User talk:TimVickers

Welcome to Tim Vickers's talk page. Today is Sunday, August 4, 2024; it is now 15:17 (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 7 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 RfB candidate S O N S% Ending (UTC) Time left Dups? Report No RfXs since 00:50, 23 June 2024 (UTC).—cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online

Nucleotide

Hi, looking at your image (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Nucleotides_v2.png) on the Nucleotide article, I was confused. I've laid out my confusion on the discussion page for the image, maybe you could have a look. 138.38.217.149 (talk) 18:59, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Congratulations on NAD+

Well done on the NAD+ article. There's an FA for you now! Wim van Dorst (Talk) 23:04, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed. I know I never got to commenting at FAC... sorry, I owe you a review :) Well done, Dr. FA Machine! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 23:21, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

YAY! --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:23, 1 January 2008 (UTC) Sorry for not noticing this sooner.

Introduction to evolution

I'm hoping that you will be able to help out at Introduction to evolution. I know that you worked with Willow and others on Evolution. I believe that these introductory pages are extremely important for Wikipedia as the main pages can sometimes be dense for the lay reader (Introduction to general relativity was a lifesaver for me!). I've been working with the editors at IE over the past few months in an on-again, off-again way in a sort of review capacity, but I mostly provide a prose and organization check. I was wondering if you would be willing to provide an outside scientific accuracy check. Awadewit | talk 20:38, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, please do, Tim! I just gave it a cursory review, but I doubt my expertise and wonder whether I was too demanding for an introductory article aimed at high-school students. It's clear that the authors have lavished a lot of care and thought to the article, and made clear strategic choices on the writing and referencing. I think you would bring a better, more balanced and broader perspective than I can. Happy New Year, and hoping your travels went well, Willow (talk) 19:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Best wishes

Dear Tim, I will be working at the hospital over the New Year's celebrations, so may I wish you now all the very best for 2008 and thank you for all your kindness and support. Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 23:17, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Request

Hi Tim, how are you? I hope your holidays have gone well. I just wanted to know if you could take a look at Domestic sheep for me, I've been doing a lot of work on it lately. this section in particular is pretty slim. Many thanks and best wishes, VanTucky ^talk 21:10, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, hope your holiday is going well. Also note, I now GA nom'd it. I'd very much welcome your reviewing expertise as well! VanTucky ^talk 22:38, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Happy New Year

Hadn't seen you around my Watchlist in a while; I hope you enjoyed the holiday season. Here's hoping 2008 will bring many more FAs :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:13, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim!

Just seen the reference by Alun to me from last November; I am interested mainly in the Francis Crick article and helping John Schmidt to improve on it (it's already pretty good) and same for Maurice Wilkins one of these days! Incidentally I am the pround father of a Cambridge son Year 4 doing a Masters NatSci and a Bristolian daughter studying Animal Behaviour and Welfare. You might like to try Seweryn Chomet at KCL for a non-copyright image of REF by the way. Martin P. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.7.114 (talk) 20:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

A request for your consideration regarding CAT:AOTR

...My guinea pigs and the "A"s through "S"s having felt this message was OK to go forward with (or at least not complained bitterly to me about it :) ), today it's the turn of the "T"s through "Z"s (and beyond, apparently)! I'm hoping that more of you chaps/chapettes will point to their own criteria instead of mine :)... it's flattering but a bit scary! :) Also, you may want to check back to the table periodically, someone later than you in the alphabet may have come up with a nifty new idea. ++Lar: t/c 20:54, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Orthomolecular psychiatry

Hi Tim,

I was wondering if we could get your friendly admin's eye over on Orthomolecular psychiatry. There's an ongoing disagreement on whether the Current research section is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH or not, and there's a basic disagreement that isn't changing. It's extensively documented on the talk page (now VERY long!); there was a RFC that didn't work (not sure why, could have been my fault and given the quick pace of editing I didn't think it worth re-filing) and lots of typing, but no real movement forward.

Please let me know if you'd like more details, or just pop a new section in on Talk:Orthomolecular psychiatry. We're expecting your comment (in the sense that we've agreed to ask you for an opinion as an admin and long-term editor, not that we rudely insist upon it - think of it more as a 'please come help', but said with these eyes) though we also agree that yours is not necessarily the final word, just one way of trying to work this out.

Discussion has been admirably civil, but lengthy. I suggested you as a potential candidate to ask due to your edits to pyroluria a while back - you would have encountered Alterrabe (sp) on that page as well.

Thanks,

WLU (talk) 16:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Tim,

I inadvertently undid the changes you made to the section on celiac disease and schizophrenia. I don't understand the rational for minimizing the flaws with the studies that found no link, but would be happy to hear your thinking.

And thank you for your additions to the copper discussion.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

How would "these rare patients" strike you? "Unusual patients" can sound cruel in the given context.--Alterrabe (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

wikipedia weekly interview

Hi there Tim, I was wondering if you would be interested in coming on Wikipedia Weekly podcast to do an interview? I was tipped off by user:WillowW that you might be a really interesting person to talk to. I try to mix up the experiences and backgrounds of interviewees (to show the diversity of people involved in WP) so to have someone from a science background (and from scotland too) would be great.

Some things we could potentially discuss are:

• The FA process for science articles [[Metabolism]] and [[Evolution]] especially.
• ProteinBoxBot and the Rfam database.
• the Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject and its publicity in the American Chemical Society Chemical Biology.

If you are interested, we record via Skype so you would need that and a headset microphone. Thursday-Sunday are good days for me, as I am in Australia we would have to coordinate timezones...

Please leave me a message on my talkpage. Best, Witty Lama 09:45, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Great, Well, my username is wittylama on skype. add me there. give me some times that are good for you over the next week and I'll see what matches up. I generally prefer thursday or friday as I don't work then. Best,

Witty Lama 07:38, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Sunday morning (my time) is good. I'm not entirely sure what the time difference between wherever you are and Sydney is - and i'm too tired now to do the backwards-counting - but I would have a preference for midday Sunday. That would put it at 7-8pm Saturday going on your calculations? Is that ok? Please add me on Skype to get this show on the road :-) Witty Lama 12:17, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I can't see any Skype invite from you... I searched for "tim vickers" in Skype and found about 6 people with that name. What's your Skypename? Witty Lama 03:07, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I've now added you with a request too. Hopefully you see that... I'll see you in about 14 hours. Witty Lama 11:09, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

You'll see that the ep. is now live. Here's a userbox for your troubles!

This user was a guest on Episode 40 of Wikipedia Weekly. You can listen here.

Best, Witty Lama 11:35, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Metabolism

Hi there! I was checking the metabolism category and noticed that your sandbox is listed there. Guess you forgot to remove the category tag from the article you pasted there. Just letting you know. Cheers! RIP-Acer (talk) 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Have you been following the homeopathy article recently? I was wondering because I think it's time to start getting it to FA status and ending the disputes. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

WDM, the Homeopathy article is starting to stabilize. But just a thought, will an FAC cause it blow up again? OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:45, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

It's only natural that it will stabilize after a long time being protected. Editors generally get bored with it when they can't make edits. It should be unprotected and if after a few weeks there are no edit wars, then we can say it's stable. I think that if it's unprotected, within a few hours it will be edit warred over. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 19:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

You can't up a protected article up for FA, if you want to experiment request unprotection and see what happens. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

What I mean is that we should work on resolving disputes and then go from there, before we nominate FA. The article itself needs to be unprotected for at least a few weeks and without edit warring before it's really stable anyway. Wikidudeman ^(talk) 01:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be concerned that FAC will cause a holy war there. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I am as well. I didn't know it was protected. I have proposed several times that we let the pro-homeopathy editors create their own version of a NPOV article and then compare them after they have had a few months to work on it, and then if it is not really NPOV, try to help them understand why. --Filll (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

details of microscope cutaway picture?

Hi Tim!

I was going to surprise you today with a microscope model, but it proved to be surprisingly hard to find a good model at Google Images. Either they show me the outside, or the optical train separated from the microscope, but never the twain seem to meet. :( Should I be looking somewhere else for a good model picture?

Also, I wasn't sure whether you wanted a reflected-light or transmitted-light scope, and whether a normal or inverted set-up. Any clues to your wishes for the article, whether ravenous ("I want ALL of them!"), sympathetic ("Choose the one you find prettiest") or practical ("A normal transmitted-light microscope would help the reader most"), would be most welcome. :) Cheery cheerio, off to dinner and knitting, Willow (talk) 22:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks, you are right that a normal upright transmitted-light microscope would help the reader most, since this is probably what they will come across in school and university. Tim Vickers (talk) 23:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Evo article

I too am at a loss. I was really clueless with the anthropomorphisms comment??? His comment to you was stranger "no the mechanism is spontaneous mutation. natural selection is the result". Slrubenstein rightly pointed out the error in some of his posits but then agreed with others which I still don't quite get. Further communication will hopefully make things clearer. GetAgrippa (talk) 01:59, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Merge question

I'm a novice when it comes to microbiology, but I'm thinking that (at least) a merge of Flora (microbiology) and Gut flora needs to be done. Gut flora seems to be the colloquial term for digestive flora. Correct? Hope you're well, VanTucky 03:02, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article on Dr. Samuel Wood needs help.

If you have expertise, Samuel H. Wood needs help. CM (talk) 19:24, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Deleting homeopathy from mainstream articles

There is a principle of one-way linking for fringe topics that prevents soapboxing. The idea is that if an idea is notable, we can discuss it in its relevant article. So if a homeopathic remedy is notable, it should be discussed in an article about the homeopathic remedy. However, homeopathy is rarely relevant outside the world of homeopathic medicine: most mainstream sources ignore it when describing plants or chemicals. Therefore, we should not be in the business of advertising homeopathy at those mainstream articles. Undue weight sometimes means no weight at all. ScienceApologist (talk) 23:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that homeopathic remedies rarely contain the substances they claim to use. It is only on the say-so of the homeopaths that substances are used in their remedies. This is far different than an herbalist or a folk medicine practioner or even a doctor of traditional Chinese medicine using the actual substance. Those are actual, verifiable, documented uses of the substance: their efficacy is beside the point. The homeopathist does not verifiably use any substance except for water, parafin, alcohol, and other solvents without solute. ScienceApologist (talk) 00:47, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Signpost interview

Hey Tim! I'm writing up the Signpost's WikiProject Report on the Molecular and Cellular Biology project, which I've noticed you coordinate. So, I'm going to ask you a few questions concerning the project :)

1. Q: What is the best way for users unfamiliar with molecular and cellular biology topics or new to Wikipedia to get involved in the project?

   A:

2. Q: What are some of the departments or sections of the project?

   A:

3. Q: What are some of the project's most recent achievements?

   A:

4. Q: Are there currently any ongoing discussions concerning project issues or articles within the project's scope?

   A:

Thanks, and cheers! :) ( arky ) 04:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary header

It's clear nothing I did was wanted or constructive because the owners of the article are having a private conversation. I'm sure you won't bother to tell anyone who mocked, insulted and degraded me the same thing-as apparently days of making fun of another editor and owning articles is standard operating procedure on Wikipedia. Nor did anyone bother to tell anyone it's a Wikipedia article. But I am calm. I get messages, even if I'm slow at it. The article is owned. And not by me. --Amaltheus (talk) 07:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Moving the sandbox

Oh no, I knew I didn't want to do this :-) We've hit cross purposes and now there are a number of redirects. You are right. It shouldn't have been in main space. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I hope this helps move things forward. Cheers! Wassupwestcoast (talk) 19:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Tim --- that was not meant to be an insult. I strongly feel the intro fills a need and they are written with dramatic differences in expectations of prior scientific knowledge. Suggesting a merge --- apples and oranges. I do agree we are being pushed into too much detail; but changing a word from large to big does not solve that problem. Have you ever seen such a mine field; everywhere I step shit blows up!!!!! --Random Replicator (talk) 03:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Yea probably kicked back laughing ...... The FA guys gonna read all the endless rants that don't have anything to do with the article itself --- and flunk it ... hell probably take away the GA as punitive damage to all the endless nonsense. I think I have a Corona left... Cheers! --Random Replicator (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

History of evolutionary thought

I am thinking of putting history of evolutionary thought through FAC for a 2nd time. I would like to know if you have any issues with the article that have not been addressed or if there are any other improvements you think need to be made. Your input would be very much valued and if you want to leave any comments on the article talk page or on mine they would be appreciated. Thanks. Rusty Cashman (talk) 17:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Very Classy

Hi Tim:

How unexpected and refreshing to find William Shakespeare quoted on the AN/I page.

Thanks. Wanderer57 (talk) 23:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for review

Tim: Thanks for your contributions to the OPV AIDS article; this is a contentious topic, with many strong points-of-view -- but hopefully the attention you have already given will help to ameliorate matters.

Over the past few days, I have had the occasion to run through a bunch of the molecular/cellular biology pages, as I was trying to refresh my memory about ATP metabolism, the Krebs cycle, RNA-synthesis pathways, etc. Wikipedia really has developed into quite a useful resource in this regard, as one tries to muddle through the more turgid text of peer-reviewed papers but can't quite remember all those details from lectures years ago -- and one's old texts are at least partly out-of-date. In particular, I find the internal hyperlinks, as well as the reference ones, to be particularly helpful. Theophilus Reed (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Question

Check out this edit. Seems kosher, but there's no source and I'm unsure if "hypoxic insult" is the correct term. Thanks, VanTucky 19:33, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks a million Tim! VanTucky 20:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Hey, thanks again for all the attention. I'm considering taking it to FA soon, but I'm a little hesitant bc I haven't personally nominated at FA before. Any advice for the article before I do? VanTucky 23:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

OPV AIDS hypothesis

Hi TimVickers, thanks for editing at OPV AIDS - things have been a mess there for a long time - deeply ignorant editors, including myself, leaving the 1959 "AIDS death" in a part of the disproof, Rolling Stone paying $1,000,000 in damages rather than $1, obsolete "clean vaccine" announcements (Hooper hypothsisied that the vaccine may have been produced in Africa in his 1999 book) used similarly. Your not recognising "The specific populations were the first in the world to experience HIV-1 infections and AIDS some five years later." as very related to "64% of the earliest recorded AIDS cases (through 1980) from Africa come from the same towns and villages where CHAT was fed, as do over 80% of Africa's earliest HIV-positive blood samples." ("The River" Hooper) suggests that you too are unfamilar with the basics of the hypothesis.

The other worrying aspect is that if you look at the details of the claims of refutation the amount of "Spin" in this topic is amazing - Hahn says that the location of the Ptt chimps shows OPV AIDS is incorrect but does not allow for movement of infected chimps - just movement of infected human. (Hooper shows cited presence of Ptt chimp at LindiCamp). And we have Brian Martin's published material on suppression. "Contested testimony in scientific disputes: the case of the origins of AIDS",The Skeptic, Vol. 13, No. 3, 2007, pp. 52-58.", "Investigating the origin of AIDS: some ethical dimensions, Journal of Medical Ethics, Vol. 29, No. 4, August 2003, pp. 253-256.", "The Politics of a Scientific Meeting: the Origin-of-AIDS Debate at the Royal Society", Politics and the Life Sciences, Vol. 20, No. 2, September 2001, pp. 119-130 , "Political refutation of a scientific theory: the case of polio vaccines and the origin of AIDS", Health Care Analysis, Vol. 6, 1998, pp. 175-179. etc etc http://www.uow.edu.au/arts/sts/bmartin/dissent/documents/AIDS/ provides a bibliography.

So if the article just stays at the level of article headlines we have a very clear total rejection by weighty sources. If we include the content of articles (excepting the phylogenetic material here) and the reasonable/logical replies to the content from Hooper et al we may end up with a different article. Which may have real world implications for some involved editors - see the behavior/pressure tactics used by some in this debate as reported by Hooper. Theophillus also has pointed towards something related. Still I'm sure you'll take the sources as you find them. SmithBlue (talk) 01:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

While I am thrilled to have an experinced biology knowlegable editor working on OPV AIDS it is also very important that its done well - please take your time, get enough rest and know that Wikipedia will probably still be here to edit next week. SmithBlue (talk) 04:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel especially bad about this

[1]--Filll (talk) 03:29, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

bravo

Tim, just wanted to say nice job on that Wikipedia Weekly interview. You're an excellent ambassador for the MCB project. If I may offer one minor comment on (not surprisingly) PBB. The key impact of PBB that I would emphasize would not be in all the information that it provides, but rather that it provides a credible stub to attract new content and ideally a whole army of new contributors. All the database content is just a means to an end, and I hope it is all eventually diluted away or even removed by contributions from human editors. Anyway, I know we're all on the same page looking from slightly different angles, so it's a minor comment on an excellent portrayal of what we're all about. Bravo... AndrewGNF (talk) 18:15, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

That was really nice; I listened to it twice already. :) I agree, you did an excellent job as ambassador and I think you came across very well to the listeners. I had to smile when you seemed at a loss after Witty lama asked about Featured Articles from the MCB WikiProject; quite a dilemma for a self-effacing editor! "Quick, think: which one did I not write?" ;) I was a little embarrassed myself to be mentioned, but at least it's good motivation for me to finish off those remaining proteases and nucleases and whatnot. I still owe you a microscope model, too, but it's proving rather hard to do it as nicely as I wanted; and I got distracted into crafting a gift. Oh well, no rest for the wicked, and well done once again :) Willow (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh, for what it's worth Willow, you absolutely deserved the mention in Tim's overview of MCB. No question. PBB would have gladly traded air time to highlight more of your contributions... AndrewGNF (talk) 22:03, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Exhilirating bedtime reading :-) A "couple" of FAs: Category:FA-Class MCB articles :-) Trust people to act sensibly ... alphabet soup! You never mentioned Loki! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating stuff! I often wish I had time to learn everything. :) I have all sorts of questions now... I think you did an excellent job of sparking listeners' curiosity. Awadewit | talk 15:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I listened to the podcast and it was quite interesting. Great job! Thanks a lot for mentioning the proposed collaboration between wikipedia and ACS Chemical Biology. I'll definitely put in concrete ideas this weekend. This work week has been crazy for me. Just a minor point... starting the ACS WIKI was inaccurately attributed to me. It was actually there when I joined the ACS and mainly through the efforts of Evelyn Jabri and Sarah Tegen. All in all a great listen and a proud moment for the MCB Wikiproject. Thaks again Antorjal (talk) 16:28, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

RNA interference

Hey, Tim, how is this FAR doing? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:41, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The definition of irony

Re: this remark, people who are quick to accuse Hilary Koprowski of being responsible for the HIV/AIDS epidemic are apparently quite touchy when the documented unintended consequences of their own actions are mentioned. MastCell ^Talk 22:51, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of the gallery on Bicolor cat

As you requested, I started the discussion. However, I would like to invite you to review User:TMursch's contributions, as they seem to be mostly unconstructive edits to me. If you feel my assessment is incorrect, please feel free to let me know as well. Have a good day!--Ramdrake (talk) 21:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Admin Advice

Quick question, Tim, if you have a chance. I have reverted the removal of the pseudoscience box on the homeopathy twice thus far. I know that it will probably be removed again. Does this qualify as reverting vandalism or something of the like since it's removal is clearly against consensus? Thanks in advance. Btw, check this out and weigh in if you want. Baegis (talk) 23:02, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Any interest in helping out?

I'd like to calm things down since it's in pass territory, but Awadewit is on break. If you can lend a hand over the hump, I'd be grateful. [2] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know, Tim; I hope things will eventually settle down so you can do some work on it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Good stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Cross-posted from SandyGeorgia's page

Tim I would agree with you that we are contending during the FA with many forces that are pushing the article out of the realm of an introductory article, and "threatening to hold their breaths and turn blue" if we do not give in. And so we give in, over and over, and sophistication creep sets in. And there are still many dark hints about reems of other horrendous errors that are impossible to find, and doom the article to failure:[3] What I hope emerges from the discussion is some community agreement and mandate about the need for introductory articles, and what introductory articles are by necessity; they are not sophisticated. And we need to keep that in mind and reject all comments to the contrary, with no exceptions. Comments?--Filll (talk) 22:52, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Help with a goniometer animation

Hi Tim,

That was awful how things went awry at Introduction to evolution, no? I noticed it only after the time-bombs went off, and then it seemed too late to have any hope of restoring serenity. Sometimes I really don't understand people. :P

I've been trying to clear out my "to do" list in 2008, one item of which is to bring X-ray crystallography to Featured Article status — contrary to my userbox, I have to stop knitting sometime. ;) I just made an animation that tries to illustrate the motions of a four-circle goniometer; unfortunately, the file is rather large and, somehow, I sense it could and should be simplified. Can you think of how to clarify it, shorten it or otherwise improve it? A different perspective perhaps? Maybe get rid of the shadows? Eliminate the part where the detector is moved back and forth? Maybe don't make full circles of the degrees of freedom, just rock back and forth? I feel frustrated with myself that I can't just see how to make it better. :P Any advice from you would be very welcome. Willow (talk) 14:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

There was a very difficult situation that developed and so unpleasant that I and Awadewit and several others basically backed away from the article. Eventually it reached the breaking point for Random Replicator, unfortunately. I do understand more about this but that is not for this venue.--Filll (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Your tone

Hi Tim,

I think the tone of your messages is counter-productive. If you want to edit Wikipedia, you need to learn to focus on the message, not the messenger. To say that I am "useful to have around" is insulting and childish. Please try to be friendly and collaborative, and we will all win. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 03:48, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing

A request for mediation has been filed here. SlimVirgin ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:53, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z

Thank you for your kind note

Tim — Thank you for your kind words. Do you think it might serve as an essay on Introduction to... articles? Would such an effort help the cause? If such an essay were to come to pass, I'd be soliciting some help, and your name, among other habitues of Filll's page comes to mind. Good hearing from you again; it's been too long since either of us has reached out. Take care. Gosgood (talk) 17:47, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. I haven't really any great interest in the subject, I'm afraid, but there was an NYT article on factory farming that I thought might be useful there and then I just followed the links... I do worry about when and where primary sources are to be used, so I thought I'd chip in. Relata refero (talk) 20:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

DOI help

Tim, I'm trying to help Fainites (talk · contribs) clean up the refs on Reactive attachment disorder, which have inconsistent formatting. We're both having problems getting the DOIs right (for example, here). Do you have time to take a look? I'll also post to Eubulides and Colin to see who gets there first. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:34, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Request for mediation accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Animal testing. For the Mediation Committee, WjBscribe 00:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Your note

I am a relative newcomer to AT myself, and have no familiarity with any RfCs. Crum375 (talk) 21:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: Hi there

That's, uh, a very fine question. The RFC bot nixes RFC tags once the RFC expires (heh, I used "RFC" four times in a single sentence!), so I suppose what you could do is trawl backwards through the talk page history in an attempt to find such tagging. Also, RFCs tend to have "RFC" in the section title, so that may help you as well. MessedRocker (talk) (write these articles) 23:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't find any RFCbot edits as per this link. There looks to be 3 bots that did edit the talk page (Sine, Tawker and Hagerman). R. Baley (talk) 23:16, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

AfD closure

Hi TimV. Could I pester you to revisit Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/I Voted for Kodos. You removed the AfD tag from the band's article but not the individual albums (which, presumably, are notable if the band is notable – if they are non-notable they need to be nominated separately, I would say). Thanks so much. --Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 19:37, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

French places

DId you not read the notice at the top of my page?? Infoboxes will be added once the articles are set up. INfo can be transalted from the official websites on each of the at a later date. Use your head. This is wiki. Articles won't remain "useless stubs" forever. They are here to build up into full articles. This is the most efficient way to get them up and running of which I see precious few other people bothering. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:26, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia? Does Deforestation in Brazil and Abbas Kiarostami look like unreferenced uselessness to you? ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:28, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

The French wikipedia and Dutch wikipedia links are indication for starters ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Ottrott the other day which needs some references also . Hopefully they can all develop quickly into at least this. i would probably be asking somebody to do the same if I saw new pages like this but trust my experience on this. ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if you are aware but the infoboxes can be copied from French wikipedia in seconds. It is easier to do it this way ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 20:44, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Next stage will be to develop them like Sainte-Sabine-Born, one of the places you highlighted within seconds and later translated from french on various sites ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 21:17, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

OK no probs. You had every right to be concerned. I'm always chasing people up myself who seem to be creating useless articles. I wouldn't normally ever even think of creating an unreferenced articles but the sheer amount of re dlinks is so overwhelming that , well five a minute is the best solution I think -I may be wrong but to get them started. Then basically I or any number of editors from WP :French communes can begin working through each of the departments ensure everyone has an infobox and is referenced and hopefully those french linguists can do wonders!!! I just added an infobox to Saint-Vincent-de-Barbeyrargues -i;ll reference that and add a bit tomorrow and if there are images available or whatever it makes a difference. I won't feel pressured to complete the lot over night it may be a month or two before they are all at the minimum required level but I really appreciate people seeing the idea that it is to build upon. Best regards ♦ Sir Blofeld ♦ ^$1,000,000? 22:57, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Cheers buddy I thought I'd added the archived link earlier. The last few I've started have had infboxes. I can do this at about a rate of one minute and will try to start them all like this if I can. Depends on whether there are 400 or so to do or not for each one. Regards amigo ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Cheers amigo. Saludos! ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Rochechinard is a bit better isn't it as a start ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 17:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

See what I mean now I'm getting criticised for adding the infoboxes. Man why do I bother!!!! ♦ King of Baldness ♦ ^$1,000,000? 18:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Black The Ripper

Why is my contribution innapropriate? There are many articles about artists, and thats what I was creating, you have no good reason for deleting it Gonzalez8 (talk) 21:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Deletion Review for Simon Dodsworth

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Simon Dodsworth. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article, speedy-deleted it, or were otherwise interested in the article, you might want to participate in the deletion review:

My comment: four versus three, without any serious consideration of the academic (as versus the dogmatic) comments, constitutes an absolute for deletion of an article? What a pity people like yourself couldn't put your efforts into creative rather than destructive work. More and more people on Wikipedia need to assume good faith towards other users - you know, like the fellow who commenced that article, don't you think? David Lauder (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

If this article is acceptable for wikipedia what is to stop every geneologist to upload their files here? David D. (Talk) 21:42, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

"Every genealogist" is not proposing that so you digress. Lets face it, what is to stop every stupid pop star or skateboard rider who has ever got a mention somewhere having an article on Wikipedia? Could one ask: did you manage to read the Keep comments, or did you find them worthless? David Lauder (talk) 09:01, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You say that ""Every genealogist" is not proposing that so you digress" but the point is that it sets up the precedent. And I agree, wikipedia should not have every "stupid pop star or skateboard rider". Another example of a bad precedent.

As for the keep arguments. I did not find them worthless but I found them less than convincing. Was there some specific plan you had for this article. for example, what will be linking to it, is it part of a planned series? Or will it just stand alone as an orphan? David D. (Talk) 15:49, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I did not write it so trying to remember exact content is not easy, but I seem to recall that both his children and grandchildren were quite notable, one of them being a Judge of Admiralty and another a noted Yorkshire poet. I thought this was a relatively interesting article for the century concerned and that was why I ploughed in and tidied it up. David Lauder (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I just checked and his son was Matthew Dodsworth, whose son was Roger Dodsworth. The latter is certainly a good article for wikipedia, but even the Matthew Dodsworth one seems a little light. Being the grandfather of Roger Dodsworth seems to be the chain that has led to Simon Dodsworth's article being created and does not appear to justify inclusion. If this kind of exercise in geneology is worthwhile then I would say keep but I think this is a bad precedent. A potential solution might be to write a geneology section in the Roger Dodsworth article to include both Matthew and Simon? David D. (Talk) 17:05, 4 February 2008 (UTC) I'm going to paste this discussion to the Simon Dodsworth deletion review where it is more appropriate.

Thanks!!

Thanks for my first Barnstar! I'm not sure what it's for but it feels good!

I do like it here. I have been a faithful wikipedia user for a long time now and am really excited about this new wiki-relationship. I knew it was possible to edit pages but I didn't realize the full extent of the wiki community until I noticed a mis-spelled word, created an account and read more about the community. The policies (five pillars etc) and ideology of the community have really piqued my interest. I'm now all of a sudden thinking of all the articles I have been dissatisfied with in the past and feel quite empowered by the idea of working to fix articles like that instead of just going elsewhere to do my own research.

Anyways... that's part of the reason why I'm happy to be here :)

Thanks again for the welcome and the barnstar.

Cheers, Treesoulja (talk) 02:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/John Miller (Yuba City)

Could you clarify why you closed this AfD after it was open for less than twenty-four hours? Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

My initial reaction was that he probably was notable, since I find that there's usually a fair bit of material available about mayors of cities that size. Upon a little more digging, however, I'm not sure that he is. I think mayors of cities that size might be bigger deals in Canada (where I've lived my entire life) than they are in the states, where most of them seem to be part-timers. I'd still have preferred seeing it go to term - I think it was too early for a WP:SNOW - but agree that the end result was probably the right one. No harm done, and thanks for your response. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 18:13, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Advice?

Plucked your name from wp:editor assistance as someone i've seen talk a good deal of sense without being bitey. I realize you're busy, but luckily there's no rush answering this whatsoever. What does or should Wikipedia or experienced editors do when they keep coming across an editor who makes significant valuable contributions to the place, but who never uses edit summaries (4 in the last 500 edits, 2 uncivil-ish) or talk pages, often makes simple errors, sometimes makes large formatting changes worthy of discussion, seems to always revert at least once when reverted, and has a talk page which seems consist solely of a slow steady trickle of etiquette templates that are acknowledged by archiving only? I'm not in a dispute, just observing, so dispute resolution is out, and anyway my impression of RFC is that it is in practice much more serious than is warranted here. Is that correct? Do you have any advice for me were my account true? 86.44.6.14 (talk) 15:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC) Alright, although etiquette warnings have had no effect on the editing practice described. Thanks though. 86.44.6.14 (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Need genetic expertise

I do not know if this is outside your purview or not, but you might look at the arguments on the talk page [4]. I think this might have been a concept that creationists hijacked, but deserves a serious article of its own on WP, if it is as reasonable as the anon makes it sound. If this is a bit outside your area of expertise who might be good to look at it?--Filll (talk) 21:48, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Language of flowers

Hi Tim, thanks for your note (I actually found the page through your contribs which I noticed this morning at Human). I remember reading someting on color and Tussie-Mussies a few months back, but not were I read it. Drat. Ceoil (talk) 22:10, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC), note User:Thatcher is the clerk, not me, I'm just opening for him. — Rlevse • Talk • 22:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What does that mean?

The response of Archtransit to the concerns raised in this RfC is unacceptable. He has been completely unwilling to discuss his past mistakes and offer any assurance that he will begin to listen to others, so that these mistakes will not be repeated. Frankly, I find his comments to be verging on the bizarre. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some say I discuss too much. You seem to say I am unwilling to discuss. How to please both groups?

I separated the complaint into 10 or so items. Isn't this discussion? For those that seem to say I discuss too much, I formulated a revised, shortened, compromise RFC that took much of the RFC so that I could say "I accept, I agree" or something similar with little comment. The shortened RFC had language that said something along the lines of what you wrote which was "listen to others, so that these mistakes will not be repeated" Archtransit (talk) 23:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

You mean your sarcastic response of "Even in the case of a vandal blanking out the main page, I will seek consultation from a panel of administrators and respected editors and not act without it."? Tim Vickers (talk) 23:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It is not sarcastic. I intend to consult for all blocks, even if I think there is no chance that anyone would disagree. Vandals usually don't get to the main page but I can think of 2 ways to do so. I won't say how to prevent others from getting ideas. This is my commitment to use the tools in the near term. Archtransit (talk) 01:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Rotavirus

Hi Tim, would you have time to take another look at the article. I plan to take it to FAC around the 9th or 10th of March and I'm trying to gather as much input as I can. Best wishes, Graham. --GrahamColm^Talk 20:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Admin abuse

What I really want to see is the technical ability to grant "blocker", "deleter", and "protector" rights separately, and just have "administrator" mean the combination of the three. This would allow greater access to the tools, more focused "requests for tool X" discussions, and the ability to remove abused tools from administrators without completely desysopping them. I was actually planning on proposing this after this RfA if it were successful, so that people couldn't accuse me of having a conflict of interest. For example, "You're only proposing this so you can get around people not wanting you to be an administrator." —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

In other words, I would be more lenient about giving up just one of the tools, especially if the tools were easier to obtain. However, there had better be a very good reason if I am to give up all three. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 21:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Genes/proteins

Are genes always italicized and proteins capitalized??? [5] Should that be added to MEDMOS? [6] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

It depends on the organism. Scientist who use C. elegans do not capitalise for proteins, at least they used not to. See this archived version of the MCB Project talk page for more information and some good resources. David D. (Talk) 03:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, David. That helps, but I'm not a biologist. I need the Dummies 101 answer to whether we need to add something to WP:ITALICS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

oh, for gosh sakes, and now that I've linked it, it's already there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I love the way problems solve themselves if I ignore them for five minutes. :) Tim Vickers (talk) 03:54, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I should learn that trick.  :/ SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Image for Alpha Kappa Alpha

Thanks, Tim for the image cropping! miranda 08:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello

You recently posted on my Talk page (here) regarding the Law in Star Trek AfD, and re-reading my response it comes across as rather pompous, for which I apologise. Anyway, I was following some of the links, and came across this remark, which seems rather relevant and I commend to you as a good idea.

PS: there are free barnstars being handed out if you take an interest in separating the warring parties in List of massacres! See: [7] and here's the proof! --Major Bonkers (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Hello!

Thanks for the welcome! I will be frequenting the FAQs and have read the links you sent me-- I may still be posting some ridculously simple questions. Glad to be part of this wonderful enterprise.Frankceo (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Frowning kitties

Hi hope you don't mind but I nabbed your kitty image -the frowning cat I thought would make a good sidekick to Mr Bigglesworth. Thats my kind of humour. I'll get back to the French communes this coming week I've had a few days off and today have been doing something rather different with the Hollywood A-listers! I haven't given up but thought I was entitled to a short break. Hope you are well Regards ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 14:03, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL ah yes. Now a part of SPECTRE. Hope you aren't too distraught. Incidentally "Mrs Bigglesworth" belongs to User:FayssalF the bureacrat. Saludos! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 16:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I added a note to it to save serious reaction lol! -I think he looks a bit like that goon Tim Vincent. Anyway I;ve continued with the communes today but if you see my editing history I do rather more than creating lame stubs!!! ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 23:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

RFA thanks

.: RFA thanks :.

Thanks for supporting me! My RfA passed with a final tally of 5 neutrals, 1 oppose and 148 supports, a turnout I couldn't have dreamed of. I'm going to do everything I can to help out the community, help with sysop tasks, and of course, contribute to the encyclopedia. If you ever need a hand with something, feel free to give a shout! Cheers! Master of Puppets Call me MoP!☺ 17:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

RNA interference

No one has entered a compelling reason on the FAR to defeature this, but it has a couple of uncited paragraphs. Would you be interested in taking those on? If so, I'd probably enter a Keep on the FAR, since no one has given us anything to work with. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:18, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:54, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

You fixed a FAR in an hour and half? Good gosh :-) Going to look now. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I just added some references, I'd like to do more but I've got quite a bit on my plate at the moment. :( Tim Vickers (talk) 22:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that plate is keeping you from what you do so well. Anyway, RNA is close enough for a Keep, so it can wait. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:00, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

BTW, ArbCom decision. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

About your comment

Hello again. I'd like to let you know that upon further reflection, I'm not going to have a set percentage of votes required to remove my adminship. I've laid out my criteria at User:Remember the dot/Recall and I will add myself to Category:Wikipedia administrators open to recall if I am made an administrator. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Recent deletion

Hi. You deleted Ron Paul/Newsletters sandbox as a test page. It was actually a proposal for the article being discussed in talk. Bartleby (talk) 02:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Looking at what happened it seems someone moved and emptied the page before the deletion. I didn't realize that had happened - sorry for the trouble. Bartleby (talk) 02:53, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Moved to proper location for tests: User:Bartleby/Newsletters sandbox. John J. Bulten (talk) 17:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA count

It makes no difference, but there's one neutral for RTD's RfA. I guess it isn't getting counted because all the strikes messed up the numbering for whatever counts it. Enigma (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

The bot is still not recognizing the neutral, but whatever. Makes no difference to anything. By the way, could you fix something? On [8], by step III, the "r" in "monitor" is off. Enigma (talk) 23:59, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Barnstar

It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten.

<Moved to trophy cabinet> :)

Thanks

One of my favorite pictures

Thank you for participating in my RfA! It was closed as successful with 74 supporting, 3 opposing, and 1 neutral. I will do my best to live up to the trust that you have placed in me. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:48, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks...

for the wise words, and for all your help. It's much appreciated Tim. VanTucky 19:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you

I appreciate your assistance on my draft. Hopefully as it grinds along, we will end up with a useful accessible article.--Filll (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Reflection removal (viper pic)

Hi, can you tell me what you did to remove the reflection in Image:West African Gaboon Viper.JPG, as I'd like to do something similar to Image:128763115 a1b78f9cde o.jpg. Thanks! Samsara (talk • contribs) 20:10, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Cricetulodon

Beautiful, thanks! -Yupik (talk) 23:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

AbendZeitung (Munich)

The intro has been edited and is now fine, but I really can't believe I've been an ex-pat so long that for example, the following sentence is actually correct in English: Regular Kolumen write currently Munich Mayor Christian Ude, moderator Juergen fly, health expert Hademar bank Hofer, comedian Django Asül and film critic Ponkie. Daily appears in the local section of the newspaper a drawing of Franziska Bilek. After the intro, the rest of it is a machine translation. -Yupik (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd recommend it be stubbified and then put up for translation at WP:TRANSLATION. BTW, if you're at all interested, we could always use more of your help at WP:PNT, as we have a serious backlog of articles there. -Yupik (talk) 23:55, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! :D -Yupik (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

And that should be Wikipedia:Translation. -Yupik (talk) 23:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Havok article

Duh, I forgot I can see the deleted articles myself now! I agree, that doesn't really look salvageable... Still, thanks for userfying it for him. Hopefully it was just a squall, not a hurricane. --barneca (talk) 00:49, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Next time you speedily delete, why not check to see if there is a discussion already on-going about it. Robin48gx (talk) 21:42, 15 February 2008 (UTC) from the rules:

Any editor who is not the creator of a page may 
remove a speedy tag from it. The creator may not do this. 
A creator who disagrees with the speedy deletion should 
instead add hangon to the page, and explain the rationale
on the page's discussion page.

Tim have a look at WP:INSPECTOR Wikipedia appears to be ignoring an underground social phenomena by censoring these rigs, and just recently a large internationa list of these rigs was removed too. Well its your wiki, apparently. The 'elite admin clubs' wiki that is. Less and less to do with being a peoples encyclopedia it would appear. Robin48gx (talk) 19:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Shanty Choirs

Hum, sorry about vasting your time. I can't see any lists of Shanty Choirs and others singing shanties, perhaps that would be important enough to keep? I do feel Storm Weather Shanty Choir deserve some more mention then just a foot note in the article of one of shanties but I see now that what I feel don't matter in this case :/ I'm reading up on Wikipedia:FIRST right now :) Anyways, if you have any comment on the shanty performers/choir list idèa I'd be greatefull, thanks in advance :) Luredreier 21:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Time

Just so you know:

Contributors sometimes create articles over several edits, so try to avoid deleting a page too soon after its creation if it appears incomplete. Users nominating a page for speedy deletion should specify which criteria the page meets and consider notifying the page's creator.

My computer is overheating a bit right now so I keep crashing :/ Didn't have time to write much in the article itself... Both my last message and this one is about the Storm Weather Shanty Choir

Luredreier 21:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Closing AfDs

Please make sure to close open AfD discussions when speedily deleting an article marked with an AfD tag. I've closed this one for you. Thanks! ···日本穣^{? · Talk to Nihonjoe} 22:04, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

FPC

Hi Tim,

Can I just offer you an apology for some of the comments made by some editors on your FPC nom West African Gaboon Viper. They were clearly out of line, but unfortunately ill-advised comments are sometimes made there. I noticed that you informally withdrew the nomination, so I have now officially closed it.

FWIW it's a very good image, but perhaps outside quality requirements. Please try not to take it personally (I know firsthand that can be difficult!), and do feel welcome to participate at FPC again.

Cheers, --jjron (talk) 11:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Song Thrush

I dropped by as I have been coordinating many of the WP bird articles and tried to address (hopefully successfully) the two points made. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Natalizumab

Hi Tim,

I'm very out of my depth on this, and I think even a simple MOS reorder is out of my grasp. Natalizumab is a pretty messy page, I don't deal much with drugs so and am not familiar. Could you have a look? I'm having an edit, but it looks quite spammy in a very odd way. I get that it seems to be well reviewed and effective, the tone is very apologetic/histrionic. WLU (talk) 17:13, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

crap, that means I'm going to get an edit conflict when I save. I may over-write and try to re-integrate, or I may move to a sandbox. Thanks! WLU (talk) 17:26, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Tim......I have just noticed, and I am very unhappy with the wholesale edits that WLU has made in Natalizumab, for reasons explained on the Discussion page, including concerns expressed by others several months prior as to the lop-sided nature of the page. I refer to the Deletion of whole Sections, allegedly in the interests of "formatting", as well as the annotation of his Edits in the Wiki-History. Well, WLU has referenced you as someone he consulted, and I would ask that you look at the Discussion page to see what we both have to say.io-io (talk) 00:10, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw your comment and it is really just a repat of WLU's claims pf "spam" quotations. I have answered it on the Discussion page - where perhaps he should have raised his issues first. If you do't want toget into this, I understand. It was just my work that he obliterated without any notice and with fake edit descriptions.io-io (talk) 00:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Well user JWF a.k.a. Wolff has weighed-in, and after some "exchanges" there seems to be agreement that the Natalizumab page can substantially revert to reveal the former content. However before working on the page, I notice that you made several revisions, possibly minor, and I wanted to ask you if there are things you would like to see or not like to see. I have explained by point-of-view that the page should contain contemporary information, and not a media re-hash, on the Talk page. I have also described the unique circumstances to the drug there; reasons for which I do not think that standard Wiki format for pharmaceuticals need rigorously apply....please review and comment, unless of course you feel you have said all you wanted to say. Thanks You.io-io (talk) 00:18, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Vitamin Shoppe deletion

I am a fairly new member of Wikipedia. Since I have only created about one or two other articles, I would've rather appreciated some tips/help on how to create an article for the Vitamin Shoppe rather than you just up and deleting it! I purposefully left the "stub" mark so that others may edit/add to it. I have no interest in the Vitamin Shoppe other than it's my roommate's favorite store. I am not an employee there, do not have a financial interest in the company or any other such connection. Thank you.

Californiadude99 (talk) 01:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

GA review of Israeli-Palestinian conflict

Tim, you do realize that the article is a quick-fail right? It's got at least ten {{fact}} tags and an {{unreferenced-section}} banner. VanTucky 01:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's very kind of you to be that accommodating Tim, but it's a little unnecessary in my book. Nominators don't get to pick and choose their reviewers, and it doesn't really matter who reviews it if the article is a quick fail. I don't think it should get special treatment just because of the subject matter. If you don't feel comfortable quick failing it, I'd be happy to step up to the plate (or assist with a full review, if you prefer). Good luck, VanTucky 21:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Doczilla's RfA

.: Oh, no! There goes To-ky-o! Admin Doczilla! :.

File:Godzilla(01)reverse.jpg

Thanks for !voting! Thank you for !voting in my RfA which resulted in the collapse of civilization with 92 (94?) support, 1 oppose, and 1 neutral. Blame jc37 and Hiding for nominating me, everyone who had questions or comments, everyone who !voted, everyone who tallied the numbers correctly, and WJBScribe who closed without shouting, "No mop for you!" Seriously, your response has overwhelmed me. I am deeply grateful.

Element 44: Ruthenium Tim Vickers Thank you for your question and for casting the 44th vote in support.

     "The bad news is time flies. The good news is you're the pilot." - Michael Althsuler

Image help

Hey, Tim; I don't know anything about images, but from some of your other work, I've gleaned that you know how to crop images ??? The image at Simon Baron-Cohen (submitted by Zeraeph) is about half columns, half person. Are we allowed to, and are you able to, crop it in half horizontally so it's only him, not columns? I don't know what "awaiting GFDL confirmation" means and what the free status of the image is; I just noticed as I'm getting ready to do some POV and WP:PEACOCKery work on that article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much; you're a gem!! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:27, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Simonbc crop.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Simonbc crop.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 20:30, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Wonderful :-) There were problems with the original, so you get the notice. Sorry :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC) I don't know anything about this, but I'll go leave a question at the copyright questions page to see if someone can fix it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the trouble, Tim; ugh, this is why I stay away from images.[9] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:38, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Whew. Well, it was very nice of you to do it for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

SPECTRE efficiency

Wow the efficiency is raising some eyebrows huh? Did anybody ever doubt how efficient SPECTRE was at "eliminating" red links?? If you could provide them with the link to the past discussion - I don;t want to have to explain again!! Thanks ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:13, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

OK prime example. A typical "directorial" stub like Albas, Lot. Now see this, the French equivalent and tell me wikipedia wouldn't benefit from 30,000 new articles in english like this ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:54, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

LOL! All that stands in the way is a lot of hard work by a number of people and some French speaking english people to help translate them. I;m convinced if an article like that can be written on a town with 500 people like that then we can certainly ensure that every one of these stubs has at least some value. We can't hide these places, and dismiss them as inadequate. That just shows systematic bias. Even when I see pictures of these places I think wow, I didn;t realise it looked like that!!! You picture some hamlet of two houses in the countryside, a farmer who smells rank of cheese and a topless sunbather lying on the road causing an accident by two crazy French drivers sporting moustaches and called Pierre driving Renaults. Then they get out and inspect the damage and you realise its like being on the set of Poirot (who is Belgian actually, like Dr. Evil) himself but you see the point! Is that an accurate description SPECTRE thinks to the contrary, Adios y Buenos Noches ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 01:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a humungous coincidence, but todays featured picture is Poirot David Suchet himself!!!!!!!!! LOL!!! I also happened to come across a picture of Andy Peters wearing misted up shades. See this. ♦Blofeld of SPECTRE♦ ^$1,000,000? 00:38, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi

Thanks for the welcome. I see you're an admin and are prolly able to do things most users can't. Jason (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability

I am really torn about WP:SPS etc. On one hand, they are valuable in some contexts. On the other hand, I can see how overuse in some situations can lead to a problem. If I want to show what kind of a flake X is, it is good to be able to refer to something X has written about Y. Now X is not necessarily a good source for Y, but they are a good source for what X thinks about Y. On the other hand, if this is done in an unbalanced way, we can have entire articles which are sourced only to nonsensical sources. --Filll (talk) 18:39, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

My verifiability comment

Maybe you are right. I am not committed to my suggestion, it was just an idea. I'd like to know what others think but you make a good point and if you stick with it or others agree I won't argue against you. That said, perhaps one could consider my suggestionj a necessary, but not sufficient, ground for inclusion... Slrubenstein | Talk 20:28, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

A cheery gift — and fun project?

Hey Tim,

It seems like you've had a hard week, so I thought I should do something nice for you to cheer you up. Since it's been, ummm, only two months since Christmas, I think it's not too late to give you some nice gift, something hypnotizingly beautiful that we might be able to work on together. ;) Please be patient with me, and please correct any gross errors I make; I can feel my brain expanding as I learn about all this stuff, but it might not expand fast enough... :P I probably won't start on it for a few days yet, either, while I absorb all these new things. :) Nickeled but not dimed, 19:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the beginning there was sockpuppetry

Sounds interesting, though I'm not certain how effective it would be—perhaps multiple IPs or all that—hasn't that been tried before? In any case, I'm still not around much; I'm sure you can give Alison (talk · contribs) a nudge when someone with magnifier privileges is required :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:17, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

And, thank you for reinstating the semi—that was close ;) I was sure I'd be home by the time it expired, but... not. Hope everything's going well on your end, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 22:20, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of Image:Allosteric v by S curve.png

A tag has been placed on Image:Allosteric v by S curve.png requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:Allosteric v by S curve.png|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Hennessey, Patrick (talk) 02:36, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Sonar device

Hi Tim, do you have a source saying that the sonar device was "ultrasonic"? Crum375 (talk) 01:33, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! Crum375 (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Rhabdo

Thanks for your help with the last few issues, Tim. Nice one. JFW | T@lk 21:05, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Ref to Great Ape rights law in Ethics

I agree with Crum375. A major issue is that the laws on animal testing by representative governments can be used as a metric of the majority ethics on animal testing. The lead of the ethics section puts forth the majority view on ethics. This caveat is an important exception. Most of the world does not perform invasive testing on Great Apes, or allow it.m OTOH, I thought Crum375's revert was an excessive use of reversion when simply correcting the reference would have been adequate (and I further disagree that the reference does not support the statement),--Animalresearcher (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

ref:deletion Satish Babu

Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? User:Madhuritalluri(talk)

Hi!

Just dropping in to say hello. :) How have things been? – ClockworkSoul 17:17, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I wrote part of a program to do it by hand, but when the number of pages under our banner increased by an order of magnitude it broke my logic. I'll have to write something anew when I have a little more time. Part of the problem is that we can no longer fit all of the articles on a single page, so I'll have to teach the software to do some kind of yet-to-be-determined wizardry. – ClockworkSoul 17:35, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Song Thrush

Many thanks! Jimfbleak (talk) 18:49, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Your note

I am not sure if I am the right person to ask. I am still kind of new in this article, and I don't get a sense of NPOV stability there yet. Crum375 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Signpost Dispatch

From Marskell: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25/Dispatches at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-02-25. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Interview of sorts

I am planning on writing a paper for Wikimania 2008 on "online collaborative writing" and I was wondering if I could "interview" you over email about your experiences writing on Wikipedia. I'm trying to collect as many perspectives as possible. I would really appreciate it! Awadewit | talk 01:41, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathy AGAIN

We have an anonymous vandal trying to push a POV (which I happen to like, but it's not acceptable). I've reverted him twice, but I don't want to get shot in the crossfire. See this 3RR report. Thanks.OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:37, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

re:Sheep

That's hilarious. I've infected your mind with completely unnecessary detail about sheep - success is mine! As a side note: have you seen this business about "expert withdrawal"? Think you might want to chime if you haven't... VanTucky 19:48, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Sheepish over GLO1 mistake?

Hi Tim,

I had a few quick questions about lactoylglutathione lyase, do you mind helping me? First, enzymatic activity was a redlink that I redirected to enzyme kinetics; can you think of a better link? Second and more importantly, I wasn't sure which carbon to call C₁ and which C₂? In lone methylglyoxal, I'd say the methylated carbonyl carbon should be C₁, since the methyl group is heavier than the hydrogen on the other carbon. That's what I've done so far in the article. On the other hand, once the glutathione moiety binds, then the methyl carbon is wimpier than the sulfur, making it C₂. The Himo and Siegbahn reference discussing the reaction mechanism use C₁ for the S-linked carbon, agreeing with the latter reasoning and disagreeing with what I've done so far. I'm tempted to switch over, but I wanted to figure it out with you together. :) Reply as soon as you can, Willow (talk) 20:35, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Hey Tim, I added a few more things over there, which you might want to check for accuracy? I'll be leaving soon for my sister's, so I won't be able to work on the article much for the next week, perhaps longer, depending on how efficiently things go. Her wedding is less than five months away, and she scarcely has anything prepared! :P When I come back, I'm also committed to helping with action potential — for which I should be committed ;), although it will bring back a flood of happy memories. I'm not sure if you'll have time, but it'd be really nice to come home to a fuller and better lactoylglutathione lyase. :) Hoping all's well with Loki and your sweetly inhibited enzyme, Willow (talk) 18:26, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing as a GA

Hi Tim. I, personally, think the article is as as good as it has ever been and suitable for GA. However, I'm not overly familiar with the GA review process and past experience of editors reactions to these sorts of articles tend to fall into two groups: too scientific and not enough about AR, or too much AR not not enough science. Few people seem to appreciate the need for balance. Still, its worth a try. Rockpocket 23:18, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Homeopathic dilutions

Hello Tim:

If you have a few minutes to spare some time, will you please take a look at this page for me?

User talk:Wanderer57/Homeopathic dilutions

The starting point was the question from Raymond Arritt, at the top of the page. I was drafting an answer but realized I was making it up in too large a degree.

I'm just wondering if there are any mistakes in what I've written, so far as it goes. Or if you have any suggestion of a better approach. The end result I have in mind, though I'm nowhere near it, is to explain dilutions without bringing in the idea of a gram-mole.

There's no urgency here.

Thanks, Wanderer57 (talk) 06:20, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

Your notes

Thanks for the encouragement and advice. Crum375 (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

I am gradually working my way through the these related articles. I'll do my best to highlight clear problems that I come across. Crum375 (talk) 00:57, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Reference formatter

Thanks! --LasseFolkersen (talk) 16:21, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

RfA

Hi Tim!

Haven't seen you in a while. I remember what you told me shortly after I got my +sysop. Don't worry, I haven't forgotten it. Actually, I've been waiting to get a feel of being an admin myself, to establish my credibility before I go and nominate someone.

I've approached Benjah-bmm27 (talk · contribs) (see [10]), and he has expressed interest. I see some work for me ahead - writing the nomination, etc. If you are familiar with Ben's work, would you like to write a co-nom for him as well? --Rifleman 82 (talk) 16:35, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Animal testing

Hey, I've been reading Animal testing in preparation for the GA review, but I just noticed that the article is still technically the subject of mediation. Do you honestly think it's stable enough for GA. My gut says any article that is being mediated still is not, but I'll take your word on whether the mediation discussion is still up in the air. VanTucky 22:03, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim, obviously it's fine for a review. I'll get on it! VanTucky 01:08, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Systems biology images

Thanks for checking and updating the Metabolic Network Model for Escherichia coli image in the Escherichia coli article. Last year I uploaded a serie of images about systems biology to commons, see here and they haven't been used eversince. That's why I have been implementing some of them today, allthough this is way out of my own field. Now I would like to ask you, if you know some more use in Wikipedia for those excellent systems biology illustrations. Thank. -- Mdd (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

I'll post a notice about them at the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. -- Mdd (talk) 18:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Copying your Quick Links

Hi Tim, I'd like to copy the useful set of Quick Links on your userspace page to my userspace page. I'd reformat them (eventually) and credit you if you'd like. Just trying to prevent re-inventing the wheel. Delimitation (talk) 20:59, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! Delimitation (talk) 21:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

okay to move discussion?

Can I move this discussion over to the PBB talk page? If I understand it correctly, I think it will be an easy change to make from the PBB perspective. May not rise to the level of an official GSoC project, but something we slide in on the side... AndrewGNF (talk) 22:40, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Vandal

Hi Tim, I figured I'd message you about this vandal(s) since you left a final warning message on their talk page just last month - there is still vandalism coming from this shared account - is it frequent enough to block or report? ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:05, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks ~ you're fast :o) ~ Ciar ~ _{(Talk to me!)} 19:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

check me?

I hope I have this calculation about right: [11]. What do you think? Did I get this correct?--Filll (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Admiration

I admire your image works !

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Otto Warburg.jpg

Thank you for uploading Image:Otto Warburg.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale provided for using this image under "fair use" may not meet the criteria required by Wikipedia:Non-free content. This can be corrected by going to the image description page and add or clarify the reason why the image qualifies for fair use. Adding and completing one of the templates available from Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. Please be aware that a fair use rationale is not the same as an image copyright tag; descriptions for images used under the fair use policy require both a copyright tag and a fair use rationale.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it might be deleted by adminstrator within a few days in accordance with our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions, please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot (talk) 15:56, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Mesosomes

The picture of the day image looks like the one you edited but has not been edited. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Prokaryote_cell_diagram.svg Also, the same EM tissue chemical fixation procedures are used today as when mesosomes were part of the gram-negative bacteria. Thank you for addressing this inaccuracy. --207.62.177.231 (talk) 00:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)