User talk:David D.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. ————————————— Welcome. (Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk
	Template:UWAYOR
You may here

BevNet

I haven't found the quote on their website yet, but I have heard from multiple sources (including in person from an executive at XS) the same quote. I sent a quote request to Bev Net, to verify it with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs)

Account

No problem, will get one now

Re:Proposition 209

Don't foeget that Berkeley abandoned affirmative action due to proposition 209. David D. (Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I do remember that, but I was addressing his comment about Stanford specifically. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 16:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about stanford. Even the sports star are really intelligent. Stanford is known for its strict academic requirements. Its a shame you have to worry about such things. Again good luck. David D. (Talk) 16:34, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Clarification

Just to clarify. i noticed that tehre are some people very close to this subject commenting on this page. i had never heard of barratt untill recently and I'm not even sure how I stumbled across the page. i would like to think the comments i have made to date are from an outside perspective. Please don't think i am in any camp with regard to this issue. David D. (Talk) 08:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• Hi David D. Thanks for the clarification. I am not saying that you are in a camp but agreed with your comments about lurking. It is good to have an outside perspective but sometime popping in and out does not allow a full understanding of the issue at hand. Case in point you pop in to bulk delete one of my contribution and did not reply to my comments on this, in the talk page. While I understand the OR point, I am sure that there is a better way to address these issues than just popping in and out...NATTO 09:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I fully understand. I may well be reading too much of the talk and not enough of the article. I will read the article properly and make some comments on the talk page if i see specific examples that need tightening up. To tell you the truth, considering the controversial nature of the subject, you are are all keeping your cool and making real progress. It nice to see mature editors for a change.

Re: the OR, i did come back to reply to your comments but it all happened so fast, compared to other pages i have edited, that you had already resolved the issue. Did you ever find good sources for those comments. i notice that to date you have not worked them back into the article. David D. (Talk) 09:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

• David D. I agree. Of course everyone has his POV and trying to use his or her interpretation of the rules to get their POV across. I for have not affiliation with either those who are against so-called quackery ( being affiliated to Quackwatch or having their own anti-quackery web sites ) or people like Bolen or Negrete. However I know there is more to alternative and complimentary medicine than what Quackwatch is " informing people about. The problem is getting the correct information in the article without " protecting " one view over the other.

As for the posting on the information on the Quackwatch web site , I agreed that under the rules it is OR so I did not work on it since. This said even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information so that in itself should make Quackwatch more an opinion forum than a reliable and neutral source of public information. NATTO 12:02, 26 July 2006 (UTC) Comment: I bolded the text for easy reference not Natto. David D. (Talk) 14:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it is good information but the OR criteria means it needs to be someone elses analysis. David D. (Talk) 12:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the statement above:

"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."

I have seen you write this before, but it is a misrepresentation of what he actually says:

"How do you respond to accusations that your writing is unbalanced?

"Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible." [1]

If you want him to treat the subjects he's dealing with in a "balanced" way (in the sense you seem to be using it, that is presenting both sides of an issue in a NPOV way), then of course he won't do it, and not many people would, since there would be no point in writing a book or having a website, if one did that.

His explanation above can be illustrated by this: That kind of "balanced" presentation about Hitler would give equal time to his own justifications for the holocaust, and equal time to his victims for why he shouldn't have done it.

Barrett thinks that kind of "balance" is nonsensical, especially when dealing with unethical, unscientific, and often illegal actions. He is presenting balance by presenting the "other side of the coin." The quacks are already out there with a far greater internet and written presence, than those who expose and debunk them. Of course they don't think it's "fair" of him to debunk them, but that's life. They make false claims, so he's in his good right to present the scientific POV and debunk them.

Unfortunately, they don't counter his criticisms by building a better scientific argument that proves him wrong. No, instead they simply attack him personally, the good old dirty street trick of ad hom attacks. If you can find the "exception that proves the rule" of somebody actually answering his scientific criticisms with scientific answers, I'd like to see them. I think I've only stumbled across one or two in the last seven years. All the other responses are straw man and ad hom, and the Talk page is full of them. -- Fyslee 13:06, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote Dr. Barrett: " Balance is important when legitimate controversy exists. But quackery and fraud don't involve legitimate controversy and are not balanced subjects. I don't believe it is helpful to publish "balanced" articles about unbalanced subjects. Do you think that the press should enable rapists and murderers to argue that they provide valuable services? The information Quackwatch provides is not filtered by editors who are too timid or believe it is politically incorrect to provide the naked truth about theories and methods that are senseless. When discussing conflicting viewpoints, we indicate which ones are the most sensible. [2] " Of course he is also the judge of what is a legitimate controversy and what is fraud.... NATTO 16:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I read a reply, but not an answer to my questioning of your misrepresentation:

"...even Barrett agrees that he is not fair and balanced in his presentation of information..."

Where has he "agreed?" "Fair" is your POV. You're naturally welcome to have it, but to claim that he himself "agrees" with that POV is a misrepresentation.

As far as the question of "balance," what do you require of him for him to present the subjects in a manner that satisfies your POV on "balance?" Do you think he should promote the ideas he is debunking? What would be the point of speaking out at all? Doesn't he have a right to his POV, especially since he documents them? Doesn't balance require that both sides of the coin be examined? The salesmen of products and ideas certainly aren't interested in their customers learning about the other side of the coin! -- Fyslee 10:28, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Readability of Chiro article

I suspect that the following message might apply:

• Attention Firefox and Google Toolbar users: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and we hope they will fix it.

This message appears when in the editing mode. Right now I can't read the bottom of the talk page, including my own entries! I removed the "References" heading and code you had made, hoping that would help, but it didn't. Were you intending to start a references section on the talk page? If so, it's not a good idea, since archiving will screw it up. -- Fyslee 12:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all. I was trying to figure out how to make the text visible. I found by stripping out the refs it is back to normal. What you saw was me groping in the dark trying to get the text back. You'll note my first effort was to archive some of the page since I thought it possible that "cut off unexpectedly" message might be occuring. David D. (Talk) 12:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Dear David

Dear David, there is nothing, nothing to apologize for, and even less to feel guilty for, k? :) In fact, I should thank you for the smile that your words "smooshing, hugs and kisses" gave me... it made me imagine a dogpile of people all hugging and kissing each other while singing Friends Will Be Friends! The fact that you took the time to have a look at my portals was a flattery in itself, and even more your kinds words towards them. Allow me to be very honest to you, if you have a minute. I've at all times tried to keep my wiki-work and my wiki-leisure as completely separate aspects of a whole. Like Johnleemk wisely said once, "There's a difference between treating Wikipedia like a playground, and treating it like a place where you can whistle while you work." That's why I ask you not to worry about the importance I assign to my priorities; tho I value the human aspect of our project, I humbly try to focus my efforts into building our encyclopedia with the same zeal; one thing doesn't necessarily rules the other out. By all means, this is not an attempt to make you shift your opinion - in fact, I forbid you to! ;) But I just wanted to share my thoughts with you after you so kindly stopped by my talk page. Thank you for your birthday wishes as well - tho I don't want to get one year older! :( Have a great weekend! Phaedriel ♥ The Wiki Soundtrack!♪ - 18:27, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

GangstaEB's RFA

Thanks for your oppose on my RFA. The final vote count was (0/10/0), so I am now an normal user. Feel free to let me know how I'm doing at any point in time or if you need anything. I can't give it though. Once again, thank you. GangstaEB help me improve! 23:28, 31 July 2006 (UTC) I did steal this off Wickethewok's RFA thank-you too.

---

Good night, sir. It was a pleasure chatting with you. I admire your work here. --Rednblu 07:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Homogeneity (physics)

Hi David. A valid equation in physics must be homogeneous. Homogeneity is the the quality of having all properties independent of the position. Scientific method assumes that the world is homogeneous. There is no example I can give about it, its an axiom. Scientists, in order for their inductive and deductive reasoning to stand , they are bound to believe that the natural world is homogeneous. They cannot deal with the possibility that the laws of physics could be dependant of space-time position, because in that case their reasoning turns irrational. Faaaa 09:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Homeopathy

Could you please give to user Homy the advice you once gave me about making his red letters turn blue! if you follow my drift? he is a newbie on the homeopathy page and has made some useful additions please check it out and send him a msg like you did to me on how to "go blue!" cheers Peter morrell 20:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, i'll do that. David D. (Talk) 20:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

thanks a bunch, David, for that! cheers Peter morrell 21:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support. David I see there is written on your talk:

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR NEW IDEAS

WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A PLACE TO PUBLISH YOUR POINT OF VIEW

and:

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view:Neutral Point of View (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikipedia principle which states that all articles must be written from a neutral point of view, that is, they must represent views fairly and without bias and Wikipedia:Five pillars:Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view;...

I am a little confused here, could you give your 'point of view', especially on how to implement this in homeopathy ? Thanks.--Homy 10:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your advice again on user talk:homy/homeopathy. I reacted on your suggestions --Homy 00:54, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David. See you're back. Would you care to react on homeopathy history (homy, you're the only one who claims this article needs a 'major' rework) from User talk:T.J.C. P.s. I made some progress with relativity User:Homy/homeopathy#Relativity and potentation Thanks, --Homy 09:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi David, you did not react on my message last time, therefore I wanted to awake the subconscious and I succeeded yesterday. I consider other types of homeopathy as very relevant to the topic, I placed the tag on top because it might take away confusion for the reader to distinguish. Do you have a better alternative?

I realize now the version about relativity was actually a physics philosophy. But I remain by the topic and made an easier version at User:Homy/homeopathy#General relativity and potentation. If you don't react I will place it in a couple of days, because I know my POV is a strong POV and shared with those who understand the essence of homeopathy. --Homy 09:46, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Your comments on Phaedriel's RfA talk

Hi David, I just wanted to drop you a line to say thank you for your most recent comments under the cheerleading section of Phaedriel's RfA talk. They meant something to me. I suppose I really wrote this to say that I saw your message, and that I thank you for your understanding. Yours, Thε Halo ^Θ 09:46, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Halo, I'm glad you saw that note and appreciated it. I really was not trying to single you out. I apologise for how it turned out. David D. (Talk) 03:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben Johnson

The top is pretty good, so it seems you've done a good job with it. I don't have any sources with which to continue the review, so I don't know that I can help much. It's a sort of fascinating train wreck as it now stands.Uucp 18:58, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

"fascinating train wreck" sums it up perfectly. i suspect there are sources out there for those claims but finding them might take time. Most of the problem is the style, as in completely unencyclopedic. I will probably keep chipping away at it over time. David D. (Talk) 19:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You are clearly correct in the examples you put on my discussion page; the relevant sections are copyright violations and need to be removed or completely rewritten. If you get any hassle excising them, I'll back you up. Uucp 20:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Joke

That was meant to be a joke, not saracasm. The barnstar's right now thanks. Miller 22:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The real reason I wanted to be an administrator is because I’ve been having a lot of trouble with the user Laurence Boyce recently. I’ve reported this user to rhobite but he hasn’t responded yet. The problem I’m having is that he doesn’t like what I’m putting down in the article The Root of All Evil?. He is committing a minor but visible NPOV violation by selectively quoting Dawkins into making him look arrogant and ignoring the all important subject of evolution that is central to Dawkin’s works. If you look at Boyce’s user page it is clear that this is part of a vendetta against Dawkins which I would like to see stopped. Maybe you could help here?

I’m glad you said something nice about me on the page. The only reason I’m “obsessed” or whatever with featured articles and barnstars is that it lets me know my work, time and effort is recognised and appreciated. When I’m at home my dad praises me for pretty much every piece of work I do! (of course I don’t expect this though) One more thing: how did you know about my joke: deleted nonsense additions and my request to have my barnstar changed too? Miller 22:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

There is no secret as to how I knew your inner thoughts. I used the User contributions option and noticed your most recent edits. This is how people can follow you around causing trouble (wikistalking), fortunately it has not happened to me. i'd say your dad is not preparing you well for univerrsity if he does that too much. Although everyone should be praised. i will say that considering you are not in university you are doing a great job on some very complex topics. Are you doing A-level biology, or is it just a hobby for you? Any way at university it will be harder to get praise and it is easy to feel anonymous in the large classes. Especially in such as large university as Edinburgh.

With regard to getting admin tools as a defense against a troublesome user, that is a bad idea. You are not supposed to use the tools against a user with whom you have a dispute. So actually adminship would be no help to you and may well get you into trouble. You did the right thing by talking to another admin, and that would be the same thing to do even if you were an admin. The fact you are not familiar with this also tells me you do need more time to familiarise yourself with the behind the scenes activity. This is mainly through experience, both time and edit count. However, if you restrict your activity to only a few pages you will not gain such experience. This is why one of your oppose votes suggested that an average of seven edits per page was too high. It suggests you have seen little of the encylopedia. Another editor mentioned that most of your WP edits were sandbox and like FA pages. The reason for this comment is that they want to see you participating in the behind scenes activity so they know you kjnow how and when to use the admin powers.

So what to do with a problem user? patience is the key. Discussion on the talk page and building consensus with other users. One lone editor cannot push POV against many editors. It is, however, frustrating when this happens. Just keep trying to keep the NPOV of the article by making good edits and try to avoid reverting more than once or twice at most. Reserve your third for blatant vandalism only. Also keep in mind that you may be able to soften the POV by suggesting compromise edits that include but rebut the POV that is being pushed.

At the end of the day i suggest you start trying to get some self confidence in your own work. i suspect you can tell if what you are doing is good or not. Hold yourself to high standards and learn to appreciate your own work. Many appreciate your edits silently. Another posability is to join some project where you can interact with other users with common goals. I hope some of this is useful for you. Feel free to ask more questions. David D. (Talk) 02:43, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I only have an AS-level in biology (a C, oh the shame!) but I do have an A in chemistry. This is my third year at Wakefield college (that I’ve just finished), I took the third year to get what I was hoping would be “Cambridge grades” in maths and physics, which were C and B respectively when I finished my A2-levels; A-level maths is much harder than Ian Hislop would have you believe! My new A2 level physics and maths scores have given me a bit more confidence than I had before. With my new found A in chemistry (something I didn’t have when I applied to university last year) Cambridge invited me down to take a “thinking skills assessment test” after I applied and to allow me to purchase a £4 sandwich!

I don’t know all that much about biology itself, but ever since I found out the structure and functioning of ATP synthase I’ve been hooked on biochemistry. I found this out on a Nobel Prize poster in the chemistry lab believe it or not.

You may also notice that I’ve deleted the “redneck” comment on my userpage that may be offensive to some users; about 10,000,000 perhaps! When you say “This is how people can follow you around causing trouble” did you mean me when you said “you”? Surely I’m not a trouble causer am I? As for the Root of All Evil? Article I’ll just give that up as a bad job! Miller 10:25, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the ATP synthase enzyme is very cool as is the chemiosmotic hypothesis. Have you seen the gifs that use fluorescent actin molecules to show the head turning during the enzyme activity. It's amazing to think that this nano motor can be visualised as it turns. With respect to following around, no i was not referring to you. Athlough i did notice you baiting that guy with a anti Christian user box. Probably not a smart move as he may well end up following you around being disruptive and hypercritical. That would get old very quickly and ruin your fun here. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I wasn’t “baiting” him with an anti religion userbox, I just thought he’d think it was funny (I assumed he shared my views). I now realize this is probably not sensible and I’ve removed the box from my page. When you talk about the 3 reversion vandalism I actually reported him for doing this, four times! The admin looking over it didn’t think he’d done anything wrong. See, the problem here is that every time I change the Colorado Springs section by adding quotes that bring Haggard’s knowledge of science into the equation Laurence instantly reverts it. Like I said this has been done four times now. I can’t say for sure but looking at his contributions and the complaints on his user page he has some kind of agenda relating to religion and Dawkins in mind, but I can’t figure out what it is. He also called my work “rubbish”. This was his excuse for reverting the edit. Extremely discourteous and inappropriate I’m sure you’ll agree. Here’s exactly what he said:

George, I've reverted your latest bunch of edits plus an anon edit because they're rubbish!

I think (though I wouldn’t swear) this was the second time. Is there anyway you can help me? Thanks to you showing the user contributions section I’ve discovered that Rhobite hasn’t been on Wikipedia since I asked for help so maybe you could help me here please? I honestly have a good mind to give the whole root of evil thing up as a bad job though.

Is biochemistry just a hobby to you or is it something to do with your course, courier or research?Miller 17:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I teach and do research, although I'd consider myself more e geneticist/developmental biologist now. I actually graduate from Edinburgh so i have a soft spot for that University. It has a lot of tradition and is a great town to live in. You will enjoy it a lot more than Cambridge. But remember all Scots hate the English....well, not really, but they always say they do. Just ignore them when they go down that route.

You need to be careful with humour here on wikipedia. Sometimes it can back fire, especially if you don't know the user that well, or you have an ongoing edit war. The fact he replies in such an antagonistic way suggests he is trying to get you mad. POV pushing trolls do that all the time.

I was looking a the talk page of your problem user and i'd say he will be banned before long. He seems to be pissing off quite a few people. You may want to take a break from that page if it is annoying you. Editing here really should be a fun experience and if a page or user gets you frustrated just find something that is good. POV warriors are a pain in the butt. Best way to beat them is to outlast them. You can go back and edit the article in a week or so once things have settled down. David D. (Talk) 18:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

So you think he’s the bad guy here? That’s a relief. I’m sure I wasn’t doing anything wrong and I’m sure you’ll agree that my contributions to main articles aren’t rubbish. Thanks for that then. Miller 18:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I have not looked at your specific interaction with him but there seem to be many people who as pissed off with his editing. Bad is a loaded term, but certainly difficult. David D. (Talk) 18:36, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dave. I’m sure you’re sick to the back teeth of hearing this now but please have a talk with Laurence. He’s just put on the root of all evil? talk page falsifiable information about scientific facts and the things said in the episode. If you can’t do anything can you recommend an admin for me to talk to? This guy just can’t be reconciled with and I’m sure he’s outside of Wikipedia practices now. Miller 23:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I'll be out of town this week so i wil be next to useless. Possiby Duncharris (talk · contribs) could help you out. He is very good with this type of POV stuff. And very knowledgable in this area. David D. (Talk) 23:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Ok thanks. I’ve told that the user the entire story now. Miller 00:34, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: kinds

"I hear with regard to undue weight. On the other hand it is in the misconceptions section. Nevertheless, i can go either way. What is the deal with Aidan, is worth responding too? I am trying to get him to make specific recommendations but he seem to prefer rambling. Any suggestions, like just ignore him? David D. (Talk) 19:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)"

So far I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt. He did raise some good points (having a link for the kinds idea) but he seems to be of the opinion that every sentance should be cited. So far I think he should not be ignored as he has actually helped improve this article.--Roland Deschain 19:31, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

NO RFA? DON'T YOU GET IT?

I AM NOT RUNNING AGAIN! I AM LEAVING! DUH! PUT 2 AND 2 TOGETHER! Stupid 23:29, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Be the drama queen then, your choice. David D. (Talk) 15:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Rosalind Franklin

Hi David D, I really don't know if I am somehow being unreasonable on the RF talk page. Obviously I don't think I am, and I make no bones about the fact that I have an antagonistic attitude to Martin. I'd like to get your opinion about my edits/posts, should I try to be more tolerant? I certainly don't want to come accross as authoritarian or bullying, but I often feel that I am being attacked and feel the need to defend myself. I'm struggling to know how to respond in this situation. Alun 11:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Photosynthesis

I can’t seem to find your contribution page so I don’t know if you’re still working on Wikipedia (you said you leaving for a week or so a while back), but I’ll post this message anyhow. I wondered if you want to help “Cleaning up” the photosynthesis article. I’m sure you’ll agree it’s an awful mess right now. It’ll take a lot of hard work, but I’ve been bored stiff during the holidays and I’d love to help clean it up, or at least clean up the Biochemistry bit. Split it into the light and dark reactions with subheadings beneath them perhaps? Maybe this might be a more appropriate layout:

• The biochemistry of photosynthesis

• The light reactions

• Overview of the light reactions
• Plant reaction centres
• Bacterial reaction centres
• Light harvesting complexes

• The dark reactions

• Overview of the dark reactions
• The calvin cycle
• The pentose phosphate pathway

Perhaps remove the “molecular production” section too? Anyway, just a thought. Miller 15:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Don’t you think the Biochemistry/molecular production layout is confusing and poorly laid out? Shouldn’t carbon fixation simply be included in the Calvin cycle? We don’t have to include all the chemical reactions of the Calvin cycle! Maybe the structure and functioning of the individual reaction centres in detail might be inappropriate for this page I don’t think things like the Z-scheme and the path of the electrons is. Anyway, it’s just a thought. I will say it again though: my main concern is the biochemistry/molecular production layout. I think these should be combined into one somehow don’t you?

Also can you please give me a link to your contributions page; I can’t seem to find it myself. Thanks. Miller 23:21, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

You should be able to see it on the left of your browser when you are on my talk page. for you convenience it is this link.

With regard to your specific points above:

"Shouldn’t carbon fixation simply be included in the Calvin cycle? We don’t have to include all the chemical reactions of the Calvin cycle!"

I would suggest that Calvin cycle is a subset of carbon fixation since CAM and C4 photosynthesis have alternative forms of carbon fixation too.

"Maybe the structure and functioning of the individual reaction centres in detail might be inappropriate for this page"

I agree this is too detailed for this page.

"I don’t think things like the Z-scheme and the path of the electrons is. "

i think a basic Z scheme is appropriate although the specific components of the scheme should be in a more specific sub page. i think the current diagram of the Z scheme is awful.

"my main concern is the biochemistry/molecular production layout. I think these should be combined into one somehow don’t you"

Possibly. I have not given it too much thought. To date my contributions to this page have been to copy edit, streamline and correct factual inaccuracies. There is no doubt there is a lot to do and this is one reason i have not started with a complete rewrite. I'll get back to you when i have given this more thought. David D. (Talk) 00:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I’ve been granted permission to use the image [3] on Wikipedia by the copyright holder (via an e-mail), but when I use this particular type of license (granted permission to use it on Wikipedia) it tells me it is to be deleted! Do you believe this qualifies as fair use? If not, what should I do?

We need to make our own version and we need to get the redox levels correct. Looking at the one you have uploaded I'm not sure that is true. David D. (Talk) 20:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

That what isn't true? The redox levels are incorrect? Miller 21:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The redox differences down the ETC seem too evenly spaced to be true. I might be wrong but my gut feeling is that the cartoon is an approximation at best. David D. (Talk) 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is a start to the new biochemistry section [4]. I’ve borrowed some parts of the old article to help fill some space. Feel free to add to or change it if you wish. Miller 23:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Aldershot

Hi - doing some detective work relating to someone who was obsessed with adding a link to (what turned out to be) their own personal website on the Brighton page, I came across the issues with Aldershot that you were dealing with. Looks like it's the same individual at play. See this page: http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2006/08/346947.html and search for the paragraph beginning "Similar problems have arisen on a page on Aldershot". Also see the discussion on the Brighton talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Brighton#External_link_to_.22www.heureka.clara.net.2Fsussex.2Fbrighton.htm.22 Gsd2000 16:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

WP:RECALL

Hi, I think you might find this policy proposal at WP:RECALL relevant, and I would be curious of your comments there and on the talk page. Thanks! rootology (T) 17:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Request for Cydebot

Hi. I happened to stumble across your request on Cyde's talk page about changing the MedalSport tags. I've modified the request a bit, and just wanted to let you know. If you have any questions about my modification, please let me know. Thanks! --Sue Anne 21:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that modification, although i think Cyde makes a good point. Are these headers specific for the Olympic games? If so i would say go ahead pipelink to that page. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

While you are here Sue. I noticed on the Athletics_at_the_Summer_Olympics page that many of the links for specific events are red despite the fact there is a page for them. This is, in part, due to the inconsistent page names in use between Athletics_at_the_2004_Summer_Olympics and Athletics_at_the_Summer_Olympics. For example, the 10000 m instead of 10,000 m. David D. (Talk) 22:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I need a clarification on the medal template thing. Please respond on my talk page. Thanks. See also Cydebot's recent contributions. --Cyde Weys 00:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well? --Cyde Weys 15:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean have i found place where the event header is used in a non olympic setting? I replied on your talk page, you may have missed it since it was a bit busy yeasterday, but in short the answer is no. Why don't we keep the conversation going here since it is a little less busy. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Update: This is a good example of the event header being used in conjuction with other major athletics championships: Irina_Privalova. In this context it is used specifically for the olympic event. I'm currently looking to see if the commonweatlth games uses this event header or whether they have their own. David D. (Talk) 17:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Bingo: the medal sport header is used for non Olympic events. in the Sally Gunnell page it is used for the Goodwill Games as well as the Commonwealth games. David D. (Talk) 17:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

RE: CfD

Hi there! It's no big deal. It is just a category, albeit not appropriate for Wikipedia. I feel that precedent has been set to delete these categories, but if the community feels otherwise I'll be fine with it. The community (almost) always does the right thing, so if the category is kept, I'll believe it was the right thing to do. I'd like to see some of Lar's explanations of the category become more visible on the page itself, but other than that, it's just a bit of silliness and nothing to get worked up over. Having said that, I do feel that respect and decorum is necessary if one decides to volunteer to weigh in on an XfD and some of the comments have been inappropriate (but again, nothing to get too worked up over). Cheers! hoopydink^{Conas tá tú?} 23:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Athletics disambiguation

Thanks. I figured since I proposed and voted for the new page name, I should do at least some of the work! --Usgnus 19:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of reaffirming to see how many pages aren't referring to Athletics (track and field). --Usgnus 19:07, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Peter mitchell

For your reference I ran into Btarski on the ETC pages. He immediately called in the mediators without entering into a dialog. He then proceeded to do nothing on the article. I get the feeling that this might be occurring here too.

I think you may have cleared up his major gribes. I think he made several good points but to write the article to the quality he is hoping for is quite a large task and one i suspect he is not willing to invest time in himself. Certainly it could be a very interesting article. i like your point about the fact that Mitchell's hypothesis was initially not understood and possibly rejected. From my dusty memory of biochem lectures his first support came as a result of a chat on a train (might be an urban legend). This person (don't remember who) then helped write a review to explain his ideas in plain english. I guess Mitchell's written skills were not that great, or he described everything from a thermodynamic perspective. Understandable given that ATP synthase and such were on the horizon so it was not possible to describe specific mechanisms. David D. (Talk) 22:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know why it took over a decade before Mitchell's hypothesis was accepted. As said, his major opponents were Britton Chance and Paul Boyer.
I know Britton Chance from conferences; actually I attended a plenary lecture by him just one year ago, in which he reviewed 70(!!!) years of scientific career. At 93 he is still an active scientist. Britton Chance is someone who loves controversy, loves debate, so what I think was behind his opposition was his sense that there was a lack of clarity. At the time there simply was no know mechanism by which translocation of a proton could influence an enzymatic reaction. If I am not mistaken (I would have to check into that) Mitchell did eventually come up with cartoons showing a possible enzyme mechanism, so that may have an important factor of the ultimate acceptance of his hypothesis. Boyer insisted on conformational changes as a possible mechanism of ATP synthesis, and eventually that earned him a Nobel prize as well.
So part of the reason that it took so long for Mitchell's hypothesis to be accepted may have been that he dodged debate and confrontation: A cultural difference between American and European science so to speak. The fact that he liked to publish his hypothesis in booklets rather than peer-reviewed journals may not have helped. JdH 14:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

University

You’ve talked about my place at Edinburgh University a few times, so I just thought I’d tell you... I didn’t get a place there. I’m going to Coventry University instead (my second choice). My place there is confirmed and I’ve sorted out my accommodation. I’ll be starting on the 23 September (I think). Miller 15:09, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

That's a shame i have a soft spot for Edinburgh (biased of course). Coventry is great too. A lot of my family are from that area. Despite being bombed to oblivion the city and area has a lot going for it. Birmingham, too, has really got its act together, so i think you'll have a fun time there. Good luck with your studies. Are you still going the computer science route? David D. (Talk) 15:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

The title of the course at Coventry is BSc Network Computing. I saw a bit of Birmingham (including having a Whopper at New Street station!) since the railway line between Birmingham and Coventry is out of service for some reason; so I had to take a bus between Birmingham and Coventry. This was a rail replacement bus so there was no fare; they didn't even check if I had a ticket when I got on it! Miller 16:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Role of Enzymes

I see your point David and I have noticed that the material above the “contents” is indeed like an abstract. My first edit attempt was way too long for the introductory material. But I think that a short paragraph which includes the idea that enzymes selectively or specifically accelerate only certain reactions should go there if it is short enough. I think it makes later ideas more easily understood. For example at the end of the paragraph that follows this one in the article, there is: “. . . enzymes do differ from most other catalysts in showing much higher levels of specificity.” This specificity now makes sense in the light of the previously mentioned specific action required on the part of enzymes. I really would like to avoid the assertion that enzymes are necessary in order that reactions can go fast. Or fast enough to support life. I just think that the statement is not helpful and I have always fought against it. What would you think of the following, coming right after the statement that enzymes speed up reactions: By selectively acting only on certain reactions among the many energetically favorable reactions of the cell, the enzymes direct the metabolism of the cell.That’s it. Nothing more. Don’t you think that this is ok for the introductory part of the article? Because the idea is an important one, I might try to expand it some in the section on function further down in the article and see how that flies.-Emhale 17:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be better to expand the article before changing the introduction. As far as i can tell everyone agrees with your input. Welcome aboard and note this forum can be a little frustrating to work with, so many people, in so many time zones, with so many other things to do. This is the bane of a wikipedia written by volunteers. Be patient and the article will blossom. David D. (Talk) 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Nuclear age

Yeah, I meant "a major factor" (forgive me, I've been running on 4-5 hour sleep periods the last few days because of work ^_^). The logic was that the Japanese could have caused the invasion greater headaches with a 100 percent defense rather than just the token military force (forcing Truman to drop the bomb). I agree that users need common sense, but if a user meets these basic requirements, why deny them the tools because they don't already spend a lot of time pretending to be admins? More trustworthy and decent users with admin tools means a greater vandalism/backlog defense, even if they only contribute a bit to the sysop force. By the way, my comment was in no way a response to your voting (which I agree with; Siva was an exception, whcih is why I was really grateful for the clarification on that RfA). By the way, do you have AIM/AOL? — Deckiller 04:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

In terms of friendly fire, I do agree that a basic understanding is needed to reduce such incidents; however, we have to make sure it is nothing farfetched or ridiculously high that would force people to tailor their accounts for months out of fear that they would be opposed based on an image slipup five months prior. — Deckiller 04:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't use AIM and I did not take you comments as personal. I might add i thought our interactions on the Siva's RfA were very enlightening. Clearly we do have differences but also some common ground. The world would be a boring place if we were all in lock step on these types of decisions.

With regard to people tailoring their accounts, this is defintiely not the way to go. In fact, i just opposed an RfA based primarily on the fact that many of the articles mentioned in question two had been freshly created. I know such observations boarder on failing AGF, but when looking at the big picture of someones contributions such tailoring is hard to ignore. And it is usually pretty obvioous. People that want to be admins should just get involved in discussion and do quality edits. The rest will come easily. In short, they should edit what they know, speak their mind and be themselves. I respect that much more than seeing the 'perfect' candidate. Another really important factor for me is patience. In Siva's case i really think it was unwise to have an RfA less than three months after the second one. Being too keen for adminship can send the wrong message.

I can assure you that I do take time to search out the bad in a candidate, but somethimes there are editing patterns that are too obvious to ignore. If it is any comfort to you I do take into account comments throughout the RfA's and have changed my votes based on arguments or new diff's. David D. (Talk) 21:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

RE:Your RfA

Thank you for your encouraging comments, David. Your vote is much appreciated. I would agree with you that an RfA process can be very stressful and demoralizing situation for some users. In some cases, users have left this project completely because of this. But this is NOT my intention. I intend to improve the quality of my edits and be a better editor on Wikipedia. However, allow me to point out to you that most RfA candidates are not perfect editors. They are bound to make mistakes. You must also consider the mitigating factors of each RfA candidates. Anyway, I would like to know whether you are an admin and if not would you like me to nominate you? I think you would be a great admin and the added responsibilities given to you would benefit this project immensely. Best of luck! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 08:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi Siva, see my reply above to Deckiller, i have outlined some of my thoughts with regard to your RfA as well as other general thoughts that might help you in the future. I am really impressed with how you handled this RfA, i find it tiring to watch editors threaten to leave after such an experience. You have demonstrated your maturity by taking it in your stride, well done. I seriously recommend that you refuse any nomination for the next three months. Patience is important to many people, use it to your advantage. It might seem like a long time now but it will pass by fast. Your goal now should be to be yourself, edit topicvs that you find interesting. Most important, get involved in discussions. But don't hunt down the discussions for resume building. Once you start editing articles the discussion will come to you.

Thanks for the nomination offer, but I am happy with my current role in wikipedia. I will comment when i think it is neccesary and edit articles on my watchlist. I have never felt handicapped without the admin tools. Who knows I might need them in the future, but I am fine right now. Good luck with your next three months and I'll be happy to offer advice as needed. David D. (Talk) 21:40, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, thank you for your kind and encouraging words, my friend. I will take your advise seriously. In fact, in about two months time, I am planning to bring up my contributions to Editor review and would really like to have your analysis of my contributions then, about one or one and a half months before my next RfA. Till then, I aim to improve the quality of my edits and NOT the quantity of them! --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 17:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)