User talk:David D.

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

Welcome.

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

You may

Amino acid metabolism

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

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

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

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

WP:SHUN

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

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

RFA

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

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

Guidelines

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

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

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

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

Oh no!

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

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

well put...

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

Images for evolution

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Talk page

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

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

Help!

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

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

Talk Page

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

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

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

Clio is back

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

AGF

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

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

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

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

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

one of my favourite formatting techniques

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Replies

Just came to tell you I replied to your question. Reply

Biology montage (Citiendium)

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

Peer-review of evolution

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

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

David D.bot

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

Image tagging for Image:Four Dungarees.gif

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

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

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

Disruptive user info

Response here

Not sure how it would help

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

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

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

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

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

RE: Admin

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

Carla Baron cover-up

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

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

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

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

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

Banned User and the Ref Desk

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

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

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

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

Question about color use

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

The welcoming

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

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

Surprised?

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

Thanks

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

white text

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

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

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

User:Nikro

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

Mission - How can you be sure

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