam mirror page [4] per this talk at MCB page [5]. I left a notice to user Coren with explanation. One possible complication here is that Pfam and InterPro abstracts are often identical (and we are not taking anything from SMART or Prosite). I thought that we could copy any content that appears as an integral part of Pfam entries, as in this mirror [6]. Perhaps, we should include automatically an acknowledgement to Pfam and/or InterPro or personally to Alex Bateman (he was main developer of both databases) in each article? I am not quite sure.Biophys (talk) 18:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Draft on homeopathy potency scales

I welcome any comments at User:Filll/homeopathyscales. Bear in mind that this is a very early very rough draft. Thanks.--Filll (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rfa

Just wanted to let you know I admire your cool headed replies on Elonka's Rfa. In spite of the baiting going on there, you're managing not to get pulled in. Good job. Jeffpw (talk) 22:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Rumors

Tom Cruise, eh? Well, I'd rather that the rumors were about me and Brad Pitt, but I could probably handle it being Tom Cruise. He does seem like the easier target, too.  ;) Could we compromise maybe, and spread rumors that I'm sleeping with both of them?  ;) You know, consensus and all that!  :) --Elonka 22:51, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Tom Cruise isn't where the link goes... :) Tim Vickers 23:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Your comment

I was posting the "be civil" comment to be ironic, considering she has been nothing close to civil in her other interactions with people who edit articles she has been working on, but your comment is noted :) I do suggest that you get the full story, though, before judging me too swiftly. Justinm1978 (talk) 00:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Have a look?

[7]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:11, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism with citations; that's a good one :-) [8] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:52, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, Tito and Joel already got there. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:01, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nellie Pratt Russell - you closed?

That was awfully quick, considering that it was open for less than 12 hours. Since I must now do them individually, must they be considered "Second Nominations" if I put them up again? Justinm1978 (talk) 02:17, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"More notable" doesn't mean that it will still pass WP:NOTABLE, and you still didn't answer when I do them individually that I'll have to list it as a second nomination or not. Justinm1978 (talk) 02:40, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Time

Hi Tim, it is Sunday morning and I am perfectly sober. As I always am when editing. Please read User talk:Tqbf and see if you think it is all reasonable. The user is not contributing positively to Elonka's RfA, as the nominator you should concerned about that. The user pretended to quote me, then refused to acknowledge this. This is a serious issue, if he had not added his drunken disclaimer I would take it further. Regards, cygnis insignis 04:23, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

NAD

Hey Tim. Care for some SVG? :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll see if I can get to the others between today and tomorrow, and then actually read the article so I can comment at FAC. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My user page

Hello TimVickers, I thought I'd mention that you can unprotect my user page now please. I know I could do it myself, but I felt it would be more courteous to ask you to do it, as you were the one who semi-protected it. Thanks! Acalamari 19:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

That's fine; thanks for both the initial protection, and now the unprotection. :) Acalamari 20:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Chromosome

Well, I want to make a small edit more, and add some more refs, but I'll get back to that tomorrow as it's pretty late here. Thanks for asking. Macdonald-ross (talk) 23:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

And, next morning, I'm with it now! Thank you for the info and corrections. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Checked further, and noted that WP does not have articles on these topics: Bacterial chromosomes, Archaean chromosomes, Archaean genetics, Prokaryote chromosomes or genetics (though WP does have a short but good article on Prokaryotes; also the article on Bacterial genetics is pretty thin. I conclude that this area needs beefing up!

Surely the term 'virus chromosome' should never be used?! I've checked with the excellent Virus article, and they use the traditional and correct term 'virus genome'. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Finally, I checked with articles Plastid, Mitochondria and Mitochondrial genome, and see they all use the term 'genome', and that there is no suggestion that they have 'chromosomes'. So may we at least get rid of that usage on the Chromosome article? Macdonald-ross (talk) 08:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Mmm, I'm quite stunned by the new stuff on organelle nucleoids... it seems they each use different proteins for binding and regulating DNA. That'll be a tough one for evolutionary theorists to interpret! Thank you for introducing me to a whole new world. Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:56, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

NAD+

hi Tim, overall, I would like to recommend some re-grouping of the page.

• The lead text is already an informative paragraph about TWO chemicals instead of just the one. As such, it isn't the summary of the article about NAD+. ref: wp:lead
• The four major sections (2/3/4/5/6) for as a non-biologist (but chemical) are not logical: I don't see the logic sequence and their interdependency. Also here I would think combining of several sections in to chem+phys/metabolism/pharmaceutical seems appropriate.

If you care for support, I can give it a try? Wim van Dorst (Talk) 18:46, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

ps. Nearly all of the peerreviewer script found issues still remain. I recommend User:AndyZ/peerreviewer for your perusal. Wim van Dorst (Talk) 19:01, 12 December 2007 (UTC).

ArbCom

A request for an ArbCom hearing over WP:NOR was recently begun [9]. You aren't one of the named parties and neither am I but I remember that you had some WP:OWN issues with that policy in the past, which is one of the issues with this request, so I thought I'd let you know about it if you wanted to comment. Cla68 (talk) 03:01, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I've not been following this dispute and have always ignored the primary/secondary source distinction whenever it appeared in the policy. I can't add much to this discussion. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What to do next?

Mid-year I initiated the article "Last Common Ancestor." Several months later a contributor to "Most Recent Common Ancestor" stopped by and deleted 3/4 of LCA . Then he went to its links and replaced them with links to his MRCA. He is not all bad, during our lengthy discussion he gave me a link to the original article, can be accessed here.

So far I have not undeleted his deletes. I am not up on the ins and outs of Wiki editing, so I am sitting tight, looking for some advice. First, would you review the original article for the features Wilipedia is interested in? Do you think it passes? Second, I *believe* in the end his assertion is that the originator of a species cannot be called the last common ancestor of the species. So if you would, check out the discussion page and see if this is actually his key assertion and could it be correct and the article deleted. Finally give me your suggestions as to how to proceed next.

If you can only accomplish one of those tasks, please make it the last one! As I said I am not on sure ground here. Maybe the best place for you to reply is here but maybe the article talk page is better. I guess if I knew, I would not be asking for your help! Tom Schmal (talk) 04:15, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia 1.0 Project

I am hoping that you may know more about WP 1.0 than I do, 'cause I know next to nothing on the matter. All I know is that the top third of the Talk:Johnny Cash page is now filled with information about the project. I know that it was not this way a few days ago, because I have been doing a lot of editing work on that page this week. At any rate, to make a long story short, is there a way to limit that information? Has the template been changed recently? I am all at sea here. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 17:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I thank you for your response, and your action on this matter. I will watch for responses on the 1.0 talk page, and hope someone figures out what went wrong. I decided to go ahead and leave a message with the project editor who placed the template in the first place, so he may be able to figure it out himself. Thanks again for your time. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 19:11, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 24 support, 3 oppose, and 3 neutral. I promise to work my hardest to improve the Wiki with my new tools.

--Michael Greiner 18:56, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Ownership issues

Ironic that you should have asked me about that last night. This diff happened about 3 hours later, followed by Talk:Animal_testing#Editing. I'm not expecting you to do anything abut it, SV is well-known for this, but the timing was too good not to mention. All the best Tim Vickers (talk) 15:55, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Unbelievable. I guess we're supposed to feel fortunate that she deigns to allow us to edit her wiki. Cla68 (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's RfA

Just wanted to say that it was an honor to nominate Elonka alongside you and Alison. Thanks. Acalamari 02:46, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

ROFL

this diff is hilarious. Horologium (talk) 03:03, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Homeopathy AGAIN

I don't want to get into an edit war AGAIN. However an anonymous editor has made changes that were resolved a week ago. That word "seems" keeps coming up. I'm almost ready to find a replacement article, but it clearly states it's supposition is that homeopathy "seems" to be scientifically implausible. Then it concludes that it is. People quote mine left and right. Just like the Creationists!!!!! LOL. Well, if you can help out. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 06:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration

Hi, not sure if you would care to comment or not, but COgden has filed a Request for Arbitration here. Your name was mentioned by Cla68 as somebody else that may have comments, and I didn't see that you'd recieved notice, so thought I'd mention it. There is also a relate RfC on COgden himself [here if you'd care to leave any additional comments. wbfergus ^Talk 12:29, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, but no thanks

In regard to this warning, I've already been warned, archived the warning and my response to it here, and taken the article off my watchlist as I have no desire to get involved in this sort of nastiness. So I hope you won't get upset that I am about to remove your warning from my talk page. Thanks! Curious Blue (talk) 17:59, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

P.S. I find your even-handedness by warning the other party as well admirable and it helps restore my faith in Wikipedia processes. Curious Blue (talk) 18:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Happy Holidays

You got a Christmas card! → → →

Wishing you and yours the very best of the holiday season. May the coming year bring you peace, joy, health and happiness. God bless us, every one! Jeffpw (talk) 20:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your note on my talkpage. :) Rray (talk) 02:24, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you as well

A little thank you from me as well. :) It's very good to be under a doctor's orders to give myself permission to take a rest. ;) Bon voyage and have a very happy holidays, Willow (talk) 14:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

A little help please?

Check out NEWENTRY, but before you delete it, check out the NCBI links. Looks like some sort of bizarre hack by NCBI... AndrewGNF (talk) 21:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nevermind, someone else got it. Guess other admins are really on top of those CSDs. Anyway, nice gene, huh? AndrewGNF (talk) 22:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC for NAD

I've been keeping an eye on the FAC. Unfortunately, I don't have time currently to really examine the latest version or make careful comments, and probably won't before next weekend. I had intended to do some serious article writing today, but ended up embroiled in a dispute that killed the entire afternoon :( --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your message. I dont feel you should have to share the responsibility of Elonka or anyone else's adminship. That is just wrong. People should be responsible for what they do. I dont agree with the outcome ofcourse but this website is dysfunctional to a certain extent, as is everything else we see in life. I doubt I'll be contacting you for anything that she does but I'll let you know if I need help in any case. However, again its my opinion that its not right for you to feel that you have to jump in her conflicts and sort them out. Thats her job, not yours. Ofcourse if you want to do that, thats up to you. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:06, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Virus

Dear Tim, we want to change the name of the article to Viruses [10] , (we already have the plural Bacteria. would this be a problem?--GrahamColm^Talk 21:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

[excuse me butting in]. I refer to Tim's previous edict at Talk:Bacteria#Move to 'bacteria' where he said

I think we just have to ask ourselves "What are people going to type into a search engine"? I think "bacteria" is going to be overwhelmingly the most common word.

The same is not true of "virus". People say "you have a virus", they don't say "you have a bacterium". In fact, I guess many people don't know the singular for bacteria. Nor will they know that one virus particle is a virion.

Looking at the discussion on Talk:Introduction to virus, there appears to be at technical reason behind the request. This can be solved. Lots of similar templates take optional parameters that let you vary the text/links. You can make a request on the template talk page. Colin°^Talk 23:09, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

3RR

If you add that again, you may be reported for 3RR. Please read the policy carefully, as you've almost certainly violated it already. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 00:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Fortunately for Slim and Crum, tag-teaming isn't, apparently, against policy. Cla68 (talk) 00:37, 17 December 2007 (UTC)