User talk:Nukeh

Archive 0 - [1]

Archive 1 - 4/7/2008 [2]

Archive 2 - Starting 4/8/2008 [3]

Archive Bit Bucket - Bit Bucket

Sandbox for testing - [4]

Sandbox for new WP article on Obscene Profit(s) - [5]

Sandbox for new WP article on An Amish View of the Physics of Time Asymmetry - [6]

Sandbox for new WP article on "Lobbyists as Puppets on Wikipedia" - [7]

Images on Wikimedia Commons - [8]

I just noticed that three of your nominations on WP:ITN/C were withdrawn. I want to recommend you go through the archives of ITN/C, to see what was brought up before, what made it to ITN and what didn't. Generally speaking fives types of events make it to ITN: major scientific breakthroughs, national elections, major sporting events, significant prizes/awards and incidents/tragedies/disasters. If you have any other questions about ITN/C, feel free to leave me a message. I see you are eager to help out, but I can imagine that withdrawing three nominations is not good for your motivation to continue. Aecis^Brievenbus 12:43, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your concern. At least we are not broadcast TV running the same few stories over and over again. One of my problems might be that I do not watch broadcast TV, nor do I read anything that requires a fee.

What I am discouraged about is WP's hate articles, which seem to be controlled by a few editors - if that. I spent a lot of time on YEC and related articles that try to debunk Creation with science, but a line is drawn such that nothing more fundamental than biology can be referenced. That's very strange, because good mathematicians and physicists know we are dealing with some very fundamental and unresolved issues in time, complexity, and P=NP. I call these hate articles, because YEC = Amish is true and can't be referenced. (YEC = stupid) is the POV of the controlling editors. But that leads to Amish = stupid, and that is false to an extent that is hateful.

Doug Youvan (talk) 20:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now we face a good editor who edits in good faith with people with a strong POV that are articulating a hate article. The controlling editors at the hate article play stupid with respect to facts that are contrary to their POV. (One reads the rule book: "build up a reservoir of tolerance if you act in a consistent way that people can comprehend.") Such controlling editors feign that they do not understand. Then, they set off the troll bomb, a WP version of the land mine. It works, as you see below. All it takes is one admin with the same POV. Doug Youvan (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please goto the Talk:Tariq Aziz page to justify your edits. -- Esemono (talk) 13:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, I've unhidden and weighed in on discussion you started, here. NCdave (talk) 14:20, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dave - thanks. Those guys have greater editing skills than me, and I see you nailed a tag. I had no idea such a tag existed. Also, my attempts to insert Amish into the YEC article failed. My attempts to discuss the physics of time asymmetry anywhere these guys edit have also failed. I get gang banged. If one looks to money motivation, any chance these guys are part of a textbook lobby group? Anything that might change textbook content cost publishers a lot of money, and meatpuppets would be far cheaper. Doug Youvan (talk) 14:33, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Molecular Biology POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ACreation_and_evolution_in_public_education&diff=208160944&oldid=208157146 Doug Youvan (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Neo-Nazi POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education&diff=208193848&oldid=208193133 Doug Youvan (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Amish POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&diff=203090565&oldid=203088478 Doug Youvan (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Physics POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Young_Earth_creationism&diff=202574549&oldid=202566772 Doug Youvan (talk) 22:08, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Control WP Editing of Articles POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Hrafn&diff=prev&oldid=207149325 Doug Youvan (talk) 01:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Expunging Discussion:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARichard001&diff=208253130&oldid=208249636 Doug Youvan (talk) 04:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Evolution_as_theory_and_fact&diff=206829350&oldid=206826803 Doug Youvan (talk) 04:07, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AYoung_Earth_creationism&diff=203096479&oldid=203093959 Doug Youvan (talk) 04:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Funding in Schools:

• http://web.mit.edu/belville/Public/xian.jokes (If deleted, the contents will be mirrored and the copyright becomes invalid because it is newsworthy.) Doug Youvan (talk) 04:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what weird angle you're coming from with this edit (maybe confusing fact and value?), but I'd be very interested in hearing how it has anything to do with the subject of the article. Richard001 (talk) 23:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"It is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science. - Charles Darwin"

• P=NP ?

• Talk:Genetic_code#Why_is_amino_acid_residue_hydropathy_and_molar_volume_encoded_in_the_genetic_code_prior_to_translation.3F ?

• Why someone would believe in Arthur de Gobineau's ideas of struggle for survival between the different races, among which the "Aryan race"—guided by "Providence" — was supposed to be the torchbearers of civilization?

Are you certain those three problems can be solved by science? Doug Youvan (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you going to actually answer my question, or just serve me up more obscurantist, obfuscatory, trolling bullshit? Richard001 (talk) 01:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify "weird angle" and "trolling bullshit", as these are facts not in diffs.

Just answer my original question please - how does your edit have anything to do with the article? If you continue to evade the question I won't waste anymore time on you. I'm well aware that question dodging is part of the arsenal of intelligent design creationists, as well as taking quotes out of context. Richard001 (talk) 01:42, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That makes: "weird angle", "trolling bullshit", "question dodging", and "taking quotes out of context", all for pointing out that Hitler was a Darwinist - to an extreme that includes race - using a direct internal quote from WP. I would think our school children have a right to know this. Do you agree? Doug Youvan (talk) 01:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Holocaust
• Apartheid
• Genocide

Doug Youvan (talk) 02:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, now I can see where you're coming from. In future, don't try to add material that is so extremely distantly related to the topic at hand: Hitler was probably influenced by Christianity just as much as he was by social Darwinist thinking, and even that seems to result from confusing fact and value. Even if it was remotely related to evolution, it's not related to education anymore than it is to anything else; adults would benefit just as much as children would from reading it (if there were any benefit to be had). You might also want to read the bible, particularly the parts where God instructs people to commit genocide, then growls at them for not doing a complete job of it. Or if you want to learn something useful, try a biology text. Richard001 (talk) 03:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the diff from your user talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk%3ARichard001&diff=208253130&oldid=208249636

Q.E.D. Doug Youvan (talk) 03:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

[edit] 01:09, 26 April 2008 Richard001 (Talk | contribs) (8,416 bytes) (→Adolph Hitler edit: Answer the fucking question dude) (undo)

Violence pending? Doug Youvan (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your answer to my question: 06:07, 26 April 2008 Richard001 (Talk | contribs) (31,791 bytes) (Yes. Go away.) (undo) Doug Youvan (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Doug Youvan (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That was fast. Where are Usernames: Silly_rabbit, Hrafn, and Filll? Doug Youvan (talk) 06:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Who is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Addshore ? Doug Youvan (talk) 06:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[edit] Message Hello, Richard001. You have new messages at Addshore's talk page.

You may remove this notice at any time by removing the ERROR: Please enter the username parameter when using the {{Talkback}} template - thus {{Talkback|<username>}}. template.

·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 06:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Richard001"

Hi Nukeh!
We thank you for uploading Image:TUPLE.JPG, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix this yesterday, and the copyright looked OK. Doug Youvan (talk) 14:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit confused, you first said you were trying to mark it as public domain / own work (i.e. {{pd-self}}), then you blanked the page and said "delete"? I can tag it correctly for you, no problem, do you want to keep it now? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Nukeh!
We thank you for uploading Image:Kcat.jpg, but there is a problem. Your image is currently missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. Unless you can help by adding a copyright tag, it may be deleted by an Administrator. If you know this information, then we urge you to add a copyright tag to the image description page. We apologize for this, but all images must confirm to policy on Wikipedia.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks so much for your cooperation.
This message is from a robot. --John Bot III (talk) 16:59, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to fix this yesterday, too, and could not find the image. Now, as a result of the attention to this page, the administrative editor who blocked me (User:Future_Perfect_at_Sunrise) deleted the image. See his claims about copyright violation being obvious. The image originally came from Kairos Scientific Inc., where I am a 50% shareholder as a tenant-in-common with Mary. M Yang, my ex-wife. I took the picture and wrote the text. If she wants to give it to NASA, that's OK by copyright law. If I want to deposit it on Wikipedia, that's lawful under US copyright, too. The laws are directly analogous to physical property co-owned by two people: Either person can invite a guest on to the property. Doug Youvan (talk) 14:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, point taken, so it's yours and it's not a copyvio, sorry about that. Could have been avoided of course if you had stated these things clearly up front. Now, before I undelete it, can we please clarify, is it really worth it? It wasn't being used anywhere when I deleted it. What do you want it for? Also, we don't normally use images that include such significant portions of text. If the photograph itself is important, could you upload a version without the text screenshot? Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from Nukeh (your account, IP address, or IP address range) has been disabled by Future Perfect at Sunrise for the following reason(s): trolling, bogus accusations This block has been set to expire: 11:49, 3 May 2008. Doug Youvan (talk) 18:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, man. I don't think you understand what exactly it is we do at ITN/C. The first time was fine, since you didn't know any better, but you are not welcome to make proposals without offering a proper blurb. I repeat: Do not continue to drop random subjects off at the ITN/C page without at least formulating them into a proper blurb. It doesn't help discussion and it wastes time and space. -- Grant.Alpaugh 08:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This, this, this, this and related edits are either malicious trolling, or clueless to such an extent as to be disruptive. This is a serious warning; your behaviour is (again) that of a disruptive editor, and you will be blocked if you continue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Revision as of 21:01, 25 April 2008 (edit) (undo)Nukeh (Talk | contribs) (→Council of Europe's resolution 1580: add WWII Germany)Newer edit → Line 192: Line 192:

 +  
 + ===World War II Germany=== 
 +  
 + [[Adolph_hitler#Religious_beliefs  

---

==April 25== 

 +  
 + ===Domestic Terror Threats on Wikipedia=== 
 +  
 + *Domestic terror threats on Wikipedia involving Creation and evolution in public education 
 +  
 + User_talk:Nukeh#Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education Doug Youvan (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC) 
 +[reply]  

---

+ :::Neo-Nazi POV: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education&diff=208193848&oldid=208193133 Doug Youvan (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

+

---

 +  
 + ---- 
 + Candidate Article 
 +  
 + [edit] Domestic Terror Threats on Wikipedia 
 +  
 + Domestic terror threats on Wikipedia involving Creation and evolution in public education  
 +  
 + User_talk:Nukeh#Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education Doug Youvan (talk) 06:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC) Doug Youvan (talk) 06:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Doug Youvan (talk) 11:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your tactics of misrepresenting normal opposition to your disruptive editing by fellow wikipedians as "threats of violence" [9] is completely bogus and shows that you are acting either in bad faith, or have a seriously impaired sense of reality. In either case, you are disrupting the project. I've blocked you for a week, for now. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:51, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Future Perfect at Sunrise‎; 11:52 . . (-1,374) . . Future Perfect at Sunrise (Talk | contribs) (→Warning? To Whom? (Italics are used to indicate differences from the email): completely out of hand, indeed.) Doug Youvan (talk) 11:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise‎: I've been thinking about your statement, above, now in bold, while being blocked. It's clearly defamation of character. It bears on two actions already in court, and child custody. Out of respect for others on WP, I will give you until 5PM Pacific Time USA Monday (50 hours from this time stamp) to print a full retraction of your statement on this page. Doug Youvan (talk) 21:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh. Okay, so, then, you are neither acting in bad faith nor do you have an impaired sense of reality. – In that case, I don't know what else is causing you to disrupt our project like you do, but I still maintain this is in fact what you do. So you remain blocked. By the way, if what you just said was a legal threat, I shouldn't have to remind you that this alone can get you blocked indefinitely (you were advised of this rule earlier). I will therefore now pass this case on to other administrators to deal with. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Email placed on Admin = Future Perfect at Sunrise (with italics to indicate changes) - now expundged from Future's Talk Page by the above edit and block:

From: Douglas C. Youvan

Sent: Friday, April 25, 2008 11:13 PM - This predates communications and warning with Future Perfect at Sunrise using (GMT-08:00) Pacific Time (US & Canada)

To: Mike Godwin

Subject: violence?

Wikipedia General Counsel:

Mike,

This is out of hand and potentially violent. Please look at my recent edits:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Nukeh

and my talk page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Nukeh

These guys have never met an intelligent Creationist, and they are reacting as if they were Islamic Jihadists and I was defaming Mohammed. They are anti-YEC, and their Mohammed is Darwin. I fear for my life, mainly because of my dependent child.

Usernames: Silly_rabbit, Hrafn, and Filll, in addition to this new guy, Richard001.

"ANSWER THE FUCKING QUESTION, DUDE" is within the screen shot from Richard001 that does not copy here.

They could be anything from dysfunctional husbands to textbook lobbyists to KKK to Neo-Nazis. Given their ability to edit rapidly, especially Hrafn, this could be a consortium of people.

I suggest Interpol and FBI.

Doug bcc’s

Doug Youvan (talk) 12:10, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Violence pending? Doug Youvan (talk) 05:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

This is your answer to my question: 06:07, 26 April 2008 Richard001 (Talk | contribs) (31,791 bytes) (Yes. Go away.) (undo) Doug Youvan (talk) 06:19, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Considering the tags, this is read as:

Youvan: Violence pending? Richard001: Yes. Go away.

I do know about such violence:

File:Youvan Police Report Attempted Murder 1.gif

and it has happened twice again.

Doug Youvan (talk) 12:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In March 2008, Richard Branson hosted an environmental gathering at his private island, Necker Island, in the Caribbean with several prominent entrepreneurs, celebrities, and world leaders. They discussed global warming-related problems facing the world, hoping that this meeting will be a precursor to many more future discussions regarding similar problems. Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales, and Larry Page of Google were in attendance.

Doug Youvan (talk) 12:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If this page is deleted or blocked by WP, the contents will be mirrored and the copyright becomes invalid because it is newsworthy. Doug Youvan (talk) 12:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

[Off topic discussion removed from Talk:Creation and evolution in public education per WP:TALK#Others' comments: "Deleting material not relevant to improving the article" Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 13:13, 26 April 2008 (UTC) ] From the Article:[reply]

"The teaching of religious doctrines, such as Creation Science and Intelligent Design, relies upon an understanding of and belief in the supernatural. This is in direct opposition to the principle that science can only use natural, reproducible, testable forces to explain phenomena. This could lead to the disabling of students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists."

What is a testable force in Darwinian Evolution and / or the Big Bang? The time scale is too great for a test, and there are only a few known forces in Nature as described by physics. Do you mean to imply some kind of Evolutionary Force, not known to physics?-50MWdoug (talk) 17:10, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Go read a text on evolutionary biology, cosmology or particle physics. And please stop asking inane questions. Oh -- and I reverted your other two new sections as being completely off-topic, per WP:TALK. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 18:22, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was a time in debate when people helped each other, so please see: Stuart_Kauffman#Publications to aid your viewpoint. Kauffman is probably the best at putting forth ideas about a force that is behind complexity. His math and physics are excellent. Prigogine describes the non-equilibrium, irreversible, and open thermodynamic systems that have mass and energy transfer that generate some simple types of order. You might also want to look into Genetic Algorithms, a computational technique that utilizes point mutation, cross-over, and recombination of strings. Evolutionary biology requires solid biophysics, and without a molecular mechanism, one is left with Vitalism. I think it is important for school kids to know that math and physics are the basis of chemistry and biology, whether the topic is evolution or something simpler. We need more editors here so that WP does not look biased. - 18:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nukeh (talk • contribs) 50MWdoug (talk) 19:24, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A comment which begins with a quote from the article, and asks a question about it, is not off-topic. NCdave (talk) 03:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, evolution is testable, has been tested, and is confirmed. However, this IS off-topic. This article is about the political conflicts regarding creation and evolution in public education. It is NOT about the testing of evolution by science, and it definitely is not about the "physics of order". --Robert Stevens (talk) 08:40, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Baegis & Hrafn, please stop hiding discussions of this article.

Robert, Baegis & Hrafn, the topic is a sentence in the article. There are no sentences in the article which are "off-topic" for discussion on the article talk page. Regardless of whether or not the article should discuss any topic, if it does discuss that topic then it's germane to the article Talk page.

50MWdoug asked a very reasonable question: what is a "testable force" (since that term is used in the article). He didn't deserve to be personally attacked for it ("Go read a text on evolutionary biology, cosmology or particle physics. And please stop asking inane questions.").

To the best of my knowledge, the term "testable force" is not widely used in the fields of evolutionary biology, cosmology, and particle physics. If anyone here knows where it is used and what it means, then please enlighten those of us who don't.

Also, the confusing "testable force" terminology is not that paragraph's worst problem. A second problem is that it calls ID a "religious doctrine." That's an editorial comment promoting the POV that ID is more about religion than about science. But, even if you agree with that POV (and I don't), and whatever you think of ID, it is very obviously not a religious doctrine. A religious doctrine is:

religious doctrine. n. The written body of teachings of a religious group that are generally accepted by that group.[10]

ID doesn't in the least resemble that definition.

A third problem is that the paragraph goes on to say, very provocatively, that teaching ID or creationism "could lead to the disabling of students' abilities to develop the critical thinking skills necessary for all scientists." Translation: "people who believe in God can't think critically."

That's untrue, there's no reliable source given for it, religious insults like that are forbidden on Wikipedia, and it reads like a deliberate stick-in-the-eye directed at Wikipedia's WP:NPOV policy.

Can we all agree that this horrid paragraph should simply be deleted? NCdave (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

'Testable forces' refers to testability. The paragraph could probably use some work. On the doctrine matter, I wouldn't deny that ID and CS are 'religious doctrines' in the sense the writer meant, but religious doctrine probably isn't the best word. That they are both born from the assumption that there is a (single) God is not something that anyone would deny. Richard001 (talk) 10:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The concept of testability/falsifiability in science does not refer to the testing of "forces," it refers to the testing of "theories."

ID does not say anything about how many Gods there are, and the existence an intelligent designer (or designers) is not an assumption, of ID, it is a conclusion, resulting from observation of things that appear to be intelligently designed. In the same way, if an unmanned alien spacecraft were to land on the Whitehouse lawn, we would conclude (not "assume") that some intelligent alien race had created it, from having seen the alien race's handiwork. NCdave (talk) 13:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose you could say the existence of a designer is a 'hypothesis' rather than an assumption (though if the ID crowd don't get the results they want we needn't doubt they'll fiddle the data). That there could be more than one Gods isn't something I've ever heard an ID proponent say, ever. If there is a designer it is a single designer, specifically the Christian God. That is what they are trying to prove, after all! Richard001 (talk) 12:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you who are scientists might be interested in this particular discussion: Talk:Genetic_code#Why_is_amino_acid_residue_hydropathy_and_molar_volume_encoded_in_the_genetic_code_prior_to_translation.3F see Venn Diagram. Doug Youvan (talk) 17:10, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn, please stop deleting this discussion. NCdave (talk) 08:14, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_Crick#Directed_panspermia Doug Youvan (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Mutation#Why_is_amino_acid_residue_hydropathy_and_molar_volume_encoded_in_the_genetic_code_prior_to_translation.3F Doug Youvan (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Genetic_code#Why_is_amino_acid_residue_hydropathy_and_molar_volume_encoded_in_the_genetic_code_prior_to_translation.3F Doug Youvan (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See: Talk:Moore-Penrose_pseudoinverse#PseudoInverse_of_Partitioned_Tuples and read (alpha = 4) as the four nucleotides, and (word = 3) as the number of nucleotides in a triplet codon. Doug Youvan (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

Reaction Centers of Photosynthetic Bacteria (1990) Michel-Beyerle M. ed. pp. 209-218, Springer-Verlag, Berlin.

Genetic Coding Algorithms for Engineering Membrane Proteins

Yang M.M., Coleman, W.J., & Youvan, D.C.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Department of Chemistry, Cambridge 02139

A solution to the problem of relating the physico-chemical properties of the amino acids to their codon sequences has been achieved by treating the genetic code as a system of linear equations and applying the numerical method, Singular Value Decomposition (SVD). For example, hydropathy and molar volume, which are important deteminants of protein structure and function, can be quantitatively related to the nucleotide sequence. The 20 hydropathy values of the amino acid residues were remapped to 12 nucleotide-determined values which, in turn, were used to predict structural aspects the photosynthetic reaction center protein, without DNA -> protein translation. These algorithms establish a theoretical basis for manipulating the properties of ensembles of proteins at the DNA level, which is important for engineering and analyzing combinatorial cassette libraries, and for designing reduced information content (RIC) proteins. Doug Youvan (talk) 15:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User%3AFilll%2FAGF_Challenge&diff=203628757&oldid=203550209#Arrow_of_Time Doug Youvan (talk) 15:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Time stamp from logs: 15:37, 26 April 2008 Porosenok17 (Talk | contribs) (30,892 bytes) (→:): new section) (undo)

Porosenok17 was red before I saw the smiley face above, and "it had to be killed", below. That phrase is taken as a further threat (within the nonsense).

WP should require MACID registration, security cookies, and real names - just like an on-line bank. Threatening and defaming editors with real names is not a good idea, because (just like copyright and biographies of living people) it threatens the financial solvency of WP. Doug Youvan (talk) 19:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Uhm, the guy who wrote that tasteless message below was just a random vandal, who spammed this same message to dozens of talkpages of unrelated people. I don't know if it's just a sick joke or what, but in any case, don't worry, it obviously hadn't anything to do with you personally or with the disputes you were involved in earlier. He was quickly blocked, of course. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Did you catch him and did he confess? Doug Youvan (talk) 20:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose you to legalize killing. There are reasons:
1. We are mortal, and everybody of us will die.
2. There are many people in the world.
3. There are very-very many people in the world.
4. If somebody will killed, it means that he has done something very bad, and it had to be killed.
5. And human meat - it's cool! :)

Look at the time stamp on where this came from relative to the Filll post, above: (cur) (last) 15:37, 26 April 2008 Porosenok17 (Talk | contribs) (30,892 bytes) (→:): new section) (undo) Doug Youvan (talk) 15:41, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You are currently unable to edit pages on Wikipedia. You can still read pages, but cannot edit, change, or create them. Editing from Nukeh (your account, IP address, or IP address Doug Youvan (talk) 15:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I might disagree with what some of Brig Klyce says, but his website is a masterpiece, s.e.g.: http://www.panspermia.org/seconlaw.htm Doug Youvan (talk) 19:20, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely for making a legal threat [11] against another editor. For both your protection and that of other editors, we require that you refrain from editing Wikipedia while you are considering or engaged in legal action against Wikipedia or its editors. If you are willing to retract this threat of legal action, consideration will be given to reduction or removal of the block. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, Image:Logo_biomanpro.gif, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Nv8200p talk 02:02, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:SACROsanct.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion 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. Cloudbound (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The file File:CT3.gif has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]