ClockworkSoul (talk | contribs) →4 or 5?: The post has been made to ANI, so we'll see if the community also agrees (which I think they will). |
Adrian J. Hunter (talk | contribs) →4 or 5?: "my feeling is that XC is, regretably, a net burden to Wikipedia" |
||
Line 249: | Line 249: | ||
I think the current discussion is far too premature. Third parties are going to correctly conclude that it is a content dispute. I found one occasion when 76 started getting collaborative and nearly ready to discuss issues. That was when 76 had been consistently reverted by a couple of editors (the reversions being based on incorrect grammar, or substantial changes against consensus, or unexplained changes). One issue is that 76 finds it difficult to participate in exchanges on a talk page due to language problems; also, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how talk page discussions are supposed to proceed. I suspect that a concerted effort by two or three editors might persuade 76 that collaboration is a good idea. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
I think the current discussion is far too premature. Third parties are going to correctly conclude that it is a content dispute. I found one occasion when 76 started getting collaborative and nearly ready to discuss issues. That was when 76 had been consistently reverted by a couple of editors (the reversions being based on incorrect grammar, or substantial changes against consensus, or unexplained changes). One issue is that 76 finds it difficult to participate in exchanges on a talk page due to language problems; also, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how talk page discussions are supposed to proceed. I suspect that a concerted effort by two or three editors might persuade 76 that collaboration is a good idea. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
:I agree about the prematurity of the discussion. However, the post has been made to ANI, so we'll see if the community also agrees (which I think they will). – – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
:I agree about the prematurity of the discussion. However, the post has been made to ANI, so we'll see if the community also agrees (which I think they will). – – [[User:ClockworkSoul|Clockwork]][[User_talk:ClockworkSoul|<b>Soul</b>]] 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
||
::Sorry if my message to XC ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Xook1kai_Choa6aur&diff=next&oldid=311099377], last paragraph) pained you, ClockworkSoul. I agree with you that XC is editing in good faith (at least with respect to [[PCR]] and [[DNA sequencing]] – can't comment about the human evolution stuff), and I note that attempts at communication both through talk pages and edit summaries have improved – though not without lapses, and still with language problems. But my impression from [[User_talk:Adrian_J._Hunter#DNA Sequencing|discussions]] with XC is that s/he is quite confused about some of the things s/he is writing about. The problem with your suggestion to keep on top of him is that dealing with XC has consumed huge amounts of time from productive editors already, and I can't see this pattern changing. So my feeling is that XC is, regretably, a net burden to Wikipedia. I remember seeing an essay about what to do in this kind of situation but I haven't been able to find it. [[User:Adrian J. Hunter|Adrian '''J.''' Hunter]]<sup>([[User talk:Adrian J. Hunter|talk]]•[[Special:contributions/Adrian J. Hunter|contribs]])</sup> 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC) |
|||
==Problems== |
==Problems== |
Revision as of 15:48, 1 September 2009
|
|
Peer reviews with no or minimal feedback |
---|
|
|
If your review is not in the list of unanswered reviews, add it . |
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
Barnstar
It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten. <Moved to trophy cabinet> :)
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)
Admiration
I admire your image works !
Thanks!
thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox
RfA Thanks
Thank you
Barnstar
Moved to trophy cabinet.
Thanks!
Moved to trophy cabinet
Well done
Moved to trophy cabinet.
For your help on Pulmonary contusion
Moved to trophy cabinet
Smile!
Alcohol and sex
Barnstar
Moved to trophy cabinet
Dear Tim, thanks for your support and contribution for the article. I will include a section about the physiological role of the cycle in plants. You might want to have a look at the other article on roGFP I started; since my English is rather poor and I am new in the community you might have some helpful comments for this one as well.
Cheers, Laurent $olanum
Reincarnation research
moved.
Consider striking comment on SOD/CAT AfD Page
Using the "Search inside this book" feature that is enabled for Rector-Page and Goldstein, no pages discussing "SOD/CAT" are returned in searches of either reference. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Please see comment below your entry. RGK (talk) 20:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- These products all appear to be sold as different things, however true that claim may be (I suspect they are all the same expensive little pills with different labels), you can't use a reference to one product to support the notability of another. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- Not expensive Dr. Vickers, just effective. Since the article has now been deleted, you cannot correct your statement. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kavanaugh (talk • contribs) 21:06, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- I've noted your extensive edits of Protandim. Do you have a pecuniary interest in that article or technology Dr. Vickers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robert Kavanaugh (talk • contribs) 21:35, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- there were also comments about this on my talk page. For my response, see [1]. DGG ( talk ) 22:43, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, my only professional interests are in the forgotten diseases of forgotten people. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still, Tim, think about it. One of interesting aspects of Wikipedia is that it provides an up-close-and-personal view of the sorts of scientific-sounding nonsense used to bamboozle the unsophisticated health-care consumer. I guess what I'm saying is, if you ever want to collaborate on a diet/health paperback and retire early, let me know. I think we could come up with something that would make Eat Right 4 Your Blood Type look like the Proceedings of the Royal Society. MastCell Talk 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge. 71.105.255.183 (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- That contribution may be more appropriate for Wiktionary. MastCell Talk 22:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- In its modern usage, hubris denotes overconfident pride and arrogance; it is often associated with a lack of humility, not always with the lack of knowledge. 71.105.255.183 (talk) 08:12, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- Still, Tim, think about it. One of interesting aspects of Wikipedia is that it provides an up-close-and-personal view of the sorts of scientific-sounding nonsense used to bamboozle the unsophisticated health-care consumer. I guess what I'm saying is, if you ever want to collaborate on a diet/health paperback and retire early, let me know. I think we could come up with something that would make Eat Right 4 Your Blood Type look like the Proceedings of the Royal Society. MastCell Talk 06:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- For the record, my only professional interests are in the forgotten diseases of forgotten people. Tim Vickers (talk) 06:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
- These products all appear to be sold as different things, however true that claim may be (I suspect they are all the same expensive little pills with different labels), you can't use a reference to one product to support the notability of another. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:37, 15 August 2009 (UTC)
Hi Tim. Can you please upload a new version with a higher resolution? --Leyo 16:21, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Sure, easy enough. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:44, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks in advance. Please remove the dispute template after having uploaded the new version. --Leyo 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Done. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks in advance. Please remove the dispute template after having uploaded the new version. --Leyo 17:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
File:TryP cycle.jpg
I was going to send you an annoying template, but figured I would ask first how you know File:TryP cycle.jpg is PD-self, since I am fairly certain you aren't the cited party. MBisanz talk 06:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- That's an image my boss and I made together (Alan was my PhD supervisor), as I remember he contributed the molecular models and I made the powerpoint diagram. I don't think I have the original slide any more, but I could make a new copy. Tim Vickers (talk) 16:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you do so, please upload it in the PNG or SVG format. The JPG version shows compression artefacts. --Leyo 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- PNG is probably best because of the molecular models. Embedding those in an SVG would make for a huge file and no real quality advantage. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- If you do so, please upload it in the PNG or SVG format. The JPG version shows compression artefacts. --Leyo 16:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- Ahh, ok, I understand, thanks for the explanation. MBisanz talk 07:23, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Amino acid GAR notice
Amino acid has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 21:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
alan roger currie afd
please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alan_Roger_Currie_%282nd_nomination%29. it was recently deleted, and you voted either delete or keep, and it has since been recreated. i am messaging all previous voters to see if they wish to vote again. please do not take this as canvassing, as i have attempted to contact all voters Theserialcomma (talk) 07:13, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
Cats' eyes
Hi Tim. Tony is on Wikibreak still, so I have answered your question instead.
Best wishes,
–⊥¡ɐɔıʇǝoNoetica!T– 03:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
A favor?
Tim, would you be able to access this source to complete the list of other conditions at coprolalia?
- Coprolalia is not unique to tic disorders; it is also a rare symptom of other psychiatric disorders, ...
- Singer C. Tourette syndrome. Coprolalia and other coprophenomena. Neurol Clin. 1997 May;15(2):299-308. PMID 9115463
Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
- PS, if that article also happens to include an overall prevalence of coprolalia (including TS and other conditions), that info would be helpful. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter (September 2009)
The Wikipedia:Article Rescue Squadron Newsletter | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Content |
your recent chat on my talk page
WP:DTTR --Surturz (talk) 02:09, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
- I would call it civility. Originally I added CN and WHO tags. Only the CN was resolved, so I re-added the CN tag (but accidentally put WP:WW in the edit summary instead of WP:AWW). The template you used accuses me of edit warring, violating 3RR and threatens me with being blocked from editing. Totally unjustified IMHO (as was the revert's edit summary accusing me of 'plastering tags all over the article). Just so you know, templating me has achieved nothing except pissing me off, it certainly has not encouraged me to seek or heed your advice.
- And since you don't believe in WP:DTTR... enjoy! --Surturz (talk) 03:16, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Please refrain from abusing warning or blocking templates. Doing so is a violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please use the user warnings sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia.
- At the risk of receiving a retaliatory template myself, Surturz, you might want to consider modeling the sort of behavior you'd like to see. I can't promise anything, but I think it's more effective than petulant immaturity. MastCell Talk 05:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
4 or 5?
Yes, unless you start to discuss the edits you wish to make to articles on talk pages and the sources that support these edits, you may soon be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 05:07, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Now you may talk on Archea. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:16, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, perhaps you could discuss your changes on Talk:Archaea? Tim Vickers (talk) 02:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- That reference (Garcia-Vallvé et. al.) does not discuss Archaeal taxonomy. The influence of HGT on classification is discussed in detail in Archaea#Current_classification. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:15, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- Garcia-Vallvé et. al. was a source of numerical estimation for HTG. Do You know that HTG was sourced below and new source was not necessary? Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:22, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
I've similar concerns with this editor's changes to Archaea. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
- I do not see parallels. You stated phd so i assumed you will find answer yourself. Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk) 05:31, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Tim. This editor continues to be a major problem; see various discussions, e.g., here, here and actions here, here, and here. Would ANI be an appropriate forum for reporting and possible action? Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- These comments, as well as these, deeply pain me, mostly because they're exactly what they've been labeled in the edit summary: "difficult but honest". I have no doubt that this editor is acting entirely in good faith, but collaboration with him or her is complicated considerably by the language barrier. However, that being said, I really don't think that posting about him or her on ANI is called for. Instead, I think that we should do our best to do what we usually do with newcomers who don't know their way around: be as patient as possible for as long as her or she continues to act in good faith and shows even incremental progress. XC is clearly knowledgeable and motivated – two traits that we are chronically in need of – so it would be to our benefit to help him or her grow as an editor. – ClockworkSoul 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Editors have tried that approach since the start of June while the editor has been editing from an IP address. See Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Clean-up and sections from then, for example. They've had their chance to try to collaborate and communicate clearly - I don't think they're capable of it. Fences&Windows 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hmm... I was not aware of that. Regardless, it's not actionable offense to be a difficult editor, so I'm not really sure what we can do. Did you have a specific intervention in mind? (Side comment: Tim has been very tolerant of us using his talk page as a discussion venue, but perhaps we should more this somewhere more appropriate?) – ClockworkSoul 00:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- No, please. Go on. I'm not at all sure what to do either. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:10, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim. I think that the only thing we can do with a persistently "sub-disruptive editor" (hey, look, I coined a phrase) without a major shift in wikipolicy is for each of us to keep on top of him, patiently and kindly nudging him in the right direction, and calling in others when our patience wears thin. If his collaborative skills improve in time, fantastic, if he persists in his behavior, however, then we'll be in a better position to reconsider our approach. Unless anybody has any better ideas? – ClockworkSoul 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like somebody else agreed with the ANI proposal: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#User:Xook1kai_Choa6aur. Maybe it'll be fruitful? – ClockworkSoul 11:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, Tim. I think that the only thing we can do with a persistently "sub-disruptive editor" (hey, look, I coined a phrase) without a major shift in wikipolicy is for each of us to keep on top of him, patiently and kindly nudging him in the right direction, and calling in others when our patience wears thin. If his collaborative skills improve in time, fantastic, if he persists in his behavior, however, then we'll be in a better position to reconsider our approach. Unless anybody has any better ideas? – ClockworkSoul 02:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Editors have tried that approach since the start of June while the editor has been editing from an IP address. See Talk:Multiregional_origin_of_modern_humans#Clean-up and sections from then, for example. They've had their chance to try to collaborate and communicate clearly - I don't think they're capable of it. Fences&Windows 00:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- These comments, as well as these, deeply pain me, mostly because they're exactly what they've been labeled in the edit summary: "difficult but honest". I have no doubt that this editor is acting entirely in good faith, but collaboration with him or her is complicated considerably by the language barrier. However, that being said, I really don't think that posting about him or her on ANI is called for. Instead, I think that we should do our best to do what we usually do with newcomers who don't know their way around: be as patient as possible for as long as her or she continues to act in good faith and shows even incremental progress. XC is clearly knowledgeable and motivated – two traits that we are chronically in need of – so it would be to our benefit to help him or her grow as an editor. – ClockworkSoul 19:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
- Hello Tim. This editor continues to be a major problem; see various discussions, e.g., here, here and actions here, here, and here. Would ANI be an appropriate forum for reporting and possible action? Many thanks. Malljaja (talk) 16:20, 31 August 2009 (UTC)
Some background might be required eventually, so I'm dumping all this here (sorry!). User Wapondaponda is Muntuwandi (talk · contribs) (and was blocked for sockpuppetry at one stage). Wapondaponda has started three discussions:
- 3RR trivial mention, 17 June 2009 re 76.16.176.166 (talk · contribs).
- ANI minor discussion, 13 June 2009 re 76.16.176.166 (talk · contribs).
- ANI, 1 September 2009 re Xook1kai Choa6aur (talk · contribs).
I think the current discussion is far too premature. Third parties are going to correctly conclude that it is a content dispute. I found one occasion when 76 started getting collaborative and nearly ready to discuss issues. That was when 76 had been consistently reverted by a couple of editors (the reversions being based on incorrect grammar, or substantial changes against consensus, or unexplained changes). One issue is that 76 finds it difficult to participate in exchanges on a talk page due to language problems; also, there is a fundamental misunderstanding about how talk page discussions are supposed to proceed. I suspect that a concerted effort by two or three editors might persuade 76 that collaboration is a good idea. Johnuniq (talk) 13:07, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- I agree about the prematurity of the discussion. However, the post has been made to ANI, so we'll see if the community also agrees (which I think they will). – – ClockworkSoul 14:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
- Sorry if my message to XC ([2], last paragraph) pained you, ClockworkSoul. I agree with you that XC is editing in good faith (at least with respect to PCR and DNA sequencing – can't comment about the human evolution stuff), and I note that attempts at communication both through talk pages and edit summaries have improved – though not without lapses, and still with language problems. But my impression from discussions with XC is that s/he is quite confused about some of the things s/he is writing about. The problem with your suggestion to keep on top of him is that dealing with XC has consumed huge amounts of time from productive editors already, and I can't see this pattern changing. So my feeling is that XC is, regretably, a net burden to Wikipedia. I remember seeing an essay about what to do in this kind of situation but I haven't been able to find it. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 15:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Problems
Thanks for your notes. I think you may be right that a block may be in order. Judging from this editor's editing history, I think we're dealing with a bull-in-the-china-shop type situation. I'm especially worried about some entries, such as Homo ergaster, which have had multiple changes in recent edits (such as from hominin to hominid)—as I do not know enough about this particular subject, I've stopped intervening with what I felt were haphazard changes, but feel inclined to do so if this continues. Malljaja (talk) 15:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)
- Let me know if/when you're escalating this, as I will contribute evidence and diffs. I've lost my patience with this editor. Fences&Windows 04:32, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Icos FAC
I've nominated a biology-type article, Icos, at FAC. Would you be interested in reviewing it? Shubinator (talk) 04:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks
Dear Tim,
Thank you for your kind invitation to join Cell Biology project. Unfortunately my English is rather poor. Perhaps I may contribute to some papers, especially related to invertebrates (I have Ph.D. in invertebrate zoology) without joining the project "officially". In Russian Wikipedia I have started Cell Biology (Cytology) project and also began to write a Cell Biology textbook on Wikibooks because I am teaching this topic at high school (college). Yours sincerely Glagolev (talk) 18:17, 29 August 2009 (UTC)