User talk:Proteins

Archives
General archive 1
ASCB workshop archive
Accessibility archive
User scripts archive
Core Contest archive
Features Article archive

Hi Proteins. I've recently been helping out with some Mexican related articles. The latest is Valley of Mexico which should reach GA pretty soon. I did expand Xalapa by translating but unfortunately the sources are limited to reference it well. The Bald One ^{White cat} 13:50, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Dr. Blofeld! I had a look and they're both impressive articles — well done! I wish I had time to delve into them (my knowledge of Mexico is rather lame), but I'm working like crazy to finish everything here in the lab and online before I leave (tomorrow!) for the ASCB workshop. I've written some teaching materials for the scientists, which are listed in the second section of my user page, and also at its very end. Would you have a moment to look them over, and think about how useful they'll be to newbie scientists? A few of the tutorials have screencasts that I dashed off using Camtasia Studio, which I've used for my biochemistry teaching.

Also, might you have a little time next Tuesday between 12:30-2:30pm San Francisco time? We're expecting a few dozen scientists to begin editing then, and if they received a hearty welcome and some editing help from online Wikipedians, that'd be great. I'll completely understand if you're otherwise busy, but it'd be great if you could. Thanks, Proteins (talk) 17:12, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See File:Button nowiki symbol.png. Tim Vickers (talk) 03:55, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey buddy, do you mean today? That would make it ah, 8:30-10:30 pm my time I think. Give me a buzz if you require any aid. Best The Bald One ^{White cat} 14:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, good doctor! The workshop is today and I believe at the time you say. Tim and I will speak for perhaps 20-30 minutes to introduce Wikipedia, but they should begin editing by 1pm, I think. A friendly welcome to one or two participants and looking out if they need help would be great. Their user names should start appearing in the category Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants. Thanks as always, Proteins (talk) 15:09, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I've done some cleanup work at User:Proteins/Practical Wikipedia tutorial, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/ASCB workshop 2008, and User:Proteins/ASCB article template. Most of it was simple copyediting (nitpicky of me, but you never know how much people will absorb via immersion, so let's get them used to seeing sentence case in section headers, commas in large numbers, etc.). The only significant content change I made was at User:Proteins/Practical Wikipedia tutorial, where you seem to have misinterpreted what the |thumb parameter does—please take a look to make sure I've explained it sufficiently.

I should be available the day of the workshop. As the conference draws near, do you have an idea yet how much participation you'll have from local Wikipedians at the workshop (versus online help from Wikipedians)? Have you asked online helpers to sign up somewhere that I've missed? Maralia (talk) 17:31, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Maralia, for your copyediting and volunteering! I capitalized both words of Featured Articles to set the concept apart, but I see now that it's more customary not to capitalize them. The "thumb" thing might be a miscommunication? I believe I understand what the "thumb" does, but because the tutorial is short, I had wanted to emphasize its role in allowing captions, rather than the possibility of enlarging images, which seems less important for the participants. If the "frame" or "thumb" parameter is not set, the "caption" text becomes the (invisible) "alt" text for the image, as you can see in the images on the Main Page, such as {{In the news}}.

A handful of live Wikipedians should be on hand, I estimate 6-8, but I'm not sure. Tim and I have asked for online volunteers at relevant WikiProjects — and with friends we weren't too shy about imposing on. ;) The basic details are as follows. The workshop is from 12:30-2:30pm local San Francisco time on this Tuesday (tomorrow). Tim and I will speak, but we'll try to get them editing ASAP. When they create a user account, we'll ask them to add {{ASCB workshop}} to their user page, which will categorize them in Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants. It'd be nice if online Wikipedians could welcome them and help them with more recondite editing tasks; there's no way that Tim and I can cover it all in such a short time. Thanks for your help, Proteins (talk) 14:32, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand now what you were going for with your explanation of the thumb parameter, but if thumb is only explained in terms of caption/alt text, and sizing is only explained in terms of pixels, the handy default-size aspect of thumb goes unmentioned. Entirely your call, of course—revert at will!

I've done a bit of organizational work tonight, cf. the new Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop, which now holds your participants category, as well as your main welcome page and tutorial template. I've also added a subcat for articles created at the workshop, and a corresponding talk page template to populate that category: {{ASCB talk}}. If you have participants add that template to their new articles' talk pages, the category should make it *much* easier for helpers to traverse in-progress articles looking for places to lend a hand (I neglected to ask how many participants you expect, but monitoring via 'user contributions' links for multiple people seems unwieldy). Hope everything goes well; looking forward to lots of new contributors! Maralia (talk) 05:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help, Maralia! I'll ask them to add the new template (I gave it a new picture that was more centered on cell biology), but I think if they need help, I'll ask them to write to the person that greets them or add the {{ASCB helpme}} template. Proteins (talk) 15:18, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want some non-CB but probably interesting scientific and medical articles for them to work on improving, try these:

• bridge locus
• cosmetic camouflage
• banana bag

Uncle G (talk) 20:44, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is our IP address: 208.115.75.235 (talk) 20:28, 15 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Petergans and me are having a dispute over the K_b section of the Acid dissociation constant on its talk page. Petergans does not think that any more explanation is necessary. I have failed twice in giving a proper explanation, but I think that my most recent attempt is valid. Since Petergans disagrees, it would be nice for you to weigh in.--Jorfer (talk) 01:13, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be happy to look it over, but I'm busy preparing for a workshop today with the American Society for Cell Biology. Can it wait a while? Proteins (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Of course it can wait, but the quality of the article will suffer in the meantime. Today, Petergans continued in his refusal to allow clarity in the article with his removal of text. It is hard for me to just sit and watch this.--Jorfer (talk) 18:26, 31 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know how the workshop went on your end. I'm thinking about trying to do something similar myself at MLA next year. Awadewit (talk) 22:51, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OUTREACH. It's brand new, but the general idea is to coordinate our efforts in reaching out to new editor constituencies, particularly academics and professionals. I'd love to link your tutorial there, and you seem like someone who would be an enormous asset to the project. //roux   18:51, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll be happy to join; thank you for starting it! I see the importance of its mission and I'd be grateful for feedback on my materials, scripts, etc. Proteins (talk) 14:05, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much, Your Royal Shine-ness! ;) It's been a pleasure getting to know you. I did have an excellent holiday; I hope you also had an equally warm and wonderful Christmas and New Year, Proteins (talk) 13:59, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I thought you would like to know that I've just expanded the stub metalloproteins. I've done this from the point of view of an inorganic chemist as I know next to nothing about biochemistry. The references are not very satisfactory because I don't know the field at all well. Happy New Year! Petergans (talk) 16:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year to you, too, Peter! I've just returned from my holiday travels, and I'm getting prepared for the new semester. I'm teaching two graduate courses this spring and one undergraduate, on various aspects of protein science, structural biology and quantitative methods. I'm planning on integrating them into Wikiversity and possible Wikibooks, if I can find the time; I'd like to get more experience with those projects.

I agree, the metalloproteins article is extremely sparse. I do know a fair amount about metalloenzymes, although not nearly as much as some of my colleagues. An expert in heme synthesis is across the hall from me, and another friend is one of the world's top experts on nickel enzymes. I'll consult with them and a few relevant volumes of Methods in Enzymology,and take a stab at improving the article. We should also recruit TimVickers, himself a parasite enzymologist. Wikipedia does have excellently broad coverage of the enzymes, but not nearly deep enough (yet). Proteins (talk) 19:12, 3 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two new articles roughly translated from French. Carthage National Museum and Protestant Hospital of Ngaoundéré. Within a few days I may find myself starting another deforestation article so... The Bald One ^{White cat} 16:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Finally uploading! Been a busy season. Here: Commons:Category:December 2008 ASCB Conference Wikipedia Workshop in San Francisco. Bastique ^demandez 07:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see you have the ASCB "needs help" templates on your user page - I am guessing they are just there for reference, but please let me know on my talk page if you do need help. – ukexpat (talk) 01:06, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was just cleaning up some categories, and almost removed one from your pages. But wait, are these your own work, they look amazing! Are you planning a coup to improve the tutorial, I look forward to it! LeeVJ (talk) 02:49, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much, Lee! I plan on finishing the tutorials soon. This semester I've been buried by teaching four classes and recruiting graduate students for next year's incoming class. Proteins (talk) 14:18, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to help. Repy here. - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 07:28, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seems User:Anybot wil have to do for a species bot at present Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 17:52, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hope your semester is going well. I almost hate to bring it up, but I was looking through the images in the Commons the other day and I found a cool picture of an apple core. So naturally I thought that might be a good basis for a Core Contest award (which Matt Lewis clearly has no plans of creating). I made the award template and was wondering if you would mind filling them in and placing them on the named winner's talk pages, I would do it but it would look kind of lame if one of the participants awarded the thing (I'm not sure why I am so fixated on a user award for this thing). If you don't have time I can ask Walkerma, and if he doesn't have time I will just do it. Let me know what thoughts you have. Thanks.

		2008 Core Contest Winner Award
		Let it be known that [[User:____|____]] was awarded ________ in the first Wikipedia Core Contest. This award is based on their outstanding work in improving [[______]]. Thanks for your hard work in making Wikipedia's core articles better.

Earthdirt (talk) 13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, I went ahead and awarded them. Let me know when you want to get another contest going I will help and support! Earthdirt (talk) 02:03, 8 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment, no problem being busy, I understand how that can be. I really would like to help with future contests. My biggest suggestion is to make it visible (like on the watch list notice board like last time) so people know it is happening. Earthdirt (talk) 16:45, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, since you asked for collaborators working on the algorithm, I could offer you a review of the article. From a quick glance I think the article is fairly nice, but does have a number of places to improve. If you feel like having a review, ping me... Jakob.scholbach (talk) 14:29, 30 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid I'm only working on influenza at the moment. Once this has moved off the newspaper front pages I'll have time to deal with other things. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've sent an e-mail to the Neuroscience society, offering the Wikiproject's help. You could e-mail their president if you wanted, that would probably be better coming from a professor! Tim Vickers (talk) 21:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You wrote in an edit summary:

(I sympathize with the need to be accessible for elementary school children learning the EA, but I'm trying to comply with the Talk-page review that suggested deleting this example from the lead)

I actually had in mind adult Wikipedians who got straight "A"s for four years of high-school algebra, took calculus in college and got an "A+", then went to medical school and who never in their lives understood anything at all in algebra and couldn't solve (x + 2)/x = 5 for x if they worked on it full-time for three weeks and their lives depended on it. I.e.&nsbp;typical university graduates. Michael Hardy (talk) 06:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we share the same goal of making the article accessible, especially its lead. I've been arguing to keep your example problem in the lead, as you'll see from the Talk page, while still keeping the lead short and pithy.

I mentioned "elementary school children" because the Euclidean algorithm is often taught to 10-11 year olds (5-6th graders), who generally haven't learned any algebra (7-8th grade). It seems reasonable to assume that some schoolchildren will try to read Wikipedia's EA article, and I think we should try to accommodate them (and their parents!) with a concrete, algebra-free example. The original lead referred readers to the "Worked example" in the main body of the article, but they might not read that far. So I agree with your idea of putting a briefer example in the lead. Doubtless others will benefit from the example besides schoolchildren; I didn't mean to suggest otherwise. People may forget their elementary-school math, especially if they don't use it often. Proteins (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proteins -- I see you added a proof that Euclid's formula generates all Pythagorean triples. I'm not sure about one step in it -- you wrote: "Since the left-hand side ${\displaystyle c^{2}}$ is a square, and since Gaussian integers factor uniquely, then each of the two factors, a + bi and a - bi, must equal the square of a Gaussian integer, possibly times a positive integer k". Can you explain why this follows? Why can't the factors of ${\displaystyle c^{2}}$ be distributed among the two factors on the right-hand side such that neither is an integer times a square? Joriki (talk) 21:15, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just came up with a proof for this -- I wonder whether this is what you had in mind (in which case we should make it explicit in the article) or whether you have a simpler reason?

The prime factors of a - bi are the complex conjugates of the prime factors of a + bi. Each prime factor of ${\displaystyle c^{2}}$ occurs an even number of times. Assume that some prime factor occurs an odd number of times in a + bi. Then it also occurs an odd number of times in a - bi (since the total count is even). Hence its complex conjugate occurs an odd number of times in a + bi. Thus, in a + bi, one instance of the prime factor and one instance of its complex conjugate can be multiplied to form a positive integer, leaving an even number of both. Applying this to all prime factors exhibits a + bi as a positive integer times the product of even numbers of each prime factor, i.e. a positive integer times a square. Joriki (talk) 21:40, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My reasoning was: Since Gaussian integers factor uniquely, and since z=a+bi and z* = a-'bi are complex conjugates, then every prime factor of z has a complex conjugate counterpart in z*, which is not the same Gaussian prime. Therefore, z and z* share no complex prime factors. But the prime factors of a square c² must come in pairs. Thus, the complex prime factors of z must come in pairs, implying that z is a square, possibly times a real integer. Proteins (talk) 12:50, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't follow that z and z* share no complex prime factors. If z has a factor c + di, then z* has a factor c - di, but nothing prevents z from also having a factor c - di (and z* a corresponding factor c + di). E.g. 2 + 2i and 2 - 2i both contain a factor 2, which factors as (1 + i) * (1 - i). So I think you need the additional step of saying that if they do share a complex prime factor, then they also share its complex conjugate, and hence these can be combined into a real integer. The whole thing is further complicated by the fact that Gaussian integers are uniquely factorizable only up to the units 1, -1, i, -i, which can be arbitrarily included (or not) in any of the factors. By the way, take into account WP:OR -- I'm not a fan of this policy being applied restrictively and I don't think it should preclude us from adding proofs of well-known facts without giving a source for the proof, but it does suggest that extra care needs to be taken when adding an argument that's not taken from a source. Joriki (talk) 11:38, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you're probably right about the "additional step". But although I was careless in reconstructing the proof's reasoning at your request, the proof that all Pythagorean triples can be generated using the Gaussian integers is not original research. I read the proof in my first number theory book, about 20 years ago, which I believe was written by Adolf Hurwitz. I've just been busy with the Euclidean algorithm and haven't dug up the exact reference, which I'll do next week sometime. If I recall correctly, Hurwitz stated the proof as I did in the article, relying on his mathematician readers to fill in the gaps. There are probably dozens of books with the proof; if you'd prefer a more explicit version with the "additional step", you could research the subject yourself. Proteins (talk) 12:17, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dr. Blofeld told me that you were interested in making a species bot, and I have this Java script that lets me make articles like instantaneously, if you could direct me to any large list of species in the same genus, I would be happy to start them. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 17:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Bugboy, that's great, except that I think the species level is, in general, too fine for Wikipedia. I think what'd needed is a bot that makes all the taxonomic divisions down to the genus level. Does your bot provide references to the scientific literature? If so, I think I can find some work for your bot. :) Proteins (talk) 22:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well priority of course is to get the levels down to genus onto here first but eventually I can see wikipedia becoming so developed that it starts covering many specieis in detail. We've already got a number of good articles on species but indeed priority is family and genus missing articles first. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 22:40, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, I noticed people seem to skip the genera and families (Mostly the other other classes that seem unimportant) But I would have to see exactly what you want me to do, so I can see if the script would work. And for the references, If you compare Bactromantis virga & Bactromantis mexicana to Bantia chopardi & Bantia fusca, they both reference to their corresponding genus, but if you want something more precise, complex, or other, I am sure I can work something out. Buɡboy52.4 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've started Deforestation in Costa Rica. Actually I was reading Jurassic Park last night and he mentioned deforestation in Costa Rica and I thought, we must have an article on that! I decided to start Deforestation in Sri Lanka today from a request. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Earth Day to you as well! I have to run right now, but I'll check in on the articles later. Thanks for doing them and good luck! Proteins (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm currently developing Tea production in Sri Lanka. I may take this all the way, we'll see how it goes. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 16:10, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for keeping my request in mind. But I certainly didn't expect you to remember :-) Your editing and consideration of fellow editors is exemplary. Wishing you and your family the very best, --C S (talk) 18:45, 11 May 2009 (UTC) P.S. The name William Taylor seems to come up prominently with respect to protein knots. Would you say his articles are a good place to get the most reliable perspective on the topic?[reply]

Thank you, C S, I've replied by e-mail. Proteins (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The lead of an article should be short; think of it as the lead paragraph of a newspaper article. The lead you have put in Fermat's Last Theorem is way too long. Magidin (talk) 04:58, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, I think the stuff on Germaine is way too detailed for the lede. --C S (talk) 05:44, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I made a pass at the lead; I hope you don't mind too much. I thought it was still over long; there is really no mention Sophie Germain, Lame, Kummer, or the specific cases established in the lead; just point out that several special cases were established, etc. Take a look at what I did, we can discuss it in the talk page of the article if you want. Magidin (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your version is OK for now, although I'm a little disappointed that you didn't like the 350-word version I uploaded an hour ago. If the goal of the lead was only to entice visitors to read on, it would be fine. But I foresee a fatal problem at FAC with your version: it will not summarize the content of the article. I know that the typical lead of a B-class article on Wikipedia is 1-2 paragraphs long and less than 200 words, but such telegraphic brevity is discouraged at FAC — harshly. Four meaty paragraphs is typical, as you can see from other recent FA's, e.g., the problem of Apollonius. (See MOS:LEAD for more requirements on the lead section.)

On the other hand, I appreciate your point that we don't want the reader to be discouraged, buried under an avalanche of technical terms (Diophantine equations) and trivia (Gabriel Lame suggested factoring in cyclotomic field). It's a "rock v. hard place" problem for us poor writers. I suggest that we leave the lead in your version until the article is developed further; perhaps more gifted writers and mathematicians will help us out in the meantime. Proteins (talk) 03:50, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough; yes, we can put some of the stuff back in; but I think talking about the specific special cases established, Lame, Kummer, Sophie Germain, etc, is way too much trivia and details. Enough to say that several special cases were established (that in some cases it was specific values for the exponent, in others conditions on a, b, c, and n; in others general conditions on the exponent such as regularity, etc, is too much trivia for the intro, I think). I think we can have a single paragraph on "history" on the lead, with not-too-many name drops: at most I would say Fermat himself, Euler, Kummer, and Frey-Ribet-Wiles (possibly Taylor); rather than the three that were there before. If that makes sense. Magidin (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		Thank you, Proteins, for your patience and calm demeanor in the face of an FAC nomination that stretched much longer than is typical and involved a great deal of feedback. You set a great example for other nominators to follow, and I hope we see you at FAC often in the future. Karanacs (talk) 21:41, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to split the FLT article once it reaches 50KB and now it has, but the largest section is labelled overview, meaning that it isn't supposed to be large. Any discussion?? Georgia guy (talk) 17:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to this script (which you can install in your monobook), the article has only 28 kB of readable prose, as defined at WP:SIZE. Many mathematical Featured Articles are longer, e.g., problem of Apollonius and Euclidean algorithm. Therefore, I argue that we shouldn't split the article, at least not yet. We may wish to trim the article later, boil it down to its essentials and farm the extras off somewhere else; but first let's write the material. If you'd like to contribute, that'd be great. Proteins (talk) 17:21, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Though premature at this point, I think the best candidates for splitting off are proof sections. Magidin (talk) 17:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I imported pyro's script into my monobook.js but nothing's happened... Any clues? --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 21:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had the same experience — I think it might have something to do with cache-clearing. It also didn't work when I switched to the Chrome browser from Firefox. Then I switched to the Opera browser (which is more scrupulous about caching) and suddenly the script worked and stayed working, even when I re-started the other browsers. Of course, the browser may have nothing to do with it; perhaps you just have to log off, close the browser and then start it up again?

Your praise is really kind, but you should recognize that my computer skills are rather limited. I can't do even simple things I'd like to do — frustrating! Luckily, people like Pyrospirit bail me out. Proteins (talk) 21:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ALERT! It just occurred to me that you might not have his other script installed, User:Pyrospirit/metadata.js, which is needed for the new one to work. He's written a third assessment script that you could add for completeness, User:Pyrospirit/metadata/projectbanners.js, but if I understand correctly, it's not needed for the assesslinks.js script to work. Proteins (talk) 02:07, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just started this article and two "phthisiatrists". Surprised this was missing. Know anybody who can expand it? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 10:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits, reads well. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Great catches, thanks for the quick turnaround! Proteins (talk) 19:37, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some edits; if I've been too bold, feel free to change, of course.

One suggestion that I wasn't bold enough to do: in the table in the WikiProjects section, the links in the fourth and fifth columns are identical. Unless you plan to change entries in one column or the other in the very near future, I think that a single column with entries that read something like "Ask a question, or for help" would be better. (Maybe it's just a personal thing, but when when I see something that seems to overpromise -- "Here's a specialized page for questions, and another specialized page for asking for help" -- I always think that the marketing or PR folks have been involved. I know that's not true here, but ... ) -- John Broughton (♫♫) 21:33, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, John! I haven't looked through them yet, but I'm sure they'll be fine.

The links in the last two columns are actually slightly different, in that they post different section headings, although I grant you that they're similar in most other respects. I did that because the MCB WikiProject has separate places for discussion and for help requests. I think the others don't, however; I'll have to check more carefully.

The individual Welcome pages for the MED, PHARM, NEURO and MICRO WikiProjects need serious work, as I guess you saw. Oh well. Paraphrasing Wonka, "Too much time, too little to do...no, wait, reverse that." :) Proteins (talk) 04:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, did you receive my reply to your email? I notice that Tim has just made an "announcement" on the MCB project page. Graham. Graham Colm ^Talk 13:15, 15 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you around? I've been away for the past week, but I have some time now that I could contribute to the SFN Nexus thing if it would be useful. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bill thanks for your note. I'm using Jriggsy as my username now. I'll send you an email soon as well. I enjoyed working with you in my role with WMF, but I hope that we'll also cross paths again, working on WP and other projects. I'll be doing some work on the Strategy-wiki, then I hope to contribute more to Wikiveristy. Jennifer Riggs (talk) 18:17, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad it's not goodbye. :) It sounds like you're doing well? I sent you an e-mail to Jriggsy that didn't bounce, but still might not have reached you. Drop me a line whenever you get the chance? No rush, but it'd be nice to share the news, Proteins (talk) 21:09, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proteins,

There seems to be a minor subscript error in the article "Euclidean Algorithm," in the section "Extended Euclidean Algorithm." I wrote a description of it on the discussion page. I would like someone else to review this before making any corrections.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by EGalois (talk • contribs) 14:53, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...for the MOS bot discussion! :) See Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates#Proposal for a featured article style. Awadewit (talk) 18:41, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tomasz,

Here's the IP address from our lecture room N231 at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience. 167.165.53.93 (talk) 14:37, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is a confirmation that the IP address hasn't changed. 167.165.53.93 (talk) 18:23, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Proteins, I thoroughly enjoyed meeting you at the Society for Neuroscience! You mentioned that you were making a welcome page for new editors coming from the Society. I haven't found it on-wiki yet. If you have it up already (maybe you don't yet), please let me know where to find it. Thanks! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:22, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trypto, thanks for your kind note! The welcome page I drafted for the SfN annual meeting is a subpage of the WikiProject Neuroscience main page, and can be found here. I'd be grateful for any thoughts or suggestions you have; several sections need "fleshing out", although I also want to keep the page trim and easy to scan. Some scripts are offered as well, in case you wanted to sign up for those; you might find them useful. I'm traveling, so my Internet connection might be spotty. Talk to you soon, Proteins (talk) 18:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply at my talk. I've taken a quick look at the page, and it's very impressive. I'll make some edits to polish it up, if you don't mind. Right now, users cannot find the page unless they get a link to it as you gave me at my talk. When you are satisfied that it's ready for prime time, one of us should make a link to it from the WikiProject main page, and probably also mention it at the WikiProject talk. Thanks again! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, go ahead with whatever edits you think advisable. I'll add some information about the scripts. Proteins (talk) 19:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just added the switchboard script to my account. I don't see any new tabs on my interface. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You might need to purge the cache, or log out and log back in again. Your computer/browser/the Wikimedia interface sometimes takes a while to recognize that new scripts have been installed. Please let me know if they persist in not working. Proteins (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I did log out-in right away and it didn't change. Does it matter that I use the secure server? I'll give it a day and see what happens. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I put a note here at the WikiProject talk, fyi. I also made a few more tweaks, that you might want to double-check to see if they're OK with you. Also, I still don't think the scripts are working for me. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Trypto, thanks for your kind words about the Welcome page on WT:NEURO. You're right, I misread the userbox section as inviting people to join WP:NEURO rather than joining the SfN initiative; thanks for catching that! The addition to the sandbox tutorial is excellent, and a better way to end the exercise, returning to the original state. In a more advanced lesson, they could also revert back to the original using the History page.

I'm not sure why the scripts haven't installed themselves for you. Looking at your monobook.js page, I suspect that the initial comment "== adding script to my page ==" may be giving the computer indigestion, since it doesn't recognize it as a valid comment. These ".js" pages are different from other Wikipedia pages, and are intended only for JavaScript programming commands and not wiki-markup. Try deleting everything up to the first "importScript" line, including my comment "Please click...". Once it's saved, reload the page as directed in the Note on that page. Then try loading a page you've never seen before (e.g., Horse or Platypus) and see whether you get extra tabs and links as described on the Welcome page. If that doesn't work, wait a bit, log out, etc. and try again. If that still doesn't work, we'll put our heads together and figure out another way. Good luck! :) Proteins (talk) 19:35, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I edited my monobook page as you said, and it worked immediately! All good now! Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And those additional features are very nice! (Although I decided to take out the assess links ones, because I personally didn't like the changes in page title colors, just my personal opinion. The others are great though, even for a not-so-new editor! And I think those are the ones that you created.) --Tryptofish (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I agree with Trypto, very handy tools, thanks!! It was great to meet some real people behind the usernames at SFN :-) Cheers, Wim --Crusio (talk) 01:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Proteins, could you please add me to the switchboard? I was at the NIH workshop in July. Thanks! Crusio (talk) 01:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sure thing! I'll add you both as a user and as a helper, if that's OK with you. In other words, you can appeal to others for help and you may be appealed to for help yourself. If I've misunderstood that, please let me know and I'll drop you from one or the other list.

I also enjoyed meeting you very much. I especially appreciated your reaction when I suggested that coupling funding awards to contributions in public outreach and education could be a powerful incentive for professors to participate in Wikipedia. :) Proteins (talk) 00:28, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks, good initiative! Not many takers yet, it looks like. But do add me as a helper, too, I'll be glad to assist if needed and if I can. That workshop was indeed fun and I enjoyed finally seeing some of the faces behind the pseudonyms :-) --Crusio (talk) 00:54, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It occurs to me that when I signed up at the neuro project, there wasn't a way for me to specify helper versus user. Since I see myself mainly as a helper, does that need to be adjusted for me? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:32, 13 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A noiseless patient spider, I mark'd where on a little promontory it stood isolated, Mark'd how to explore the vacant vast surrounding, It launch'd forth filament, filament, filament, out of itself, Ever unreeling them, ever tirelessly speeding them. And you O my soul where you stand, Surrounded, detached, in measureless oceans of space, Ceaselessly musing, venturing, throwing, seeking the spheres to connect them, Till the bridge you will need be form'd, till the ductile anchor hold, Till the gossamer thread you fling catch somewhere, O my soul." —"A Noiseless Patient Spider" by Walt Whitman Happy New Year Awadewit (talk) 05:53, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Medicine Collaboration of the Month for November 2024 is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease! Head to its talk page to organize our efforts. Continue to nominate topics for future months at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month#Nominations.

Craig Hicks (talk) 21:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ha, remember the core contest. Incidentally Loire (river) was included on it. Well I've expanded that one now!♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:55, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:37, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template:AthalianaDBs has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:51, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template:ASCB helpme has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 19:04, 22 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ASCB 2008 Wikipedia workshop participants needing help, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pkbwcgs (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]