User talk:Blue Danube

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Barr bodies[edit]

Given that you wrote much of the content for the Barr body article, I think you'd be the best person to address this question: do women need their Barr bodies? What would occur if a woman's Barr bodies were to disappear, would it affect health, reproduction? What percent of the average woman's weight consists of this genetic material? As you can see there are some fundamental things about Barr bodies I have yet to grasp. Blue Danube (talk) 04:18, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for asking me. It is very difficult for me to understand your level of medical genetics, and your questions aren't very easy to answer in a few sentences. But I will try to be as understandable as possible.
You know that a normal woman has one X chromosome and one Barr body. However, a woman with Turner's syndrome (46,X) has only one X chromosome and no Barr body. On the other side, a female with three X chromosomes has two Barr bodies. Even a man with Klinefelter syndrome (47,XXY) has a Barr body to inactivate his second X chromosome. The inactivation of the X chromosome in cases of aneuploidy, like monosomy (23rd pair, Turner's) or trisomy (23rd pair, Klinefelter's) are extremely complicated processes. But will a woman survive the absence of a Barr body? Sure! But she will suffer from the symptoms of Turner's syndrome.
You ask whether it affects health and reproduction. Well, health is greatly affected, as you can read on the article about Turner's syndrome. The prevalence of cardiovascular malformations is the most lifethreatening issue and present in most cases of Turner's. Reproduction might be a problem, as amenorrhoea indicates infertility (read more about hormonal causes of infertility). But not all cases of Turner's have amenorrhoea, so you understand that a patient with an absent Barr body might still be fertile. However, her sons or daughters might inherit a monosomy on the 23rd pair, ending up with Turner's or death. Read more about inheritance to understand the chances of these problems.
The percentage of a women's weight of her X chromosomes is very unsignificant. You might know that the sex chromosomes are the largest and because of this the heaviest. I don't know the weight of those chromosomes, but it is possible to analyse the proteins and their weight, which is definitely done before.
I hope you have your questions answered.
Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 09:24, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
I very greatly appreciate your taking the time to explain this to me. This is the great thing about Wikipedia, where a perfect stranger can educate someone else so well about complex topics.
This does answer most of what I earlier did not understand. But, if you have another moment, there is one last part I don't follow. How come normal, diploid body cells must have the Barr body? It seems like a waste of energy for every cell in a woman's body to have to inactivate this extra X-chromosome floating around next to the functioning one. Why doesn't the body naturally eliminate this thing everywhere else except for the cells that undergo meiosis. Hypothetically, if the non-reproductive cells of a woman were to suddenly lose their Barr bodies, would that woman develop Turner's syndrome? Blue Danube (talk) 14:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Hi again. You're always welcome to ask anything about medicine, as education is a wonderful thing!
Diploid cells MUST have a Barr body, because there can/may only be one functional X chromosome. A cell with more than one functional X will encouter cell death, because of the amount DNA that need to be read and translated. It will just 'clash'. So a woman without a Barr body AND more than one X chromosome (as two is healthy) will die. Every cell in mammals (including male and female) can only have one functional copy. That's the reason why a male suffering from Klinefelter's has one X chromosome inactivated. The lyonization happens early in embryonic stage. It does seems like a waste, but the thought that a Barr body doesn't have any function is highly incorrect. I looked it up for you. Dr. Carrell published some research a few years ago entitled X-inactivation profile reveals extensive variability in X-linked gene expression in females (Carrell, Nature 434 (7031): 400–4, 2005) PubMed link. A great article about expression after inactivation.
If a woman should lose her Barr body (suddenly), she still has the functional copy, so I think she'll live. And in that case, she might induce Turner's syndrome. This is practically impossible of course, but a nice hypothetically thought.
Wikipedia is indeed a great thing. Keep using it! Although it's not always as scientific as it should be.
Dr. F.C. Turner - [USERPAGE|USERTALK] - 08:30, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Eurymedon vase 2[edit]

I think the medcab thing is fine, seems the only option being allowed at the moment. It's a lot of faffing about on here though, to get something so simple done as have an administrator come and have a look at the situation isn't it. One thing I'd say, while Twospoonfuls behavior is the reason we need the issue mediated, I think the main thing to actually be mediated is the issue of adding sections. As the page I linked to on the arbcom had specific guidelines dealing with section size, and that they very much back up what we're saying, I think it would be very relevant to mention this in relation to the current debate.Number36 (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW the page on article ownership is pretty much an exact description of the problem here, right down to him posting "no thanks" on reverts, he even explicitly says "Yes I am proprietorial about about this article" on the talk page, it's hardly even a question of if he is exercising improper article ownership when he goes and outright admits it.Number36 (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi Blue Danube, The admin at the medcab has said that he'll take on the case if everybody agrees to discuss the issue of adding sections, rather than behavior, if you want to indicate your willingness, hopefully this will expediate matters. Cheers Number36 (talk) 04:16, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

George Mason Request[edit]

Hey it was me who made the edit in the 24 wiki.My sincere apologies since i didn't know I was not supposed to post it in the talk page. Thank-you for your comments and support. I'm not much experienced at Wikipedia so if u guys feel that there is no need for a separate article i accept.Still i am confused why other characters like Edgar styles seem to have have separate pages of their own.Jonathan George[jonamonu2005] (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Eurymedon vase[edit]

I think from Twospoonfuls latest posts and edits that we're going to get absolutely nowhere with him despite the clear consensus, and that his sense of ownership of the article is more apparent than ever. Including I see, unilaterally declaring the discussion finished. He suggests that if we have a problem with that to take it to 'arbcom', which I think is a very good idea. I believe it will be clear to anybody the problems with Twospoonfuls attitude towards the article, changes to it he doesn't approve, and the other editors. However I'm not sure how to start such a process, I've seen the pages where you're meant to add a request for arbitration and so on, but can't recall their exact name or location, and iirc there were quite specific procedures to follow about what should be requested where, and I don't have enough time right now to search and figure it out. So if you know how to do this and think it's appropriate as I do perhaps you could start the ball rolling and let me know. Number36 (talk) 01:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

I certainly agree that his replies warrant such action. I am currently studying for the LSAT for February, but I won't forget this matter any sooner than you will. If I get any progress on this I will certainly let you know, but please be patient since there is a ton on my plate currently. I can't believe he is insulted by the addition of headlines, and then dares to call the consensus "vandalism" and "destructive". Thanks for the note! Blue Danube (talk) 08:19, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


Your request for rollback[edit]

Wikipedia Rollback.png

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

  • Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
  • Rollback can be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
  • Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you no longer want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message if you run into troubles or have any questions about appropriate/inappropriate use of rollback. Happy editing! Tiptoety talk 00:50, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I very much appreciate your quick reply and action! Your vote of confidence will not be wasted, Tiptoety. Blue Danube (talk) 00:56, 23 September 2008 (UTC)


Hi there, Blue Danube! I would like to invite you to WikiProject 24, the WikiProject related to all 24 articles. I have seen that you have been helping out on a 24 article, so thought you might like to join the WikiProject. If you would like to join, then please click here and add yourself to our list of participants. Thanks and have a nice day! Lucy-marie (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Hey there, thanks for the official invite! A few days back I added myself to the group, and I've been in the category of project members. I just chose not to include the infobox (the "alternative" method of joining). Blue Danube (talk) 21:08, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Re:24 characters template[edit]

On second thought, I restored the template. I don't really know why it was tagged for deletion in the first place. There wasn't anything to replace it with other than {{24}}, which was obviously not satisfactory otherwise {{24 Characters}} wouldn't have been created in the first place. That'll teach me to mess with templates. ... discospinster talk 00:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The template was made redundant by the 24 template. All of the non merged characters appear in the 24 template. This is a classic maintenance deletion of a now redundant template.--Lucy-marie (talk) 12:27, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

By looking at the history it is clear that this isn't "classic maintenance". The fault lies in your persistent inability to link to the pertinent discussion and the replacement template. I now understand where the replacement is, but only now. The other involved parties still might not have a clue. See below:

  1. Here, Scogg didn't understand why you transcluded the speedy tag.
  2. Then, shortly afterword, the admin restored the page because your reasons weren't clear or explained anywhere sufficiently for him to understand.
  3. Next, you simply say it's classic maintenance. But that's all you say, without qualifying it with a link to a discussion, a decision, or a reason. Similarly, I can point to an elephant and say it's a giraffe.
  4. Your edits are then reverted by Coffee.
  5. Next you transclude another deletion template yet again, which is very easily seen as controversial and and reverted by admin Moonriddengirl who removes the link.

In the future, please consider posting an explanation rather than a matter-of-fact statement that something has been made redundant. Most importantly, include the link to the replacement and the discussion about it in your edit summary! This will preclude the need for another small task force of other editors to have to come in revert your edits over and over again like this. Blue Danube (talk) 15:54, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Template vandal[edit]

I blocked him for two weeks in his various incarnations. He is swapping IP addresses so any longer than that is counter-productive as it won't be him behind the IP address. Just block, revert and ignore. Regards. Woody (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

Login and userboxes[edit]

Hey man I was reading your arguments on some crappy page about some fantasy religion and I thought I'd stop by and say "hey you're a pretty smart dude." Also I'm locked out of my profile right now because I forgot my password; I think my username is the Judaic Jedi. So I would send you a friend request but i'm currently locked out. Oh and I also wanted to ask you how you got those cool banners on the right side of your page, because I would also like them on mine. So peace man! --The Judaic Jedi ~~ edit: oh nvm I figured it out, the username is CASE-SENSITIVE —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Judaic Jedi (talkcontribs) 02:37, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

The best way to create those user boxes for your user page is to look at mine, and the ones that other people have, and copy and paste them. Then, you can swap out pictures, colors, and text are you see fit. It takes patience to do it, and it's very sloppy, but you might like the results if you work hard. The secret is to click "edit this page" on my page and look at all the crazy wiki-text in there. You can copy stuff to make your own changes. Hope this helps, write back if you're still confused. Blue Danube (talk) 03:08, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah ok, I did try that using your unitarian universalist box, but the chalice picture remains the same even though I'm Jewish, which is ironic, because my congregation is so small we actually hold services in a unitarian universalist church.

Thanks man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by The Judaic Jedi (talkcontribs) 22:31, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

== Elementary Latin scholarship ==

The root from which the Spanish word "negro" derives is niger-! Information.svg Thanks for experimenting with the page Necronomicon on Wikipedia. Your recent edit appears to have added incorrect information, and has been reverted or removed. All information in the encyclopedia must be verifiable in a reliable published source. If you believe the information you added was correct, please cite references or sources or discuss the changes on the article's talk page before making them. 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. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 16:29, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

The following reply was posted on this user's talk page: Paying Attention to the Words in an Article, and the summary was Elementary Editing Etiquette & Actually Reading Articles.
I made an edit in error to an already erroneous statement, but you merely reverted my edit and left the original erroneous statement in there. This is highly unusual as the change you made left the false information. For the future, please remember to read the full article instead of rushing off to eagerly post patronizing boilerplates on people's talk pages about their own errors. 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. Thank you. Blue Danube (talk) 17:04, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
You are right, I was wrong, I apologize in full. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:14, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Zhou in 24[edit]

Hi there, I got you note. I remember Cheng Zhi called him Zhou Yong once, when they were assembling the attack team. But I've removed my TV recording thus cannot verify. My momory could be wrong. The link of an mp3 you provided does not work for now. If Cheng Zhi did say "Zhou Yong, ...", it must be his name according to the context, as Yong is not any kind of postfix or title. BTW, just FYI, the actor of Cheng Zhi's Mandarin Chinese is much worse than his English. I believe he speaks fluent Cantonese though, as he is from Hong Kong. --Mongol 01:13, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I heard the mp3 this time. Yes, that's the piece I remembered. It has 99% of chance to be "Zhou Yong, you have ...", with a tiny chance of other names, like "Zhou Rong", if the actor's Mandarin is really bad. I believe to say this character has name "Zhou Yong" is a very safe bet. BTW, as there are several ways to spell a Chinese words, the name can be spelled in different ways. "Zhou Yong" is according to the standard pinyin system. --Mongol 16:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your hardwork and dedication to making Wikipedia a better place. I, Sharkface217, award you this Original Barnstar. Good job! :-) Sharkface217 04:38, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Erymanthian Boar[edit]

That's a good point on the transfer of immortality to Heracles, and a subtle one. Well stated too. --Wetman 23:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)