User talk:Wobble/archive1

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Welcome to the Wikipedia

I noticed you were new, and wanted to share some links I thought useful:

For more information click here. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

(Sam Spade | talk | contributions) 10:26, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

STV

Welcome aboard Alun, thanks for your contributions to Single transferable vote. Sounds like you have a good grasp of the topic. —Christiaan 10:30, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Return of the STV article

I've begun making heavy edits to Single Transferable Vote again. You were a frequent contributor before, and have reviewed my edits in the past, so please feel free to jump in and help make this the ready for featured article status - perhaps even the coolest featured article on a voting system ever Scott Ritchie 07:00, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Image:Welshflag.gif has been listed for deletion

An image or media file you uploaded, Image:Welshflag.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please look there to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you.

Please check your images

I noticed that you have some images in the category Category:Images with unknown source. Due to the vast number of images in this category (12000+), and the fact that, lacking a source, they present considerable copyright uncertanty, Jimbo has stated, and added to the Criteria for Speedy Deletion, "Images in category "Images with unknown source" or "Images with unknown copyright status" which have been in the category for more than 7 days, regardless of when uploaded." This means the images can, and will, be deleted with no notice. To see a list of all the images you've uploaded(at least, under this username), review the upload log. If you have any questions, please let me know. JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:46, 20 September 2005 (UTC) JesseW, the juggling janitor 17:50, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

The Watson statement comes from a lecture he gave a year or two ago. I suppose some may say that qualifies as original research. As that is the sort of thing that is much more likely to come up in print than online, I'd be hesitant to delete it until investigated further. I really doubt it's the only time he made such a statement, anyway, but I have no other source. -R. fiend 15:48, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for all your WikiContributions! Fir e Fo x 18:06, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin and Rosalind Franklin

All I can say is I am glad I bowed out from editing that article when I did. From reading the talk page, its my opinion that Martin will try to passive agressively manipulate any other editor of that article to some end known only to him. Best of luck to you in dealing with him. :) --Syrthiss 22:08, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, all that I can say is if you or any of the other editors of it want to ask for arbitration I'll comment on your behalf. Other than that, yes... take a break from the article. You can always pull a fresh version from one of the old revisions later. --Syrthiss 11:31, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Martin

Alun, I am on: martin@packer34.freeserve.co.uk if you want to talk?

First:http://www.packer34.freeserve.co.uk/rememberingfranciscrickacelebration.htm

Can YOU remove Herr Schimdt's awful frame around Rosy's portrait?

Martin

Re: Glucose

The ring form of glucose forms by breaking the double bonded oxygen on carbon 1, transfering the hydrogen from the OH group on carbon 5 to the oxygen on carbon 1, and linking carbon 1 to carbon 5 by the oxygen that was previously part of the OH group. The groups attached on carbon 1 can therefore be aligned in either way (IIRC, my diagram is the alpha isomer and your textbook shows the beta isomer). The alignment of the groups on carbon 4, not carbon 1, determine whether the molecule is glucose or galactose. Joe D (t) 20:59, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Y- Chromosome analysis

Hello Alun. I appreciate your comments at Irish people, but I'm sure I fully understand what you are saying. Would you mind returning and leaving a further comment that would be clearer to my (so-called) intellect? I'd be much obliged, as this subject is complicated to most lay people. Cheers. Fergananim 00:34, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Hello Alun. I really appreciated your comments at Irish people's talk page. I will have to sit down and read through it carefully and make sure I understand it this time. Thanks again. Fergananim 21:08, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

getting rid of that awful "discovery of dna" template

Hi Alun, yes I removed all six of them yesterday; unfortunately it also removed their portraits! I think there was a consensus for it to be deleted; any serious scientific academic would find the choice of those six people ridiculous. At the other extreme are the two 'Oregon' listings of Linus Pauling & the race for DNA/the chemical bond! 195.92.168.165 10:39, 10 December 2005 (UTC) (MP)

ps Try reading: Genesis of a Discovery: DNA Structure, ed S. Chomet, 1993). ...published by Newman Hemisphere Press, London

DNA navigation box

I'm glad you edited the navigation box. I have been thinking about other kinds of navigation boxes that would be less of a visual shock (maybe something like this one. I originally thought it would be fun to have a "pairing" of links (two rows of links) in order to visually reflect the two strands of the DNA molecule. It would also be possible to have a very plain version for the bottom of some pages, particularly for articles that have very little information on them so far. --JWSchmidt 13:58, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your work on the navigation boxes. I have tried to keep updated descriptions of the various options in a central location (see Template talk:Double helix). --JWSchmidt 13:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Now I see the expanded DNA navigation box, I think it looks odd. I now prefer just the four names. Part of my reasoning for a longer list was to illustrate who you could list before Pauling. It beats me why Delbrück gets a mention at all. I have given up reasoning with John Schmidt and will head back to mediaeval history. JMcC 15:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

Hi Wobble, I have read your improvements to the section and am very pleased to note that you are very even-headed, very unlike the anonymous guy whom I believe was the same guy who disrupt our debate in the Female Nobel Prize laureates talk page. — PM Poon 20:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Wiki wishes

Thanks for the comments that you left on my talk page. I have learned much from you, particularly through discussions at Talk:Rosalind Franklin. I am grateful that you are willing to take the time to share with me what you know from your reading of sources that I have not read. I will be getting a copy of the paperback edition of Wilkins' autobiography just as soon as my local book store has a copy. I wish for you all the best in wiki collaborations for 2006 and beyond! --JWSchmidt 19:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

I fixed what certainly looks like a typo, but since it's in a quote I thought I'd let you know. Algae 11:39, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Irish people

Will do Alun. I will try to make the reason and statement as neutral as possible. I've done alot of research into this area and Scotchirish.net is the most valid on-line source I can find at the present to give some substance to this information. Thanks, Epf 11:50, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Accusation

I apologize but there has been a misunderstanding in this issue. I did not intend my comment towards you (User:Wobble). I was directing them towards the person who doesn't have a discussion page and who vandalised my own user page. This person is also the same one who kept removing my link/source on the Ulster Scots/Scotch-Irish. I was merely stating that if he/she continued to do so, then I would contact the admin. and I only used your name as you seemed to support my case in the matter (as is evidence by your original comment on my discussion page) and I figured you were an administrator. Again, my apologies, Epf 20:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board

I've created a fairly simple Wikipedia:Welsh Wikipedians' notice board (shortcut WP:WWNB) to try to get things started. Please have a look and consider signing on, adding it to your watchlist and helping to make sure any users with an interest in the subject know about it. Also please feel free to add things and to change anything you feel needs changing – I'm not under the impression that I own it! Rhion 20:20, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin on Wikisource

Hi, I fear we have a problem with this, in that the actual Times obit was by J. D . Bernal. Am I right in thinking this is really Klug's life of her from the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography? We do not allow fair use on Wikisource, so I have flagged it for deletion. Its a shame since she was an important lady. Do you have anything that fits the GFDL rules you might wish to substitute. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 20:57, 22 March 2006 (UTC) (Admin on Wikisource)

Hey there

Hi Alun. I hope Im not coming across too harshly on the Talk:Irish people page as it is not my intention and I am not trying to force my POV onto others or compeltely disregard others POV. I am just trying to present the facts and information that I believe and know are correct. But I do accept others POV and opinions. User:Enzedbrit has been very very irritating to me, editing my user page a few times and has been consistent with insults and ridiculous behaviour when it comes to discussions. In short, he has some serious personal issues to contened with and this is why debates with him go nowhere as he seems to be greatly threatened by my discussions/POV as well as any evidence and reasoning to support it. As to what we were debating on the Talk page for Irish people, I belive you should really read some of the works by Carleton Coon. Yes his typological and "race" models are obsolete, but much of the historical information and physical appearance/characteristics data gathered on European peoples showing their variation is the best available (even if from 1939). His history relating to his conclusions is also quite reliable but yet again, it needs mentioning just how false and out of date much of his theories are also. The most striking matter of his work is not only the obvious correlations with the commonly observed physical apperance of different European groups and regions, but also with modern findings of populatoin genetics. I really am working hard on finishing an article revealing these correlations. Some of Coons data from 1939 can be viewed here: [1] Cheers, Epf 10:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

EPF, you are a liar and a trouble maker, and I have NEVER edited your user page. Enzedbrit 03:02, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Read my response on my dicsussion page. Who really cares now, but since its been brought up, he did vandalize my page. Epf 05:10, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

RS

I just wanted to voice my support for the way you are handling the Rosalind Franklin article. I'm moderately familiarly with the writing about her (and have a lot of quotable sources on my bookshelf), so if you ever feel like you need more voices to back you in edit conflicts over particular points, let me know.--ragesoss 03:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin article

Thanks for all of your work on the Rosalind Franklin article. I made a few changes trying to fix minor format issues. It would be nice to be able to include an x-ray diffraction image such as photograph 51. There is contact information at the bottom of the King's College DNA discovery webpage that might lead you to someone who could explain the copyright status of the Gosling/Franklin images. It might be worth contacting Gosling. --JWSchmidt 15:19, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

immigration.

good edit on there- thanks for the help.

The BNP isle of dogs stuff says "citation" how do i put a citation in there?

thanks!

OK, find your source, it needs to be verifiable, you can follow the link to find out more, but it means that it should be from a published source that other people can check, like a book or newspaper article or website. It should also be from a reliable source, so not ramblings on a chatroom or someone's personal website, but something that people would generally consider reliable. You need to cite your source, like in the references section (see here for more info). Then, after the section you want to reference write this <ref>what you write here will appear in the references section</ref>. There's more info about footnotes here. Hope this is of help. Alun 15:31, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The Derek Beacon comments were very publicised at the time and repoted widley in the press, is quoting from memory not acceptable?

ThanksUkbn2 13:47, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

It happens a lot on Wikipedia, but it's really against the verifiability policy. The reasoning is that people's memories can be faulty, but also that if Wikipedia is going to be a good resource, then it needs to show that the information there is from a proper source, andisn't just someone's opinion. Without verifiability Wikipedia lacks any authority, it just becomes a collection of the opinions of editors. It's well worth taking a look at the policies on verifiability, no original research and neutral point of view. This page gives good reasons for using citations. Cheers. Alun 16:23, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Terve!

The sources relating to the immigration quote and "general public" come from you gov, the bbc reporting during the "prisoner releases" scandal and newspapers. If they are disagreeable [the opinions] you have no right to remove them from an article - a tiny bit of research will reveal it is factual info - try looking around maybe, but please dont just do hatchet jobs?Ukbn2 13:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Verifying sources is great, I am all in favour of it, one of the main policies on wikipedia is the neutral point of view policy. This basically means that if a point of view (POV) (or an opinion if you like) is expressed, then any alternative POVs should also be expressed at the same time, the purpose of this is so that an article does not give the impression that any particilar POV is correct or a fact. All POVs should be properly verified from sources, or they will be seen as simply the point of view of the editor. If you make an edit you have the responsibility to verify it with a source. If edits are not verified then it is perfectly acceptable for anyone to remove it. I removed the sentence about the general public because not only was it not sourced, but was a form of weasel words, these are not considered acceptably encyclopaedic. There is a nice quote from the avoid weasel words style guideline Weasel words don't really give a neutral point of view; they just spread hearsay, or couch personal opinion in vague, indirect syntax. It is better to put a name and a face on an opinion than to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. For example what does the general public actually mean. This is what you wrote:

Also, the general public frequently denounces the low proportion of failed asylum seekers who are actually expelled from the United Kingdom.

Well how does someone reading the article know what the general public is? Is it a majority (over 50%) is it a plurality (ie a relative majority, the largest group but not necessarily over 50%), is it a significant minority (say 20%) or is it a small minority (say less than 10%), what? If there has been a survey done and you can quote a figure, then that's great, but making a claim for an unspecified general public is certainly to assign an opinion to an anonymous source. Where does the general public do it's denouncing? The public do not have access to the mass media and do not get the chance, ever, to denounce things en mass, even demonstrations are usually composed of a vocal minority rather than the general public. I would suggest that you try to find an opinion poll or a survey to support this claim, and then to include the data in a more neutral way, like saying that in a survey x% of the respondents were unhappy with the low proportion of failed assylum seekers that are actually expelled from the country (insert reference). It would also be a good idea to find out the actual proportion that is expelled and include this as well. I am not trying to be difficult, and I am perfectly happy for this sort of information to be included, as long as it is included in a neutral and verified way. This is not a political blog, try to find the most authoritative sources of information, for example try to avoid using the tabloid press.

On a different note, I would recomend getting your own user page, click on your signature, it's now red, and write something into the Namespace, you don't have to put anything personal there if you don't want to, just say Hello if you like, people can then leave messages for you on your talk page. Happy editing. Alun 17:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Looking at the yougov poll [2], I can find no reference to the general public frequently denounces the low proportion of failed asylum seekers who are actually expelled, the poll is about BNP policies, not about public opinion regarding failed asylum seekers. There is metion about accepting fewer asylum seekers, but that is a different matter. Alun 17:59, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

"Well how does someone reading the article know what the general public is?"

UK general public - mori polls for instance - if i said perhaps that a large minority were reported to be anti deportation, would you be as critical?And i am sure normal english speaking people kbow what the term "general public" means - perhaps we could write an article/cite?

"This is not a political blog, try to find the most authoritative sources of information, for example try to avoid using the tabloid press.
"

This was interesting reading until you reverted to an obvious tabloid press bias - i agree we should be politically neutral, so please lets not make intelligence assumptions based on red top readers - that is insulting if you think about it.

I will get the figures for wikipedia and perhaps you can help me cite them, my formatting is awful.

Cheers mate.Ukbn2 18:58, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much that people don't know what the term general public means in the sense of understanding, but what does it mean in terms of ascribing a specific meaning to the sentence. If we are trying to be accurate and neutral then we cannot attribute this belief to the general public because it makes a claim which is meaningless, in that we do not know who the general public is, I think this is explained in the avoid weasel words guideline I mentioned earlier.

As for the comment about tabloids, I made no reference to the people who read them whatsoever. I merely pointed out that they are not very authoritative sources, which is true. In fact most of the press, including broadsheets (though are there any left these days?), are not particularly authoritative. They are best used when they are reporting news or events, but can be very biased when it comes to editorial or opinion pieces, as these are the opinions of the writers, in this case all newspapers have a political bias, but tabloids in particular tend to get hysterical and misrepresent the true facts in order to sensationalise things. I think sensationalist journalism should be avoided at all costs. I can give a good example of this from a completely unrelated instance. I have been doing some work on the genetics of the Anglo-Saxon invasion, the BBC reported that a research paper

suggests that between 50% and 100% of the indigenous population of what was to become England was wiped out [3]

but the research paper actually said this

we conclude that these striking patterns are best explained by a substantial migration of Anglo-Saxon Y chromosomes into Central England (contributing 50%–100% to the gene pool at that time). [4]

The paper also went on to say

We note, however, that our data do not allow us to distinguish an event that simply added to the indigenous Central English male gene pool from one where indigenous males were displaced elsewhere or one where indigenous males were reduced in number.

The journalist had distorted the meaning of the paper to produce a more sensational claim. The BBC article had been used as a source in the Anglo-Saxons article, I went back to the original research papers (a more authoritative source) and corrected the mistake. Unfortunately this information has been removed from the article now for different reasons, but here's the original and my edit.[5][6] So what I am trying to say about authoritative sources is that the original source is the best, and not a journalistic interpretation of the source.

So for things like this opinion polls are probably the best source, though with opinion polls we need to be sure that what we say is accurate. The yougov poll for example gave a figure for people who believe that the UK should take less asylum seekers, it made no reference to the rate of return of people who had had their request for asylum turned down,[7] which is what your edit claimed. If you want to say that a certain proportion of the British people believe that a greater number of people who have had their request for asylum turned down should be returned than now occurs (which is what I think you were claiming), then you need to find a source that gives the proportion of people who think this, but the yougov poll is not a source for this, as it did not ask that particular question.

We all have problems with formatting when we start on wikipedia, it takes some time to learn all the little tricks, it also takes some time to get used to the various guidelines and policies, an some experienced wikipedians never use them, which is very unfortunate. You may also be interested in the English people, Welsh people, Scottish people and Irish people articles. Personally I think we need a British people article as well. If you get the citations I would be happy to help you with including them in your edit. All the best. Alun 05:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I should add here that it is ok to use opinion and editorial pieces from newspapers to illustrate a point of view, but it should be made clear that this is the opinion of the author of the editorial/opinion piece, and not necessarily of the general public. So for example if you can find a newspaper opinion piece that states that not enough failed asylum seekers are deported, then it's OK to use this as a source for your claim, though it needs to be presented somethnig like this there has been some critisism in the media about the small proportion of failed asylum sekers that are actually deported (cite source). So in some cases newspaper opinion pieces are fine, as long as they are properly attributed. Cheers, Alun 12:38, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

History of Wales

Thank for the barnstar - my first! Rhion 07:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

British Ethnicity

Did you call me an English/Scottish Celtophobic ethnic nationalist? Please, don't jump to assumptions pal. First things first: I am not English or Scottish! Secondly, I am not a celtophobe! thirdly, I don't espouse any of the ideologies that you have labeled me with. I do not think the definitions used in the article were correct and I think it is you yourself who are displaying cultural bias. According to your own definition, an ethnic group is: “a human population whose members identify with each other, usually on the basis of a presumed common genealogy or ancestry (Smith 1986). Ethnic groups are also usually united by common cultural, behavioral, linguistic, or religious practices.” Well then, I’d like to point out that I come from a region of the UK where 44% of the population do not identify with the ‘British’ label, do not presume to have either a geological, cultural, linguistic or religious link with the main stream “british” culture. I am an Irish Catholic and I do not feel that the articles definition of ethnically british peoples as “English, Scottish, Welsh, Cornish and Northern Irish” is either informative or sensitive. Under the good Friday agreement the citizens of Northern Ireland can choose to be British, Irish, both or neither. To slap the entire region as part of an ethnic group distinct from the southerners is not only preposterously inaccurate in terms of the good Friday agreement but also culturally insulting. I would say the same thing to any wikipedian presumptuous enough to clap all northerners as “non-British” “Gaelic” or “ethnically Irish.” Ours is a sensitive region that can not be simply plowed under either label without explanation. You yourself stated that “In this sense, an ethnic group is also a cultural community.” Well, half of the problem here in NI is that there have been two competing cultural identities and backgrounds. An attempt by either community to enfold the other under its own cultural blanket demonstrates the same vile intolerance that has plagued us for so long. I think our difficulty rises from a misunderstanding more than anything as well as a bit of miscommunication on my own part. My problem was not so much with the concept of a british identity itself but with the phrasing of the sentence which was worded in such a way as to label all inhabitants of the NI as part of a distinct ‘british’ ethnic group from the southern Irish.

P.S. “Celtophobic?” Are you joking? I think this must be a misunderstanding my friend because well, quite frankly……. Éireannach is ea mé! (: Fergus mac Róich 00:13, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

"do not presume to have either a geological, cultural, linguistic or religious link with the main stream “british” culture."

Sorry, that should have said "genealogical" not "geological." Two very different concepts indeed (: Fergus mac Róich 00:19, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Point well taken Alun. I think the problem was a matter of emphasis. When I wrote that There is no such thing as a 'British' ethnicity that overlaps Scotland Wales England and Northern Ireland I did not mean to say that there is no shared 'British' culture that citizens of the UK could identify with but that the citizens of NI were not nessecarily from this 'extraction' at all. The Ulster Scots label is a much clearer marker as NI is not simply an example of a cultural comunity in which 56% of its members choose to embrace a 'British' identity and 44% don't but rather a region built on two distinct and richly unique cultures one of which almost wholy traces its roots to the culture of the south while the other traces its roots to the culture of the Scottish lowlands etc. In hindsight I full heartedly acknowledge that it would have been much better for me to have opened my grievences in a disscussion on the talk panel as this would have avoided the miscomunications that we ran into. Anyway while we were arguing User:Mais oui! reverted your earlier change but its good to see that you've been able to fix that up. Again, thank you for the "Ulster Scots" clarrification and sorry about the misunderstanding. Cheers!

PS, As for those arguing in defence of the Celtophobia article, I can't say that I get their motives myself either. The article was fairly unfounded, opinionated and well, poorly written. However, the fact that the six boxes of complaints regarding the articles content take up more space than the article itself was quite humerous. Fergus mac Róich 07:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Epf saying hello

No probs Alun. I just thought that little part deserved mention. Hope things are going well and I dont know if your a football fan, but the WC is comin up and GO ENGLAND !!! Cheers, Epf 10:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Dee C. Lee

If you check my edit you'll see that I didn't remove the reference; I simply placed the link to the IMDb entry in the usual place and format. Also, using Wikilinks that take the reader to an unexpected article (one not described by the word or phrase linked) isn't acceptable; they're known as Easter Egg links, and should be avoided. (E.g., number one.)

I'm also unclear as to why you added the "fact" template to the summary. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Again, linking "number one" should take the reader to an article about "number one" — not to a list of number-one singles from a certain year.
As the IMDb page is a standard entry in the external links sections of biographical articles, and as it is (at least potentially) more general than the specific fact of a certain film, it would seem more useful to place it in the more general section (and in the templated standard form). Note that your version had a footnote number that took the reader back to the top of the article, and lost the reference completely.
I missed the links to The Jam and "Going Underground"; sorry. The link to "charts", even if necessary (and it's a standard term, and appears unlinked in thousands of Wikipedia articles) was in fact to an article about the U.K. singles chart, which is again misleading.
I always give edit summaries; I notice that you don't. That I don't give every detail of an edit is unavoidable; that I don't explain every edit on Talk pages is standard (if editors did that, Wikipedia would pretty well grind to a halt — and the fact that you don't do it either presumably indicates that you understand that). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:40, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Woo

Thanks for the barnstar. :) Vashti 03:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Verification

I was a silent observer of the argument over Kevin Pietersen's article.

I just wondered what you thought of this page: List of wars and disasters by death toll?

Dweller 12:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Repost from my page:

"Hmmm... I've seen it before, thought not edited. It looks like a bad mess. And a political minefield too. What fun! We could get seriously stuck into it. Actually, rather than arguing the toss over every line, a good start point might be splitting the page into two halves for verified and unverified stats and gradually move constituent parts upwards? What do you think of that? --Dweller 17:59, 16 June 2006 (UTC)"

I just thought that as someone who disliked KP's article because of lack of verified stats, you might go stratospheric over this one! Happy to work with you on it... next week? --Dweller 18:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Please see Talk:List of wars and disasters by death toll! --Dweller 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Need your assistance on English people and Talk:English people

There is a possible chance that a 3RR might come up and we've all probably broken it, but while they know it and call me a troll, they will not self-incriminate by honking sirens for a sysop or admin. I like your broad and tolerant mind. Please make use of it where others (especially the Marxist) have-not one of those. I'm bothered by the fact that these guys are making a Wikipedian article very narrow-minded and National Socialist in description about the English people along with their interactions with others. I think it's pretty clear that European nationalities are based upon sovereign kingdoms and not their individual provinces or fiefs run by dukes or barons and subsidiary principalities, while there is some quasi-racial element in discussing empires (we are all of Roman descent, as Europeans). It seems like my opponents are extremely xenophobic and worried that they have to turn back time to erase flaws in the state of England as it is today. They must know that the Wikipedia is not a place to do that. Lord Loxley 00:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Finland

It was'nt my edit, but the edit of User:Ulayiti. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 06:54, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 08:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I did nothing of the sort. I had nothing to do with the Examiner edit. How you could regard complete garbage that is the opening of the British Isles article as removely NPOV is beyond me. It is rubbish and will be deleted. That crap does not belong in an encyclopaedia. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)}

Thanks, and apologies

I apologise totally for what I said. Unfortunately I have spent the last week battling sciatica, an extremely painful condition, and it has left me short tempered. (Having to spend a night in hospital with the pain didn't help!) Unfortunately some of those who have been editing the page have a history of extremely biased POV-pushing (one I suspect is a returned permanently banned user who was banned for rascist attacks on Irish people - and others). Some articles end up so dominated by a small number of POV-pushers that most users just avoid the article until the POV-pushing gets too severe. British Isles is one of those articles that has a habit of attracting those individuals. (In recent weeks I have been accused of being pro-choice by pro-lifers and pro-life by pro-choicers for trying to achieve neutrality in both articles, rather than allow both to become hagiographies. And last year in the space of an hour I was called a "Catholic plant pushing a Catholic agenda" and an "anti-Catholic church basher" on two different articles!!! Most bizarrely of all, I had someone (mis)quote something I had written as an academic to supposedly rebut what I had written in an article on WP. (He didn't know that I was the academic he was quoting, or rather mis-quoting!)

I take standards on Wikipedia very seriously. I also strive to be neutral, which meant that it was funny to be accused of pushing an "Irish nationalist agenda". On some Irish pages, Irish republicans have accused me of pushing an "Ulster Unionist agenda"! On one Australian page, Australian republicans accused me of being a monarchist, and Australian monarchists accused me of being a republican, for exactly the same edit. (They were caught in an edit conflict. Both had egg on their faces when they managed to save their comments and they appeared side by side on the page!) I can be rather ruthless in trying to achieve neutrality and in challenging what I see as POV-pushing by either side.

Personally I have no problem with people describing Ireland as being part of the British Isles. But I know millions of Irish people go ballistic at such a description. Some editors have a history of deleting any claims that Irish people have an issue with such a description. (One of them insisted on deleting that fact that the biggest inland lake in Ireland is . . . um . . . in Ireland. He insisted on saying that it was in the British Isles and regarded anyone who mentioned that it was in Ireland as "nationalist POV pushing"!!!

Anyway, as I said, I apologise for the comments. I have a bit of a temper, and crippling pain from the sciatica made it worse. I misjudged you and wrongly categorised you alongside those who are POV-pushing. We both want to see the British Isles article as well sourced, objective and neutral as possible. I am still trying to find the source for the Nancy Reagan comments. Unfortunately they appeared in the pre-net age so they don't appear to be replicated anywhere on it. I'll dig around elsewhere and try to source them. I do remember the context and remember an Irish politician telling me how embarrassed he was by it. (His comment was "those fucking British Isles. Everyone presumes we are part of Britain because of it.")

Slán

FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 18:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)}

English wikipedia: cause for concern

Dear Alun, you may be aware of the existence of [[Category:Welsh-speaking people]]. This has been nominated for deletion, on the grounds that all "similar" categories, eg. English-speaking people, would be "too big". I'm not prepared to die in a ditch over it, but I do feel that it's an obvious exception. If you have an opinion, would you care to contribute to the debate? Deb 19:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

I agree. Even if there might be justification in creating a different article (and I don't know enough about the topic to have an option) the way that user is behaving is unacceptable. The standard way to do it is to create the new main article, say x, and then keep some of the information as a summary in the other article y, with a {{main}} template allowing for a listing of the x article in the y article, in the form Main article: x. The way the unnamed user is doing it is absolutely wrong. If the continue with the blanket deletions, the Franklin article can be semi-protected to stop IP editing.

If I can be of any help on all of this, please let me know. FearÉIREANN\^{^(caint) 16:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}

Excellent. Anything created by a banned user is deleted on sight, irrespective of content, whether good or bad. If that user reappears on the Franklin article, let me know immediately and I will sprotect it and block that user indefinitely. FearÉIREANN

\^{^(caint) 18:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)}

King's College DNA

Yes, I deleted both the article and the talk page. There was no AfD. It was deleted per WP:CSD- created by an extremely dangerous banned user. If you wish to recreate the article (using your words, not his), you are certainly welcome. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 17:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Template:Double_helix2

I have been messing around with the double helix template you created. See version with the black bar here and the version without the black bar here. I'll let you decide which is best since I do not know the history of how this design came together. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Strangely, those two examples i gave you lost their black background? Possibly there was a change in the way the wiki markup works? i can't explain it any other way. David D. (Talk) 20:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin and DNA

		The DNA Barnstar
		Thank you for all your biology-related work at Wikipedia and particularly DNA-related articles such as Rosalind Franklin. This is the first use of the DNA Barnstar, meant to be "a good thing" and to complement your earlier recognition for "all your Wiki Contributions". Please pardon my limited design skills.

btw, I'll try to avoid my "helical" habit in the future. --JWSchmidt 18:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday, a professional historian of molecular biology was telling me how great he thought the Franklin article was; he was very excited about it. Keep rockin'--ragesoss 14:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Martin

Hi Alun- well, it's always best to be tolerant where possible. I do sympathise completely with your situation- I also find him extremely frustrating, and I also lose the rag with him from time to time. However, he does seem to mainly edit in good-faith (or at least, he seems to), albeit with a complete disregard for policy. I'm also at a loss to know what to do; his behaviour doesn't really fit into an easily catagorised mould. One possibility would be an RfC, although I'm not certain that he'd actually pay any attention whatsoever....<sigh>... I suppose all I can really say is to continue in the same vein; remove or mitigate his silly edits to the articles proper when they arise, but also remove his supercilious comments from the talk page likewise (as personal attacks/incivility). He is frustrating but I guess we should try and turn the other cheek and count to 10- I'm not sure of Martin's personal circumstances, but it seems at least possible that he is a little bit "touched", as my auld Granny used to say. Anyway, if you want to open an RfC or progress further I will certainly support- his behaviour has been completely out of order. All the best, Badgerpatrol 12:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

English people

The English people trace a great deal of their culture and ancestry to the Anglo-Saxons and to deny such is just simply unfounded and unsupported. The Frisians speak the closest modern language to English and share other cultural traits as well as a great deal of their ancestry with most English peoples (i.e. to the the Anglo-Saxons). English people trace their ancestry to "Ancient Britons", Anglo-Saxons and Danish Vikings, so I don't see how you can not include continental groups. The main component of English culture is also Germanic, derived from the Anglo-Saxons, Vikings and even to the the Normans. What little left of it is "Celtic" is debated and insignificant compared to the Germanic elements which created the foundations for "English" identity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.157.126.241 (talk • contribs)

See Talk:English people. Alun 19:50, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

Feel welcome to add your statement to Talk:English people#Request for Comment: Peoples related to the English. This is a necessary step in dispute resolution. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Scotland/Alba

Fair enough. Certainly the user to whom you were replying was talking utter nonsense, and i would have reacted in a fairly irate manner myself had i come across him spouting his POV. I should have been a bit more corteous towards you in my own post as i know youre a decent chap but i do get irritable when i see statements/arguments of the kind you put forward regarding Scotland/Gaelic so i came across as a bit of an arse im sure. No hard feelings, siarach 17:56, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

POV pushing?

Just what biased POV do you think I'm pushing? All I'm saying is that while popsicle maybe unheard of in the U.K., "ice lollipop" is equally unheard of in north america. But within the U.S., at least, the generic use of "popsicle" to refer to the subject of the article is much more common than the use of "ice lollipop" anywhere. I'm not saying "popsicle" is the best name for the article - I don't know what that is. But I am saying that popsicle is better than "ice lollipop", which is what the proposed move is about. --Serge 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Anglophobia

Thanks for wanting to know more on the subject at Anglophobia, but I'm a little perplexed on what you seek. Aren't you being a wee bit over-zealous? Citations are for "information that is contentious or likely to be challenged". Now seriously, is it contentious to say that Irish resentment of the British has something to do with the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland? Or to point out a link between the conquest of New France and resentment in Quebec? If so, I might consider asking a reference on the link between Orange (fruit) and Orange (colour). You can't ask a quote on every word of the encyclopedia. With kind regards. --Liberlogos 06:43, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where you get the idea that only information that is contentious or likely to be challenged needs a citation? This is not what the verifiability policy states at all, and it is not what the common knowledge guideline states either. In fact the polict states in the very forst sentence of the policy The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. "Verifiable" in this context means that any reader must be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, because Wikipedia does not publish original thought or original research. So verifiability is the threshold for inclusion, if it's not verified the least you can expect is a request for verification. There is no requirement for editors to request verification, it is acceptable for editors to remove any unverified material without further comment, here's what the says Any edit lacking a source may be removed, but some editors may object if you remove material without giving people a chance to provide references. If you want to request a source for an unsourced statement, a good idea is to move it to the talk page. Alternatively, you may tag the sentence by adding the {{fact}} template, or tag the article by adding {{not verified}} or {{unsourced}}. It's worth checking out the reliable sources guideline, the neutrality policy and the no original research policy. Note that the verifiability polict is non negotiable. I also have some concernes with the neutrality of the section on Anglophobia in Canada, you do not give any other point of view. Alun 08:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, sorry if I got a bit angry over at anglophobia. I can see where the misunderstanding came from and it was a genuine attempt by you to contribute something useful. So no hard feelings on my part and appologies for getting a bit hot under the collar. Alun 04:56, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It's okay. Thank you for being fair. I am happy we cleared the misunderstandings. --Liberlogos 06:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Franklin

When I can finish laughing at Badgerpatrol's comments about me (above), here is my latest:

Alun, I trust you found the Klug piece from BBC Radio Four interesting? I re-read Maddox On Frankin at the weekend, having drawn my daughter's attention to the top of page 69! Maddox thinks Wilkins and Crick met at the Admiralty in WWII, but she is wrong and Hunter (on Bragg) apparently repeated her mistake for good measure. You never did tell me what you thought of Ridley on Crick ("now available at all good bookshops", sorry 'Badgerpatrol'!), any comments?

Martin

ps You might find this letter from Professor Robert Olby from the LRB interesting, following his review of Maddox's biography of Franklin? I assume you have read Bob's review in the LRB.

Unfair to Rosalind Franklin From Robert Olby

"In her response to my review of Brenda Maddox's Life of Rosalind Franklin, Barbara Low (Letters, 17 April) focuses on the ethics of Watson and Crick's use of Franklin's DNA data, whereas I concentrated on Maddox's achievement - in what is, after all, not a scientific biography - in bringing Franklin's personality into view. I did, however, criticise Maddox for expressing too much confidence in Patterson analysis. Well-informed statements of the limitations of the method exist in the literature of X-ray crystallography, but one would not expect the general reader to have encountered them. I did not write that Franklin 'did not know how to interpret her own data', but I did try to point out the clues that were available in those data.

Robert Olby University of Pittsburgh"

62.25.109.194mp 62.25.109.194

Brenda Maddox's review of Matt Ridley's biography of Crick

See: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2102-2353754,00.html

[and not a word about the 'cause celebre' in the whole review!) Incidentally on Monday evening for his short talk to the Royal Institution, Matt Ridley rebutted the loaded questions from the 'Franklinistas' present and said that Wilkins suffered more from W/C than Franklin did. In as many words, he said there are no patents on scientific ideas once they are in the public domain. Finally - on a personal note - surely WALES is still a principality (not a 'country') and shares its legal system, for example, with England, as in "England and Wales"? Martin

62.25.109.194mp 62.25.109.194

Wales is a country. A country is a geographical area where a nation lives, Welsh people are a nation. The word country is always used for a geographical area, sometimes it means the geographical limits of a state, so the United Kingdom is a country and also a state, sometimes country means the geographical area that a nation lives in (if it is clearly defined, as Wales is, both nationally and politically), Wales is a country in this sense, as are Scotland and England. Because of this the word country can cause confusion. Wales may be a Principality, but this does not exclude it from being a country, and anyway the last indigenous Prince of Wales was Owain Glyndwr, but then the English lost their last indigenous King when the usurper William of Normandy invaded. It's instructive to have a look at the articles regarding state, nation, country, nation state and ethnic group. Alun 12:57, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

OK you're talking to me again, so what about Brenda Maddox's review of Ridley on Crick then? (Incidentally I think Charlotte Church is wonderful! Cardiff is also the spiritual home of Doctor Who!!)

81.78.91.242mp 81.78.91.242

Maddox gave the book a good review, why shouldn't she? Reviews of anything always need to be read while bearing in mind that what we are reading are the opinions of the reviewer. Still an objective review will always give praise where it is due.

I grew up very close to Cardiff and went to University there, so I love the place. But I haven't lived in Cardiff (or Wales) for over twelve years and have been in Finland for over seven years. It was very nice to see so much of Cardiff on the new series of Doctor Who, though I haven't seen any of the latest series yet, we are a bit behind here, I have no access to British terrestrial television. Alun 04:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding your revert on Welsh People

Hello there. I was wondering whether you think the same about Scottish people. I've inserted the category to both articles, yet I didn't object to its removal because of lack of enough knowledge on the issue. As a welsh person you probably know also whether the category fits the Scottish people article. If you can check it out please. Thanks. Amoruso 12:37, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Syke's and Oppenheimer's controversy

OK, Alun. I always try to look for consensus and I always assume good faith, tough sometimes debates get a bit heated up. I guess it is normal. I think that the evidence is more than acceptable. You also have Oppenheimer, not just Sykes, and you can read Oppenheimer not only in newspaper articles. In any case, I will wait for you to get the book. I have also ordered it from Amazon. Since I live in the US I guess it will take longer. The US edition will be ready in December, but I have ordered it from the UK. We will discuss the book later on. In any case I hope that you can get more information about both Sykes and Oppenheimer. I do not think that it is right to try and attack them, because you may not agree with them. They are as reputable as any other population geneticists and are usually highly regarded. See you soon. Veritas et Severitas 17:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I have already gotten and read Sykes's book. Myth shattering and very much in line with the newspaper articles. In fact, the maps shown are exactly the same as the ones in the book. I will wait for your comments. Veritas et Severitas 21:45, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I will continue the discussion in the English people's page, so that we all can see it. Veritas et Severitas 21:58, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Welsh people

I have reverted Epf's version. I always try to understand that we all may have different points of view, but I do not understand Epf very well either. Veritas et Severitas 18:11, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

English People

Hi, I made that change because the Normans weren't cited as a source of English heritage. (If I should've left an explaination, I didn't know, I'm new at this)

No prob, we can include Normans as well. It's a good idea to give a reason on the talk page, some people may want to discuss it first, or even dispute it. I don't have a problem with including Normans myself. Cheers. Alun 18:07, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have included Normans as you suggested. Alun 18:09, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Gee, thanks

So I have been away, I check my watchlist, and I find something saying "Response to Telsa" in the edit summary. And what does it say? "Bollocks to it, then?" I can't help feeling slightly put out about this.

A lack of response doesn't mean I am deliberately ignoring you. I was not online. You replied on the seventh; I didn't immediately reply; and this is what I get? I know I have phases of being very active here, but I have others of not being active at all. Coming back to comments like that doesn't inspire me to come back any faster next time. Telsa (talk) 14:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, right, I see. A most unfortunate combination of comment and edit summary! Fair enough; and I understand it wasn't deliberate. I hope this doesn't come across badly, but I wonder whether the reason that people have not responded is that they're just not watching the article any more. Either that, or they're like me and don't check daily. Telsa (talk) 09:26, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Thinking about the whole History section in Welsh people, it contains much information that is prehistorical in nature. Actually, that's probably my fault. I put a lot of that in (much of which did come from the Davies book, as I recall). It seemed a good idea at the time! Telsa (talk) 11:18, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Franklin for the umpteenth time :)

Hi, just wanted to say I really appreciate and admire your work on the Rosalind Franklin article. I look forward to reading a little bit more about her work post-Nobel.

Best wishes,

Samsara (talk • contribs) 17:07, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the English people box.

Éponyme 18:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)