User talk:David D.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk
	Template:UWAYOR
You may here

Portals

Thanks, for the additions! I didn't want to add anything, since I was the creator and didn't want to seem too presumptious. It's good though, it will get things rolling and set standards for people to emulate. We need more people in the project to be proactive. Keep it up!--GAThrawn22 00:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, i find it amazing that there are so few cell bio pictures available. You're right we need more people involved. David D. (Talk) 01:04, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

My Sig

Dear David:

Thanks for the suggestion! The reason is I'm not a particularly effecient coder. I couldn't figure out how to do it without an underline under talk. Thanks for the suggestion. I think I'll put it into use. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 17:12, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is a better place to see what i proposed since your talk page link does not work on your own talk page, of course.

Proposed code:

<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken^(talk)]]</font>

Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken^(talk)

Not sure if this is any good since there is still an underline. Anyway now you know this code you can probably experiment. And now you can add somethiong else with your gained characters :) David D. (Talk) 17:15, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Possibly you could just remove the talk althogether? I think it is quite intuitive that the second colour will direct to your talk page.

Thus, another altrernative:

<b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken| Wyneken]]</font>

Gives this signature: CTS Wyneken

Which is even smaller. Then you won't be in Tony Sidaways crosshairs. David D. (Talk) 17:22, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm... when your version appears on my talk page, its perfect! No underline under the talk. WHen I paste it into my perferences, it comes out with the underline... The reference librarian in me likes the little (talk), 'cause new folk here don't always get the concept and a little assistance never hurt. Anyway, thanks for taking a wack at the puzzle. --CTS Wyneken^(talk) 20:46, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Any link that it to the same page will come out as a bold link. Look at the (talk) in my signature here, it is black bold since it is my own page. That is what has happened to your signature on your own page. Another solution is to not link the last part of your name, ONLY the talk part. Try this: <b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="navy">[[User:CTSWyneken|CTS]]</font></b><font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">Wyneken</font>^{<font style="font-family: Andale Mono IPA" color="maroon">[[User talk:CTSWyneken|(talk)]]</font>}, that will look like this: CTSWyneken^(talk)

Now you only have the talk link. This makes more sense to me, my original problem is that i was confused by the two different links and thought that the Wyneken one was a different sub page in your user space. David D. (Talk) 20:58, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

re your recent msg

thanks David for your msg however I do not understand what you mean? I don't know how to make the changes you suggest perhaps you can enlighten me further? many thanks Peter morrell 19:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks David for your msg: I have now ticked the raw signature box as you said but still don't quite know how to do the other thing...I must be very dim but I just don't get it! sorry thanks Peter morrell 19:23, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

thanks I have done that but my name still appears in red and takes me to the user page instead of the talk page...any ideas? thanks Peter morrell 19:32, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

OK thanks I think I will leave it at that for now phew! cheers Peter morrell 19:49, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

ATP

Sorry, yeh, mistake... I didn't realize.. I was trying to fix what you were talking about.... I cliked on the wrong revision... I'll revert it to the changes you made... it's good.--GAThrawn22 02:03, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm open to adding some of those changes but i still think the original diagram is better then the new ones. The spinning top gif is not really an improvement in my opinion. Possibly the space filling or the ball and stick model may be a worthwhile addition? David D. (Talk) 01:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeh, I do agree, that some of the images may be useful. I'm not sure that they should be at the top of the chembox. It takes up a lot of space... Either the ball and stick model or the space filling model might be useful, since it gives a 3D representation of the structure; as it stands now, it takes too much guess work to determine what color represents what atom (there's no key). Perhaps they might be added at the end of the article... what do you think? --GAThrawn22 02:07, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

I think in the article space, with a key, would be the best compromise. At the end of the day the chem box should be ultra informative, the old figure seemed to fullfill that role the best. But a coloured 3D picture does have a certain 'Wow' factor that is worth incorporating, as well as giving some useful 3D structural information. David D. (Talk) 02:10, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

BevNet

I haven't found the quote on their website yet, but I have heard from multiple sources (including in person from an executive at XS) the same quote. I sent a quote request to Bev Net, to verify it with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs)

thanks...

...for the warning :) --Striver 04:52, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem David D. (Talk) 04:54, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

User talk:149.135.47.197

Your edit to User talk:149.135.47.197 has been removed. Please feel free to use the sandbox. Continuing to vandalise may result in a ban.

149.135.47.197, it is against Wikipedia rules to remove warnings from your talk page which have been issued by users. I have warned you about that, so do not proceed to again. --Killfest2 05:08, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Falsely accused by David D

Pasted from Talk:Jennifer Granholm

counties won in 2002

The text that Steelbeard1 (talk · contribs) wants to be incorporated is:

Granholm's four point margin of victory was met with some criticism as she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties in the state, Wayne and Washtenaw counties.

The source for election results by county: CNN shows that she won 11 counties of the first twenty five. Of those eleven she won nine unanimously 51% or more of the vote). She got 60% or more of the vote in four counties Genesee, Ingham Wayne and Washtenaw. So first, what does Steelbeard1 mean by "she unanimously won only two of eighty-three counties "? I'm confused by the criteria used to arrive at this number. Second, this looks a lot like original research. If this is such a well known criticism there should be a quotable article out there somewhere. David D. (Talk) 06:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Scrabbleship said that, I didn't. I was the one who deleted that statement originally. Check the article history. I also added the CNN source. An apology is due, David D. Steelbeard1 11:59, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, a case of mistaken identity. The correct attributions can be seen here. Sorry for the error. David D. (Talk) 15:45, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Corrected original entries. Apologies accepted. Steelbeard1 16:53, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks again David, for your help, my user page is working great now! all blue! cheers Peter morrell 16:00, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

My pleasure Peter, if you need any other help please ask. It does take a while to get the hang on the wiki markup and i have yet to find a place where it is all described in a way that is easy to understand. I have found the best is just to pick things up as you go along. Sorry for being your antagonist on the homeopathy page, I am a scientist by trade, so I am sure we come from polar opposites with respect to perspective. Please don't take any disagreements personally, despite how it may look, I do listen and think about what other people say, even if I disagree. Certainly I am into compromises and not edit warring. I find the edit warring futile since the pages are never stable using that tactic. Not to mention the burn out of edit warring contributors seems to be pretty high. I look forward to more interesting discussions. David D. (Talk) 16:46, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

ATP images

Response to ATP images at User talk:Bryn C:

Hi David and thanks for the notification. Indeed, the modifications I made to ATP were some of my first. Those images could certainly be improved. I have since made many similar changes and had intended to revisit the ATP article. For the time being I am happy to have the changes reverted. All of my images are created using ChemOffice 2005 and Adobe Photoshop/ImageReady CS2. All of the 3D models are MM2 energy minimized. I must disagree than any edit can be "too much to change in one go", and I would encourage you to assess the merits of each change individually. I am working slowly (the animations in particular are very time consuming) but steadily through the articles listed in Category:Organic compounds, and I would like to think I am improving them (compare before and after). If you have any specific comments or suggestions I would very much like to hear them. Regards, Bryn C (^t/_c) 00:10, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe i should say "too much to change in one go without an initial discussion". I think we are all open to changes. personally, I like the stick and ball models. I'm not too keen on the spinning gif, although a slower moving one might be desirable. At the end of the day my opinion does not count for much. My reason for contacting you is that there are a lot of people who will have constructive opinions and will be willing to help out. I think I referred you to the wikiproject (molecular and cellular biology). That is probably as good as any place to start a global discussion on a new style for chemboxes. Did you check out that page? David D. (Talk) 00:42, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Account

No problem, will get one now

Cheers !

Cheers for giving me a hand with the Thylakoid article, it's a pleasure working with you :-) The magical Spum-dandy 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem, good idea doing the pigment disamib page. David D. (Talk) 17:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The quote

I wouldn't have "over-reacted" if it hadn't been deleted a billion times, even though I referenced the friggin' quote about sixty times, and linked to it properly each time. Barwick 13:38, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Auxin

Good job, good points! I should do it long time ago! (But I was not bold enough as it is removing of the content). Have a good time. Yours sincerely Reo ^ON | +++ 18:01, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Sean Black's RFA

Nevermind what I said, I'm not going to continue arguing this. His RFA is getting too spammy and lengthy. --Cyde↔Weys 18:49, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

You have my permission to delete the conversation if that will help shorten the rfa. David D. (Talk) 19:07, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed, it really wasn't helping anyone. And I can see why you think my characterization of your words was a bit inaccurate; it was (a bit). --Cyde↔Weys 19:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take it the wrong way Cyde, i was not trying to be offensive, but I really had no clue where you were coming from. Unfortunately, this is one of the major problems on the internet. Badly written English in combination with misunderstandings goes a long way to cause unneccesary friction. Glad to see you removed it. David D. (Talk) 19:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Jennifer Granholm article

Actually, there is already a table of poll results in the article Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 so we don't need another one in either the Granholm or DeVos article. Steelbeard1 21:40, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

So let's just delete it. David D. (Talk) 21:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course. Let's direct readers to the article about the Michigan governor's race. I guess we should now simplify the DeVos article and add more detail to the governor's race article. Steelbeard1 08:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that I simplified the Dick DeVos article. Since the material I removed was about the governor's race in general, I simply moved the material to the govenor's race article. Steelbeard1 17:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

SB RFA

Yeah, too bad no one else will understand the reference, as the comments have now been moved off of SB's RFA and onto respective talk pages. This is not the first time that I've had a nominee's attack-dog come after me and ridicule (here, quite literally) my opinion because it didn't match their own. Questionable behaviour, really. Themindset 22:03, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Attack-dog? Hah. These comments are a bit more incivil than anything I've ever said to you, but I guess since this comment wasn't directed at me you think it's acceptable? --Cyde↔Weys 22:11, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Line art

Hey, since you asked about line art and why PNG representations of line art are preferable over JPEG images, some good reading is at Wikipedia:Preparing images for upload. You'll find background information at Compression artifact and the pages that page is linked to, especially lossy data compression and lossless data compression. And don't omit to read the thing it's all built around, the deep and subtle Fourier transform. Dr Zak 21:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Great links that will definitely satisfy my curiosity, and save me time in the future since i'll save in PNG from now on. While were are at it, what is the prefered format for photos? David D. (Talk) 21:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

For line art SVG is best, since it's a vector graphics format and thus scales best. PNG (a bitmap format) is also good, as it is lossless. Photographs are best uploaded as JPEG images as the compression algorithm is well suited to such pictures. Dr Zak 21:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice, i'll do this from now on. David D. (Talk) 21:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Double helix template

Hi, I must admit that I am a complete idiot when it comes to markup or html or whatever it is called. I tweaked (or more accurately plagiarised/modified) a template from one created by JWSchmidt by trial and error untill I got something approximating what I wanted. I'm quite open minded about the templates (and I think so is J.Schmidt), so feel free to play about with them. In December I modified one of John Schmidt's templates into several different ones for use in DNA discovery articles, originally it looked something like this, I modified it to include only those involved in 1953 this with photo and this without photo and also modified another one of J. Schmidt's templates for others not involved directly in 1953 but still involved in the discovery, for inclusion in the articles of the big four Template:Single strand DNA discovery2, so it's the same but lacking Crick, Franklin, Watson and Wilkins as they have their own template with each others names on it for their own articles (does this make sense?). Alun 21:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

PS I very much appreciated your general tidy up of the Rosalind Franklin article. Thanks very much. Alun 22:26, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Personal Note

Greetings,

I note a revision in your userpage indicating your college choices. Consider this a gentle prod from a like-minded admirer that you might wish to add Harvard among them. I'm quite certain, given both your intellect and your unusual background, that you would be a formidable candidate, and a benefit to the University as well. I would gladly pay your application fee myself. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 20:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks; that's quite a compliment (and quite an offer). The only downside about Harvard is that it does not offer a degree in civil engineering, my intended major. And before you say MIT, I have to say I'm looking for an all-around, instead of specialized, school (if only they combined MIT and Harvard...). Perhaps I'll apply to one of two schools anyway (although I couldn't possibly accept your offer). -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 21:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Harvardian aspiring engineers often choose physics, math, social studies, or sociology as their "concentration" (unfortunately, some small vestiges of elitism do remain at Harvard, and the curricular vocabulary is one: we don't have "majors.") Much flexibility is also given to undergraduates in designing their own course of study, so you may make the civil engineering curriculum for yourself, in consultation with a faculty advisor.

Your suspicion regarding our friends on the other side of Cambridge is correct: M.I.T. really is as frighteningly dull as is reported (for those people who have any interest in the humanities, anyway.)

My offer stands; should you decide to apply, a visit to Cambridge is always best, and I can see about arranging for an especially friendly person in the admission office to handle things. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 04:08, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

So you went to Harvard (still there?)... that answers a lot. I have visited Harvard on many occasions (note the second sentence of the bio on my userpage) and went once last August in a prospective student state-of-mind. Surprisingly, you have convinced me to apply to Harvard, especially since it looks like the school's application won't amount to a whole lot of extra work for me because Harvard uses the Common Application. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Given he grew up near Boston, i think its time for him to spread his wings. He can't go wrong with his current choices. David D. (Talk) 04:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Sigh... if only you knew...

• Me: Grew up in Boston, moved to (metropolitan) Washington, DC
• My Uncle: Grew up (and studied) in New York, moved to Washington, DC, studied in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia, moved to Boston
• My Mother: Grew up in New York, studied in and moved to Boston, moved to Washington, DC
• My Sister: Grew up in Boston, moved to Washington, DC, studied in Charlottesville, Virginia at the University of Virginia

My family is trapped... spread my wings indeed. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 04:32, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Re:Proposition 209

Don't foeget that Berkeley abandoned affirmative action due to proposition 209. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that, but I was addressing his comment about Stanford specifically. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about stanford. Even the sports star are really intelligent. Stanford is known for its strict academic requirements. Its a shame you have to worry about such things. Again good luck. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi David D. Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that you are in a camp but agreed with your comments about lurking. It is good to have an outside perspective but sometime popping in and out does not allow a full understanding of the issue at hand. Case in point you pop in to bulk delete one of my contribution and did not reply to my comments on this, in the talk page. While I understand the OR point, I am sure that there is a better way to address these issues than just popping in and out...NATTO 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand. I may well be reading too much of the talk and not enough of the article. I will read the article properly and make some comments on the talk page if i see specific examples that need tightening up. To tell you the truth, considering the controversial nature of the subject, you are are all keeping your cool and making real progress. It nice to see mature editors for a change.

Re: the OR, i did come back to reply to your comments but it all happened so fast, compared to other pages i have edited, that you had already resolved the issue. Did you ever find good sources for those comments. i notice that to date you have not worked them back into the article. David D. (Talk) 09:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. I agree. Of course everyone has his POV and trying to use his or her interpretation of the rules to get their POV across. I for have not affiliation with either those who are against so-called quackery ( being affiliated to Quackwatch or having their own anti-quackery web sites ) or people like Bolen or Negrete. However I know there is more to alternative and complimentary medicine than what Quackwatch is " informing people about. The problem is getting the correct information in the article without " protecting " one view over the other.

As for the posting on the information on the Quackwatch web site , I agreed that under the rules it is OR so I did not work on it since. This said even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information so that in itself should make Quackwatch more an opinion forum than a reliable and neutral source of public information. NATTO 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: I bolded the text for easy reference not Natto. David D. (Talk) 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is good information but the OR criteria means it needs to be someone elses analysis. David D. (Talk) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above:

"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."

I have seen you write this before, but it is a misrepresentation of what he actually says:

"How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?

"Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible." [1]

If you want him to treat the subjects he's dealing with in a "balanced" way (in the sense you seem to be using it, that is presenting both sides of an issue in a NPOV way), then of course he won't do it, and not many people would, since there would be no point in writing a book or having a website, if one did that.

His explanation above can be illustrated by this: That kind of "balanced" presentation about Hitler would give equal time to his own justifications for the holocaust, and equal time to his victims for why he shouldn't have done it.

Barrett thinks that kind of "balance" is nonsensical, especially when dealing with unethical, unscientific, and often illegal actions. He is presenting balance by presenting the "other side of the coin." The quacks are already out there with a far greater internet and written presence, than those who expose and debunk them. Of course they don't think it's "fair" of him to debunk them, but that's life. They make false claims, so he's in his good right to present the scientific POV and debunk them.

Unfortunately, they don't counter his criticisms by building a better scientific argument that proves him wrong. No, instead they simply attack him personally, the good old dirty street trick of ad hom attacks. If you can find the "exception that proves the rule" of somebody actually answering his scientific criticisms with scientific answers, I'd like to see them. I think I've only stumbled across one or two in the last seven years. All the other responses are straw man and ad hom, and the Talk page is full of them. -- Fyslee 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote Dr. Barrett: " Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible. [2] " Of course he is also the judge of what is a legitimate controversy and what is fraud.... NATTO 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I read a reply, but not an answer to my questioning of your misrepresentation:

"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."

Where has he "agreed?" "Fair" is your POV. You're naturally welcome to have it, but to claim that he himself "agrees" with that POV is a misrepresentation.

As far as the question of "balance," what do you require of him for him to present the subjects in a manner that satisfies your POV on "balance?" Do you think he should promote the ideas he is debunking? What would be the point of speaking out at all? Doesn't he have a right to his POV, especially since he documents them? Doesn't balance require that both sides of the coin be examined? The salesmen of products and ideas certainly aren't interested in their customers learning about the other side of the coin! -- Fyslee 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Readability of Chiro article

I suspect that the following message might apply:

• Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.

This message appears when in the editing mode. Right now I can't read the bottom of the talk page, including my own entries! I removed the "References" heading and code you had made, hoping that would help, but it didn't. Were you intending to start a references section on the talk page? If so, it's not a good idea, since archiving will screw it up. -- Fyslee 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I was trying to figure out how to make the text visible. I found by stripping out the refs it is back to normal. What you saw was me groping in the dark trying to get the text back. You'll note my first effort was to archive some of the page since I thought it possible that "cut off unexpectedly" message might be occuring. David D. (Talk) 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear David

Dear David, there is nothing, nothing to apologize for, and even less to feel guilty for, k? :) In fact, I should thank you for the smile that your words "smooshing, hugs and kisses" gave me... it made me imagine a dogpile of people all hugging and kissing each other while singing Friends Will Be Friends! The fact that you took the time to have a look at my portals was a flattery in itself, and even more your kinds words towards them. Allow me to be very honest to you, if you have a minute. I've at all times tried to keep my wiki-work and my wiki-leisure as completely separate aspects of a whole. Like Johnleemk wisely said once, "There's a difference between treating Wikipedia like a playground, and treating it like a place where you can whistle while you work." That's why I ask you not to worry about the importance I assign to my priorities; tho I value the human aspect of our project, I humbly try to focus my efforts into building our encyclopedia with the same zeal; one thing doesn't necessarily rules the other out. By all means, this is not an attempt to make you shift your opinion - in fact, I forbid you to! ;) But I just wanted to share my thoughts with you after you so kindly stopped by my talk page. Thank you for your birthday wishes as well - tho I don't want to get one year older! :( Have a great weekend! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GangstaEB's RFA

Thanks for your oppose on my RFA. The final vote count was (0/10/0), so I am now an normal user. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. I can't give it though. Once again, thank you. GangstaEB help me improve! 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I did steal this off Wickethewok's RFA thank-you too.

---

Good night, sir. It was a pleasure chatting with you. I admire your work here. --Rednblu 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Homogeneity (physics)

Hi David. A valid equation in physics must be homogeneous. Homogeneity is the the quality of having all properties independent of the position. Scientific method assumes that the world is homogeneous. There is no example I can give about it, its an axiom. Scientists, in order for their inductive and deductive reasoning to stand , they are bound to believe that the natural world is homogeneous. They cannot deal with the possibility that the laws of physics could be dependant of space-time position, because in that case their reasoning turns irrational. Faaaa 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Could you please give to user Homy the advice you once gave me about making his red letters turn blue! if you follow my drift? he is a newbie on the homeopathy page and has made some useful additions please check it out and send him a msg like you did to me on how to "go blue!" cheers Peter morrell 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i'll do that. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks a bunch, David, for that! cheers Peter morrell 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. David I see there is written on your talk:

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR POINT OF VIEW

and:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias and Wikipedia:Five pillars:Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view;...

I am a little confused here, could you give your 'point of view', especially on how to implement this in homeopathy ? Thanks.--Homy 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice again on user talk:homy/homeopathy. I reacted on your suggestions --Homy 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Phaedriel's RfA talk

Hi David, I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you for your most recent comments under the cheerleading section of Phaedriel's RfA talk. They meant something to me. I suppose I really wrote this to say that I saw your message, and that I thank you for your understanding. Yours, Thε Halo ^Θ 09:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Halo, I'm glad you saw that note and appreciated it. I really was not trying to single you out. I apologise for how it turned out. David D. (Talk) 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben Johnson

The top is pretty good, so it seems you've done a good job with it. I don't have any sources with which to continue the review, so I don't know that I can help much. It's a sort of fascinating train wreck as it now stands.Uucp 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"fascinating train wreck" sums it up perfectly. i suspect there are sources out there for those claims but finding them might take time. Most of the problem is the style, as in completely unencyclopedic. I will probably keep chipping away at it over time. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly correct in the examples you put on my discussion page; the relevant sections are copyright violations and need to be removed or completely rewritten. If you get any hassle excising them, I'll back you up. Uucp 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke

That was meant to be a joke, not saracasm. The barnstar's right now thanks. Miller 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The real reason I wanted to be an administrator is because I’ve been having a lot of trouble with the user Laurence Boyce recently. I’ve reported this user to rhobite but he hasn’t responded yet. The problem I’m having is that he doesn’t like what I’m putting down in the article The Root of All Evil?. He is committing a minor but visible NPOV violation by selectively quoting Dawkins into making him look arrogant and ignoring the all important subject of evolution that is central to Dawkin’s works. If you look at Boyce’s user page it is clear that this is part of a vendetta against Dawkins which I would like to see stopped. Maybe you could help here?

I’m glad you said something nice about me on the page. The only reason I’m “obsessed” or whatever with featured articles and barnstars is that it lets me know my work, time and effort is recognised and appreciated. When I’m at home my dad praises me for pretty much every piece of work I do! (of course I don’t expect this though) One more thing: how did you know about my joke: deleted nonsense additions and my request to have my barnstar changed too? Miller 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no secret as to how I knew your inner thoughts. I used the User contributions option and noticed your most recent edits. This is how people can follow you around causing trouble (wikistalking), fortunately it has not happened to me. i'd say your dad is not preparing you well for univerrsity if he does that too much. Although everyone should be praised. i will say that considering you are not in university you are doing a great job on some very complex topics. Are you doing A-level biology, or is it just a hobby for you? Any way at university it will be harder to get praise and it is easy to feel anonymous in the large classes. Especially in such as large university as Edinburgh.

With regard to getting admin tools as a defense against a troublesome user, that is a bad idea. You are not supposed to use the tools against a user with whom you have a dispute. So actually adminship would be no help to you and may well get you into trouble. You did the right thing by talking to another admin, and that would be the same thing to do even if you were an admin. The fact you are not familiar with this also tells me you do need more time to familiarise yourself with the behind the scenes activity. This is mainly through experience, both time and edit count. However, if you restrict your activity to only a few pages you will not gain such experience. This is why one of your oppose votes suggested that an average of seven edits per page was too high. It suggests you have seen little of the encylopedia. Another editor mentioned that most of your WP edits were sandbox and like FA pages. The reason for this comment is that they want to see you participating in the behind scenes activity so they know you kjnow how and when to use the admin powers.

So what to do with a problem user? patience is the key. Discussion on the talk page and building consensus with other users. One lone editor cannot push POV against many editors. It is, however, frustrating when this happens. Just keep trying to keep the NPOV of the article by making good edits and try to avoid reverting more than once or twice at most. Reserve your third for blatant vandalism only. Also keep in mind that you may be able to soften the POV by suggesting compromise edits that include but rebut the POV that is being pushed.

At the end of the day i suggest you start trying to get some self confidence in your own work. i suspect you can tell if what you are doing is good or not. Hold yourself to high standards and learn to appreciate your own work. Many appreciate your edits silently. Another posability is to join some project where you can interact with other users with common goals. I hope some of this is useful for you. Feel free to ask more questions. David D. (Talk) 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I only have an AS-level in biology (a C, oh the shame!) but I do have an A in chemistry. This is my third year at Wakefield college (that I’ve just finished), I took the third year to get what I was hoping would be “Cambridge grades” in maths and physics, which were C and B respectively when I finished my A2-levels; A-level maths is much harder than Ian Hislop would have you believe! My new A2 level physics and maths scores have given me a bit more confidence than I had before. With my new found A in chemistry (something I didn’t have when I applied to university last year) Cambridge invited me down to take a “thinking skills assessment test” after I applied and to allow me to purchase a £4 sandwich!

I don’t know all that much about biology itself, but ever since I found out the structure and functioning of ATP synthase I’ve been hooked on biochemistry. I found this out on a Nobel Prize poster in the chemistry lab believe it or not.

You may also notice that I’ve deleted the “redneck” comment on my userpage that may be offensive to some users; about 10,000,000 perhaps! When you say “This is how people can follow you around causing trouble” did you mean me when you said “you”? Surely I’m not a trouble causer am I? As for the Root of All Evil? Article I’ll just give that up as a bad job! Miller 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ATP synthase enzyme is very cool as is the chemiosmotic hypothesis. Have you seen the gifs that use fluorescent actin molecules to show the head turning during the enzyme activity. It's amazing to think that this nano motor can be visualised as it turns. With respect to following around, no i was not referring to you. Athlough i did notice you baiting that guy with a anti Christian user box. Probably not a smart move as he may well end up following you around being disruptive and hypercritical. That would get old very quickly and ruin your fun here. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn’t “baiting” him with an anti religion userbox, I just thought he’d think it was funny (I assumed he shared my views). I now realize this is probably not sensible and I’ve removed the box from my page. When you talk about the 3 reversion vandalism I actually reported him for doing this, four times! The admin looking over it didn’t think he’d done anything wrong. See, the problem here is that every time I change the Colorado Springs section by adding quotes that bring Haggard’s knowledge of science into the equation Laurence instantly reverts it. Like I said this has been done four times now. I can’t say for sure but looking at his contributions and the complaints on his user page he has some kind of agenda relating to religion and Dawkins in mind, but I can’t figure out what it is. He also called my work “rubbish”. This was his excuse for reverting the edit. Extremely discourteous and inappropriate I’m sure you’ll agree. Here’s exactly what he said:

George, I've reverted your latest bunch of edits plus an anon edit because they're rubbish!

I think (though I wouldn’t swear) this was the second time. Is there anyway you can help me? Thanks to you showing the user contributions section I’ve discovered that Rhobite hasn’t been on Wikipedia since I asked for help so maybe you could help me here please? I honestly have a good mind to give the whole root of evil thing up as a bad job though.

Is biochemistry just a hobby to you or is it something to do with your course, courier or research?Miller 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I teach and do research, although I'd consider myself more e geneticist/developmental biologist now. I actually graduate from Edinburgh so i have a soft spot for that University. It has a lot of tradition and is a great town to live in. You will enjoy it a lot more than Cambridge. But remember all Scots hate the English....well, not really, but they always say they do. Just ignore them when they go down that route.

You need to be careful with humour here on wikipedia. Sometimes it can back fire, especially if you don't know the user that well, or you have an ongoing edit war. The fact he replies in such an antagonistic way suggests he is trying to get you mad. POV pushing trolls do that all the time.

I was looking a the talk page of your problem user and i'd say he will be banned before long. He seems to be pissing off quite a few people. You may want to take a break from that page if it is annoying you. Editing here really should be a fun experience and if a page or user gets you frustrated just find something that is good. POV warriors are a pain in the butt. Best way to beat them is to outlast them. You can go back and edit the article in a week or so once things have settled down. David D. (Talk) 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think he’s the bad guy here? That’s a relief. I’m sure I wasn’t doing anything wrong and I’m sure you’ll agree that my contributions to main articles aren’t rubbish. Thanks for that then. Miller 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at your specific interaction with him but there seem to be many people who as pissed off with his editing. Bad is a loaded term, but certainly difficult. David D. (Talk) 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I’m sure you’re sick to the back teeth of hearing this now but please have a talk with Laurence. He’s just put on the root of all evil? talk page falsifiable information about scientific facts and the things said in the episode. If you can’t do anything can you recommend an admin for me to talk to? This guy just can’t be reconciled with and I’m sure he’s outside of Wikipedia practices now. Miller 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I'll be out of town this week so i wil be next to useless. Possiby Duncharris (talk · contribs) could help you out. He is very good with this type of POV stuff. And very knowledgable in this area. David D. (Talk) 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I’ve told that the user the entire story now. Miller 00:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: kinds

"I hear with regard to undue weight. On the other hand it is in the misconceptions section. Nevertheless, i can go either way. What is the deal with Aidan, is worth responding too? I am trying to get him to make specific recommendations but he seem to prefer rambling. Any suggestions, like just ignore him? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"

So far I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He did raise some good points (having a link for the kinds idea) but he seems to be of the opinion that every sentance should be cited. So far I think he should not be ignored as he has actually helped improve this article.--Roland Deschain 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NO RFA? DON'T YOU GET IT?

I AM NOT RUNNING AGAIN! I AM LEAVING! DUH! PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER! Stupid 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)