User talk:TimVickers/archive 2

Inquiry

Hi Tim. I hope I am asking you at a right place. Your page of structural alignment has a figure showing two PDB's aligned. Would you mind telling me how to achieve that? DALI and MaxSprout seem not sending me the desired result (e.g. a PDB file containing 2 or more records aligned, then say using Rasmol can displayed the result). Thanks a lot --Ross 18:27, 8 November 2006

Talk

Hi Tim. I'm a grad student at NYU working on malaria immunology. I'm thankful that you've taken up the torch on the big 3. I was just the other day reading the requirements for an FA and it seemed difficult to attain. But I'm guessing by your hard word, you've done it (I noticed the star up there in the corner of the page). I probably won't be as present as you; my attention waxes and wanes like the moon. But I'll be on more often now that I have set up an account. Good luck with the work! Kurtrik 00:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Flu vaccine

I'll accept any solution you offer at Flu vaccine. WAS 4.250 01:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with that you try to reach a consensus. I also have no problems to see another version... as you can see I already tryed myself to post another version. My main point is to insert the study in some way into the article. greetings Ogno 02:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

My email has been set up now, so it should be possible for you to email me from my User page. Ogno 08:35, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

But to be honest you realy don't have to send me the pdf since I will have no time to read it anyway... I trust you that you will come forward with a good text for mentioning this study. Ogno 08:41, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravo! Well done! I feel like I asked a friend for where to buy a dollar hotdog and was given a free three course top-quality meal. You're amazing. I woulda added "nonelderly" in front of "adult" in two places tho. Sometime in the future I might add something about nonhuman animal vaccine effectiveness and CDC conclusions on human flu vaccine efectiveness. Your choice of top notch sources is especially worthy of praise. Thanks. WAS 4.250 20:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Superb! Thank you for that work... amazing! Ogno 09:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Influenza

About:

"some authors have suggested that the Spanish influenza actually had a positive long-term effect on per-capita income growth, despite a large reduction in the working population and severe short-term depressive effects."

I remember reading about a study the US Government did decades ago on the effects of a nuclear war and part of its conclusion was that under many scenerios the NATO countries would see a reduction in population far greater than their reduction in material wealth leaving the average person still living more wealthy and not less wealthy. I don't remember when the study was done but I remember thinking the study was done before the issue of a nuclear winter was raised and when the USSR had fewer nukes than the US. Another thought: after the black death in Europe the remaining poor people were better off as there was greater competition for their wages (the poor died more proportionately). Some credit the higher cost of their wages with sparking increased mechanization and thus hastening the industrial revolution. So I read anyway. I guess the bottom line is if you only pay attention to survivors, many evils aren't. WAS 4.250 21:11, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Cyclol

Hi Tim,

Wow, I just read the above message — do people even think that way? Ugh!

On a happier topic, I've been devoting myself recently to Cyclol, an early structural model of globular proteins. The article's not really relevant for modern biochemists, but it's an interesting topic, an early precursor of modern structural modeling. You may find it tiresome because the theory is so obviously wrong (from our modern perspective) but, I confess, I have a scientifically unwarranted affection for it, perhaps because of its beautifully symmetric molecules.

Despite my POV, I've tried to do a good job with the article and would like to help it eventually reach FA. Could you please look it over and make suggestions/criticisms, FA-related and otherwise? I'm sure that you'd find many things to correct or improve! Thanks muchly and hoping your departmental retreat was fun, Willow 22:28, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

He's commenting on the viewpoint of somebody else, I'll certainly have a look at this page. Thanks for the suggestion. TimVickers 23:06, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Tim, Malaria is looking good! I had a question; I remember reading a rather provocative book some years ago, The Malaria Capers by Robert Desowitz. I don't remember it too well, but my impression was that he was rather severe on ill-considered Western interventions that had made malaria worse rather than better. Do you know the author, or have any opinion about his reliability?

I'm thinking of submitting Cyclol for Wikipedia:Scientific peer review soon, once I spruce up the section about modern cyclol chemistry. Did you get a chance to look at the article? Any suggestions would be much appreciated!  :) Willow 22:33, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!

– ClockworkSoul 22:25, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

The E=mc² Barnstar

Thanks for the E=mc² Barnstar. I hope now that Flu is featured, you'll stick around and help with other flu and H5N1 articles. H5N1 is pretty good but you could make it better. Avian flu is terrible style-wise but then not all of can write as good as you do. WAS 4.250 21:18, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Maintenance template on Enzyme

Hi TimVickers. I am back on Wikipedia, after completing my PhD on Enzyme Engineering. Thank you for inviting me to be added to the Template:Maintained list of the Enzyme page. I would like to be added to this list. Congratulations that Enzyme has become a featured article. TimBarrel 3 November 2006

MRSA

Hi, Tim ... I'm traveling, and don't have continuous internet access: would you be able to look at this message on my talk page? I'm not sure what Lucifer means by tagging and thought you would know. Thanks ! Sandy (Talk) 15:47, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Cyclol as FAC

Hi, Tim, I just wanted to see how you were doing, and let you know that I rather impulsively put Cyclol up for FAC today. I know you felt unable to comment on it before and you may not feel able to support it now, and that's cool. But I couldn't forgo bothering you for insights into its other aspects, such as the writing, organization, images,... ;) I'm sure they would be helpful. Many, many thanks, Willow 21:36, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Fujian flu

Hi. I just finished Fujian flu. I'm better at gathering the data than polishing it. Fujian flu is interesting as it is at the center of a power/politics struggle between WHO and China with the head of WHO just selected as a former China government health official and Chinese poultry vacinations looming in the background as a rumored cause of H5N1. WAS 4.250 22:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for helping. I was unclear how much to say about the significance of the location itself. I am very unclear how much to say about the connection between the two types of flu. A good reason to have both types in one article instead of two articles and a disambig page is that talk of H5N1 recombining is to a degree talk about these two specific strains recombining (such has already occurred in pigs in China and a lab in the US; but in both cases producing nothing that infects humans at all so far as I know.) To complicate it, the H3N2 version has already mutated (drifted)into decendant strains given different names from newer isolates and China is denying the existence of genetic differences justifying singling out the H5N1 Fujian isolates as special while denying access to numerous isolates WHO wants. WAS 4.250 20:43, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Malaria query

Hi, just noticed that on 29 October 06 you replaced the old malaria image of P. vivax in a cell with a false-colour electron micrograph image. You seem to be the main contributor to the article so I just wanted to say that as a layman knowledge-seeker(and malaria sufferer!) I found the old image more useful, and to ask if you could find a suitable place in the article to reinstate it. The new image doesn't mean anything to me - it's just a swirl of colour. With the old image I could clearly see the parasite in the cell, which was a lot more useful in visualising my new companions. The other pictures are a bit too small to see clearly. This is of course not meant to be a criticism of your work, just some user feedback! Cheers - Simon

Hemagglutinin

I just discovered Structure and Receptor Specificity of the Hemagglutinin from an H5N1 Influenza Virus. You may find it interesting. H5N1 genetic structure needs to be added to or altered a little based on it, but I find it difficult reading. WAS 4.250 00:29, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Influenza. I only deleted some little words. And reshaped the whole paragraph.

But you took back all the changes I made without consideration. (in Influenza) Why Tim? You can't be bothered to see my whys? Hey, sorry to be a nag. Maybe you are a nice person after all. (easy to make war) My login name is pablo2garcia. 87.223.209.132 01:37, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Hola, Pablo — encantada! :) I can assure you that Tim is nice, and very smart; you can be sure that he had a good reason for his reversions. Speaking for myself (who am not so smart), the disagreement may hinge on the choice of words; in English, we generally distinguish between the virus and the disease, i.e., we treat them as two separate things. More generally, please allow me to encourage you to log in under your user name, Pablo2garcia, to assume good faith and to continue contributing! Con affetto! :) Willow 03:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim!

Hi, Tim, I just realized that I forgot to do what I came here for last night, namely, to thank you for your help and insights on the Cyclol FAC. I'm really out of my depth when it comes to the philosophy of science, and never imagined that there would be much debate about the cyclol episode illustrating scientific method. I confess, I dread having to read those 20^th century philosophers; they don't seem to have very lyrical terminology and I'm sure it will be tough going for my poor brain. :( Hopefully, your edits will resolve the objection. :) Willow 12:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Anon uses a source I can't access

Please check this edit if you would. Similar edits have occured in the past. I can't access the sources being used, and its an anon, and I don't believe what is being said. So I reveted it. But I might be wrong. WAS 4.250 06:50, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Cloning article

I agree in principle with your comment posted on the SCNT page. I would however suggest that A) The aforementioned article deals with both reproductive and therapeutic cloning, B) There is no reproductive cloning page on Wikipedia and C) Somatic cell nuclear transfer (SCNT) *is* both reproductive and therapeutic cloning as this is the core procedure in both cases, thus I believe it is pertinent to include a discussion of these forms of cloning from a personal perspective so I have re-included the webpage. Regards, George

Mitosis

I can't say enough how helpful of an editor you are. Thank you. :) – ClockworkSoul 23:25, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria

Firstly, good on ya for all of your work on those citations! Some of the more fantastic (yet true!) claims in that article may still need to be cited, such as "There are more bacterial cells on each of our bodies than there are cells of our own". I'd also like to see a bit more information about bacteria's use as a bio-factory for "and more recently, the industrial production of antibiotics and other chemicals." I thought that only E. coli used as such? Again, congratulations on all of your hard work - hopefully it'll be recognised by the GA reviewers. - Malkinann 02:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Can bacteria really live in nuclear waste? - Malkinann 19:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

No worries - you did the work here, not me! I am in awe of your citation-fu, especially with the scientific literature - my own 'pet' GA is Great Barrier Reef, and it's not nearly so well cited. In Bacteria, you might also want to link to terms that a non-science reader wouldn't understand, such as µm and morphology. Running it through Word's spell check may also be a good idea - it might pick up some stuff that you've missed. - Malkinann 23:23, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Why does the infobox say Bacterium if the domain is called Bacteria? - Malkinann 01:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

...and its peer review

A quick skim suggests that this article is no exception to your usual quality of work. I'll give it a good serious read tonight and add my thoughts to the review. – ClockworkSoul 23:21, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

I've looked the article over and it's in very nice shape indeed. I've made a few changes (let me know if you are wondering about any of them). I'm not satisfied, though, with the Groups and Identification section; there needs to be more discussion of stains other than Gram stains, and of selective media, and of aerobic and anaerobic culture. These need to be at least mentioned, though I appreciate the need not to put too much detail in the main article. I'll work on it after the current flurry of activity on the article calms down, as I don't want to lose anyone else's changes in edit conflict. - Nunh-huh 20:09, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on that section later tonight, so don't worry if you want to edit it now. (Also please make sure the spore section reads the way you prefer, I fear I may have accidently not incorporated some of your more recent changes.) - Nunh-huh 20:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm done with it for the moment, feel free to leave feedback or edit mercilessly. I am concerned, though, about an error that keeps creeping back in:

Some species, known as opportunistic pathogens, do not usually grow inside a host and cause human disease only in immunosuppressed people. Many species of these bacteria, including Staphylococcus or Pseudomonas species, can cause sepsis, a systemic infection producing shock, massive vasodilation, and death.

Neither Staphylococcus nor Pseudomonas are considered opportunistic pathogens, and both cause disease in non-immunosuppressed hosts, though they can have predelictions for specific forms of immunosuppression (Staphylococci for Job's syndrome, pseudomonas for diabetics or those with cystic fibrosis, etc.) - Nunh-huh 02:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you found my review helpful. The article is coming along quite nicely. I will try and give it another close looks shortly. --Birgitte§β ʈ Talk 01:49, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for my perhaps drastic comments, but you did ask for peer review :)DGG 05:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Featured article medal

Moved to trophy case. TimVickers 16:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Enzyme graph

Tim, I'm not sure if you've noticed but Richard001 (talk · contribs) raised an issue on the Enzyme talk page regarding a graph in the Thermodynamics section of the article. As you are a "maintainer" of Enzyme I'd appreciate your input on this — it would only take me a couple of minutes to amend the graph, if necessary. (feel free to reply on Enzyme talk) Thanks, Fvasconcellos 16:34, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Right — I went ahead and changed it a bit. New version at Talk:Enzyme, comments welcome (I know you're busy with Bacteria. Sorry for the bother.) Fvasconcellos 19:05, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Image request

Firstly, thank you for the kind words, I'm glad I could help. Secondly, I'm working on Relative_scale.svg as I type this. It may take a while as I'm having some minor hardware trouble, but rest assured your request will be granted :) Thanks again, Fvasconcellos 14:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Granted. Hope it looks good. Fvasconcellos 15:31, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Cladistics

Tim, this is an article in need of WP:FAR: I was hoping to nominate it at a time that you might be able to help work on the improvements. 1) Are you interested, and 2) if so, when would be a good time to nom it? (PS - the vandalism level on Influenza and Tuberculosis continues to surprise me - do you think we should request semi-protection, which would prevent IPs from editing?) Sandy (Talk) 16:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Tim - I'll ping Opabinia. Sandy (Talk) 16:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria

You're late - already been there, done that :-) Sandy (Talk) 17:34, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Flighty review of Bacteria

Hey, Tim, great work with Bacteria! I haven't had a chance to really review it, but here are some things you might consider adding/changing:

• I would mention the agricultural use of antibiotics, esp. as contributing to antibiotic resistance.

Done.

• Bacterial secretion systems (type I, II, III, IV) should be mentioned, no? They might tie in neatly with your pili discussion under Structure and could come right after the Movement section that discussed flagellae; the type III pili are, if I recall correctly, distantly related to the flagellae. The type III secretion system is also a vivid example for discussing virulence.

Added a brief mention of these at the end of the Extracellular structures section.

• Bacteriophages might merit more "air time" than just as a method for transformation. The hunter becomes the hunted and all that... ;)

Bacteriophages added.

• Maybe give the Gram-positive/Gram-negative distinction more air time, too? People are likely to have encountered that in popular literature, and it informs the understanding of antibiotics and their resistance.

Added mention of vancomycin as example of antibiotic ineffective on Gram-negatives.

• Lists of diseases show up at various places; you might want to put the bacterium in parentheses after its corresponding disease? You know, like cholera (Vibrio cholerae), bubonic plague (Yersinia pestis), etc.

I tried doing this but it expanded the lists to the point of unreadability, so I reverted it. If you click on any of the disease links the causative agent is there at the beginning of each article, so I don't think adding a second link to the pathogen really gains us much.

• I think "Archaea" is misspelled in the 2nd paragraph of "Origin and early evolution".

Fixed.

• Maybe more discussion of inter-bacterial communication and coordination of gene regulation, e.g., in the sporulation discussion on the Myxobacteria? The reader should realize just how amazing all that is.

Added ref and link to quorum sensing.

• Plastids derived from cyanobacteria, right? I'm pretty sure they did not derive from Rhodobacter sphaeroides and other purple bacteria.

Changed to "Cyanobacterial-like organisms" with better ref.

• Perhaps include vancomycin and other cell-wall inhibitors among the antibiotics? They're in the popular press and an important strategy. More generally, perhaps mention that drug designers look for protein targets that are found in bacterial metabolism but not in mammalian, e.g., the folate synthesis pathway?

Mechanism of selective toxicity is already mentioned in antibiotic section of Pathogens. Vancomycin added to Gram positive/negative discussion.

Gotta run, but hope that this helps; nice to hear from you again! :) Willow 18:17, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

P.S. Some of the phyla in the infobox may not be right. I think Thermomicrobia is a taxonomic class of the phylum Chloroflexi, whereas the Lentisphaerae phylum is not listed with the "Chlamydia/Verrucomicrobia" superphylum. Ta! Willow 18:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

As of 2004, Thermomicrobia were still their own phylum, I can't find if this proposal (added ref in Thermomicrobia article) was adopted. Added Lentisphaerae

Bugs

"Bacteria" is in looking good, but the paragraph we were back and forth over is still bothering me. The reasons I don't much care for this:

Pathogenic bacteria differ in their extent of specialisation. Some bacteria have evolved to become highly-specialised parasites. For example, Chlamydia are a phylum of bacteria that can grow and reproduce only within the cells of other organisms. These pathogens cause the disease chlamydia and may be involved in coronary heart disease. Other obligate intracellular parasites include the Rickettsia, which cause typhus and Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Other species of bacteria, including Staphylococcus aureus or Pseudomonas aeruginosa can either be commensal, or can cause diseases such as sepsis, a systemic infection producing shock, massive vasodilation, and death. Finally, some species, known as opportunistic pathogens, rarely grow inside a host and cause disease mainly in immunosuppressed people.

...are hard to specify. It starts specific, goes general, returns to specific. It calls sepsis an infection, which isn't quite right (it's the response to an infection). And the idea that opportunistic pathogens "rarely grow inside a host" is true in one sense, but misleading in another (every time they are found, they are in a host....) Have a look and see if you think the following does the job any better:

The spectrum of disease caused by any given bacterial species can be very wide, or very narrow. Some organisms, such as Staphylococcus or streptococcus, can cause skin infections, pneumonia, meningitis, and even overwhelming sepsis, a systemic inflammatory response producing shock, massive vasodilation, and death. Yet these organisms are also part of the normal human flora, existing on the skin or in the nose without causing any disease at all. Other organisms are associated with a narrower spectrum of disease, such as the Rickettsia, which are obligate intracellular parasites able to grow and reproduce only within the cells of other organisms. One species of Rickettsia causes typhus, while another causes Rocky Mountain spotted fever. Chlamydia, another phylum of obligate intracellular parasites, contains species that can cause pneumonia, or urinary tract infection, and may be involved in coronary heart disease. Finally, some species, such as Mycobacterium avium, are opportunistic pathogens, and cause disease mainly in immunosuppressed people.

-Nunh-huh 18:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good, I made some changes (see if you approve) and pasted it in. Thank you. TimVickers 20:39, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

We're getting there, but I still have some reservations. For example, "A spectrum of interactions with human hosts can be shown by any given bacterial species. " is literally true but fairly tautological; I would think that the important thing to point out is that specific organisms have specific spectra. "Any given pathogenic species has a specific spectrum of interactions with its human hosts". I also don't think it's quite right to say that Rickettsia invariably cause disease (they don't seem to be causing disease while living in the tick, for example). Maybe it should become or "Other organisms almost always indicate infection when found in humans"? - Nunh-huh 21:10, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Good points, reworded to try to cover these. TimVickers 21:21, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it's unobjectionable now :) - and on it's way to FA. Congratulations on the success of your hard work! - Nunh-huh 22:58, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm hoping that my rewording makes the readers quake in awe of its glory. - Nunh-huh 00:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

peer review of bacteria

I couldn't even read the article yet, congrats for the nomination anyway. Just one question: wikipedia's peer review reviewers are supposed to be scientists, or at least formal students of something related, or just anyone who wants to cooperate?--Extremophile 20:40, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Tuberculosis check

Tim, please check this edit - while reverting a bunch of vandalism and unsourced edits, I accidentally deleted this (and later re-added it), but I'm not sure if it's correct. [1] Sandy (Talk) 15:26, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: Bacteria

Pretty good, but I'd like to see sources for the first paragraph of intellectular structures, the second paragraph of Extracellular structures, first paragraph of Metabolism, and the second paragraph of Growth and reproduction. Hurricanehink (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Cool, I'm convinced. Hurricanehink (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Citation

Thanks, I was wondering about that. --Eubanks718 22:51, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

RE: Cathedral Architecture

Yeah Mate, better have it out and be done with it! I can't help wishing that the first person to assess the article had been some undergrad in architecture who could use the info contained therein, rather than a pedantic middle aged boy scout with his toggle in a twist! --Amandajm 23:35, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Tim! just took a look at Bacteria. What a great article! --Amandajm 00:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More Bacterial suggestions

The article looks beautiful — way to go! I made a few minor changes (spelling, examples, capitalization,...) myself but please let me encourage you to make a special subsection on "Membranes and cell wall" under Bacterial Structure, i.e., in addition to the "Intra-" and "Extra-cellular structures". It seems like a good way of grouping and, I think, would allow you to better describe the structural distinction between, say, Proteobacteria and Firmicutes. The lay reader should really get the 1-membrane/2-membrane distinction early on, wouldn't you agree? Maybe I'm just being parochial, though. Willow 12:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S. You might want to add more about food spoilage, the importance of sterile technique in, e.g., molecular biology and brewing, nocosomial infections, the rise of pan-resistant bacteria and maybe virulence mechanisms; the average lay-person might be curious how tiny bacteria can actually kill you or hurt you. Role/effects of metal ions, particularly iron and copper, would be cool, but possibly too technical; the same is true for a discussion of the variety of carbon sources/"diets" that bacteria can have. Just a few random thoughts from an appreciative reader, Willow 15:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions, but at 82kb(!!) I'm putting my editorial foot down and saying nothing more goes in unless there is a balancing removal of material. Thanks for the appreciation, it's much appreciated! TimVickers 17:16, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!

– ClockworkSoul 14:46, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria FA

Congrats on another winner! – ClockworkSoul 05:21, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Second that — next, please! (Argh, I shouldn't have been offline yesterday... wish I could have been the first to congratulate you :) Fvasconcellos 13:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, but the credit isn't mine, it was a lot of hard work from a lot of people, especially the reviewers! TimVickers 16:19, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tim! I'm sorry for not giving any comments, feedbacks on the bacteria FAC, I've been recently busy in the university. Hope I can help next time, BTW congrats for your other FA. :) NCurse _work 06:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Re:Protection

Human has now been semi-protected. I declined then because I felt it wasn't necessary to protect at that time. Nishkid64 15:22, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Molecules

How did you make this image? (ie.what software) TDN 12:05, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism central

Watch out. David D. (Talk) 05:59, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim, are you aware of what's been going on all week on the main page featured articles? I was working against the vandals when Down syndrome was up, and it's bad - they attack the templates and images that are used in the article, so that it's harder to find and revert the vandalism. There has now been a suggestion that templates and images should be protected before going to the main page, but admins are still debating. You might want to get up on that discussion - which is all over the place - before the 15th. Some of it has been happening at ANI,[2] [3] have a look at the talk page of Down syndrome, some is at Wikipedia talk:Main page, and some is at Wikipedia talk:Main Page featured article protection. tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) or Samsara (talk · contribs) may be helpful in getting templates and images protected before you go to the main page. Sandy (Talk) 19:01, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Just a note to make sure you check in on discussion on Samsara's page. Sandy (Talk) 17:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

WP:ELAC

FYI, Psycho is 53KB, TS is 71, and Influenza is 75KB. Welcome to the extra-long club, aka Nineteen Eighty-Four (we shall be reported to the "committee"). And those nasty Bacteria are 83 !! Commentary begins here, and is long. (I'll help out on the 15th.) Sandy (Talk) 12:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I will be particular glad to help you discourage some of the more aggressive measures than the above. I remain there only because I can perhaps influence them more that way. One or two are close associates here. DGG 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Tim, be sure to answer the question here, so your vote won't be discounted: Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Extra-Long Article Committee/Incidents. Sandy (Talk) 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

DNA Vandal

He appears to have been more or less inactive for a while. If he turns up, though, we can always re-protect. – ClockworkSoul 05:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

24.180.19.26

Hi Tim,

Thanks for reporting this vandal on WP:AIV. I decided not to block him at this time, because he hasn't received a vandalism warning since November 9th. I've given him a warning now, though. I'll keep an eye on him. Canderson7 ^(talk) 17:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Bacteria

Shiny thing moved to main page

• Well deserved -- Samir धर्म 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Month confusion

I've done that at least three times in the past week alone. Don't sweat it; just keep vandal-fighting.--Kchase T 18:44, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Flu and Verify-ability

You just deleted three references that I and every person on the web can access to verify Wikipedia content and replaced it with two sources that when I and many others try to read them say "This item is restricted. Subscribers have full text access and guests have some free access. SIGN IN or see below for access options." Verify-ability is reduced by deleting those three. Please restore at least one. WAS 4.250 23:29, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Request

Dear Tim,

I noticed that you have a lot of experience with getting articles to FA status. I have been working on the Ohio Wesleyan University page article and am trying to get it to FA status. I was wondering if you could provide some advice on how the article can be improved? Also, any contributions to it will be even more appreciated! Thank you so much for your time! I greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 01:50, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Smile

§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

--§Sir James Paul<<--wikiholic§ 04:32, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Adoption

Hi Tim,

Saw that you contacted a user about Adopting, even if you do not get to adopt this user - I hope you come along to WP:ADOPT and join the program. Cheers Lethaniol 17:30, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Happy Holidays!!!

Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may your wishes be fulfilled in 2007! Fvasconcellos 16:37, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

I am, thanks :) Fvasconcellos 17:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Influenza 2

Tim, Samsara is absent from Wiki - not sure what's up there. Try tariq (I can't remember his full name - I think I left it on your takl page earlier). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Here it is tariqabjotu (talk · contribs) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

And Hi to you too!

Hi Tim. Thanks for the welcome!! Yep, I am a fellow Scot. I studied just an hour away from you in Aberdeen, but like you, after getting my PhD I took off to work in the US (D'oh...there goes my anonymity ;-)). Thanks for the nice words about the work I've done here on the immunology pages, at least I know I'm heading things in the right direction. I had just started with filling in gaps of info I wanted to find here (but couldn't) in wikipedia, and then got totally hooked! You're right, there's a lot missing in the immunology section, so hopefully the few regular editors will not give up!! I'm happy to help you as best I can with your immunology questions, so fire away. And I'm sure if I have a parasite question, I'll be knocking on your door. Which reminds me...for tomorrow...HAPPY HOGMANAY!! Cheers, Ciar 20:22, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

From me too!! Thanks you so much for you wonderful changes to the article. Damn you ask some good questions, I had to (unknowingly) scour some pretty dirty pages to find some of those answers. Again, I really appreciate it, I had a look at the DNA article, great work, but 9 other people had already voted to support, so I just thought I'd tell you. So, what do you think my chances are?--DO11.10 03:37, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Influenza images question

Hi Tim - don't know if you saw Samsara's userpage, but he's not around much these days. I protected the templates that weren't already protected on influenza, but I've been mostly on vacation and am still catching up with things around here - do you know what's been done with images on commons lately? In the past, I remember seeing some temporarily copied here and protected, and some protected there, and some left alone, but don't know if that was a function of a discussion or just how easy it was to poke a commons admin. Opabinia regalis 08:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

The only image left is Image:Flu_und_legende_color_c.jpg, which is on commons with an obsolete PD tag. It's not immediately obvious to me where it came from when it was originally uploaded to de. Opabinia regalis 18:25, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Lineweaver-Burk

Hi Tim,

So all those LB plots are just a plot. Hah. Do you have an example of a publication that says what was fitted to what? I just fitted Michaelis Menten with Gnuplot, and used the asymptotic standard error reported for the parameters as a confidence interval, giving me weightings for my next curve fit: 1/vmax vs inhibitor concentration and km vs inhibitor concentration. In my ignorance, I just plotted that, my reasoning being that if you see a slope on km vs [I], there's competitive inhibition going on, and if you see a slope on 1/vmax vs [I], there's non-competitive inhibition going on. My prof. said that everyone plots Lineweaver Burke, and that's exactly what I saw in the literature. --Slashme 01:45, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the article, very instructive! --Slashme 02:23, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Taurine / aa pool

Hi, I deleted the sentence in article Taurine where you refer to its making up a percentage of the intracellular amino acid pool - because it conflicts with the next paragraph which specifically explains that taurine is not an amino acid. I am not a biochemist, and I don't know exactly what significance the information you were putting in has, but I think it should be reformulated before being inserted again. I think it is important to keep the information about taurine not being an amino acid, because people do associate amino acids with protein, whereas taurine has nothing particular to do with taurine. David Olivier 17:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks, Tim - that is very much appreciated. I'm afraid I've been frustrated and ineffective on reverting the vandalism: I don't know if my computer is just too slow, or if those ELAC cops were right, but I just can't pull the history up fast enough to revert before someone else does, so I should probably stop trying. Happy New Year there ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I don't think I can revert this as vandalism - it could be a good faith edit - but I'm not sure it's correct? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Immuno Ref

Hi Tim, Sorry I have been away. I used the fifth and sixth editions of Janeway to break up the number of refs that came from one source (which, by the way, is the seminal Immunolgy textbook) they basically have the same information. If you want to compile that is fine with me, but the fifth edition is available as a free full text resource, so I think that the fifth edition should definently be an external link, probably the first one on the list. Again, thanks for all of your hard work, the article has really come along nicely!--DO11.10 01:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Thx

Thank you, Tim, for the barnstart; but sometimes I feel as though I come across as a cranky old man.

I've only recently realised the value of the google status of WP articles. That's why I've started turning bits of my PhD dissertation into a WP article. It's languished in the library dungeon for years, and I have no career need to turn it into journal articles. Within four days it was the top hit on Google! Embarrassing. Tony 01:13, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Immune system FA

Hi Sandy. We have gone through this article and made some improvements. Could you have a look at the new draft and see what you think? Thanks. TimVickers 17:54, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hey, Tim. I looked at it last night and noticed the *vast* improvement. But, as a layperson, I'm having a hard time with it. Without a background in biology or medicine, there are many parts I don't expect to be able to thoroughly digest (and it doesn't trouble me if some sections are over my head), but unlike DNA or Enzyme stuff (and more like Tuberculosis), as a layperson, I do expect to be able to understand certain sections of this article. If a family member has an immune-related illness, I want to be able to digest certain parts of this article, even without a biology background. Can you all run through it again with people like me in mind, and then I'll have another look? In particular, can the lead be made more non-biologist-friendly, for folks like me? The lead dives straight in to some very technical stuff. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim, I only know of these procedures from Tourette syndrome (PANDAS hypothesis) - don't know if any mention of them is warranted in the article? I understand that Intravenous immunoglobulin (IVIG) and Plasmapheresis (plasma exchange) are dangerous and unproven treatments in PANDAS, but accepted for other immune deficiencies. Maybe rather than in the System article, they belong somewhere like Immunodeficiency (?) - I can't find an article specifically relating to the various diseases. Or maybe they belong in the treatment section of Autoimmunity - there seem to be a lot of overlapping articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, I have had a good long look at the article and fixed a few things that were questionable. On the whole, the article looks great. Too bad you can't clone yourself so that every article could be improved the way this one has. While I am a bit sorry that I recommended the article for FA, (apparently I vastly over-estimated my abilities) I am really glad that it has gotten so much attention, and I think that you are really to thank for that. Cheers--DO11.10 00:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Nah, don't say that about yourself, DO11 - there's a whole lot of overhead that goes into writing Wikified text, that has little relationship to your knowledge or abilities - you've done a great job, and I'm sure you'll write greater articles still :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy and Tim, I do feel really good about the article as it is now. I have a small question, should I note my support of the new version on the cantidates page? (I really just don't know if that is the proper protocol.)--DO11.10 17:33, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks Tim. I really appreciate it. I'll come out the other side eventually, more or less intact. – ClockworkSoul 22:31, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Heya Tim. Thanks again for your word, and for your help with the project. :) I'm starting to come to terms with things, so my activity will slowly start to approach normalcy over the next couple of weeks. – ClockworkSoul 21:21, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Mycobacterium

I started working at Wikipedia:WikiProject League of Copyeditors (for a change of pace from FAC and FAR), and found that Mycobacterium is requesting a copyedit, in case you're interested in helping out the LoCE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:19, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: DNA

I understand. I'll admit, I'm a little anal about sourcing, but I believe that everything needs to be sourced. If the references are at the beginning of the section, those refs can just be used again. If looking cluttered is a fear, then all of the sources for the paragraph could be placed at the end of the paragraph. Hurricanehink (talk) 01:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines is only a guideline, which I have vigorously opposed (at least until I got bored with the topic droning on for months and months). The guiding *policy* for FAs is WP:V, which IMO, those *guidelines* run afoul of. They came about because the math/physics groups disagreed with some editors at WP:GA who wanted them to cite their articles. The guiding policy is that a cite should be provided when one is requested. The "guideline" might be useful for internal ranking of articles that don't intend to approach WP:GAC or WP:FAC, but not for WP:WIAFA, which relies on WP:V policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

sknaht

Sorry about being so backward in my thanks, but I only just discovered your get-well wishes, which made me laugh — or at least made me try to laugh. ;) I seem to have misplaced my lungs, although I'm sure they'll turn up somewhere; I've resorted to buccal breathing, in respectful and appreciative solidarity with our amphibian friends ;)

One thing occurred to me in my languid repose: we should discuss the age dependence of the immune system. You know, how young toddlers seem to have super-charged immune systems (important for surviving day-care) whereas older people get sick more readily? One cute factoid I gleaned from a dentist was that older people get a lot more cavities because they have dry mouths; producing less saliva means fewer protective peptides and they suck on sweet lozenges to wet their whistles, providing a nice diet of pure sucrose for their unwelcome guests. Anyway, speaking more generally, I think that lay readers would be really interested in the whole age-dependence thing, as it touches all their lives. Maybe someone there can look into it? I'll try to tackle the hormonal thing.

Slinking back to bed, Willow

P.S. For someone with "very poor memory", you're remarkably good at remembering our MCB votes. ;) (Note to self: recalibrate scale for Tim's self-assessments.) Thanks muchly for your own vote of confidence, and I'll be happy to relieve you of the more mundane tasks, once I get well again. Hopefully, ClockworkSoul will recover before I do!

Thanks so much for your kind words, and the shiny thing; your work on DNA and immune system were just stellar! :D Someday, I swear, if you're patient with me, I'll explain Laplace-Runge-Lenz vector and you'll appreciate how beautiful she is. :) Willow 12:23, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. It's very heartening to see that our friend is recovering; well done, Tim! The shepherdess life recalls her flock to herself, even those that stray into sorrow; few are lost.

Recent edit to DNA

Tim, would you mind having a look at this edit, specifically the article "cited"? The information it presents could be a nice future addition—correctly presented, that is—and a quick explanation as to its contents might be in order if the user who added this "citation" does it again. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 15:12, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't mean the DNA article specifically; I'm not sure how relevant this information would be. It seemed to me a "new" development, and I don't know how it will pan out (i.e., is it broadly accepted in the scientific community), so I'll leave it to you to decide whether it could be useful :) I'm a bit busy today, but I'll have a look at immune system as soon as I can. Glad to see the "FA machine" is hard at work... :) Fvasconcellos 21:00, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the DNA link hastily, but thought it was interesting. I didn't edit it or place it correctly because I figured it would be deleted in a flash - which it was. wikipedia is popular knowledge. Wyatt 17:35, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Immune System

Here's some things off the top of my head. Some citations are needed. Like the other article, I think there are a few too many sentences in parenthesis. There are four times when the article says to see elsewhere, which doesn't seem like compelling prose. I just noticed, "To meet this challenge" in the lede, and I think it should be reworded (it's a bit trite. I would rewrite some of the image captions, as some are a bit too long. Are there any differences in the immune system of the human or any other animal? It says in the lede that multiple organisms have evolved to recognize and neutralize pathogens, but is it all, or have some notable ones not evolved it? Hurricanehink (talk) 01:59, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

as for the animal immune systems, there are differences, minor tho. All jawed vertebrates (I sure hope I'm not wrong) have more or less the same 'design' in immunity. They all rely on antibodies, t-cells, B-cells, and other white blood cells. Adenosine^talk 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Tim!! Ohh, pretty, shiny medal. Thanks again for all of your hard work, I know that if it hadn't been for you the article never would have made it. If you ever need anything (even grunt work) drop me a line, I owe you a few favors.--DO11.10 23:44, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Ta very muckle for the medal Tim...although I don't feel I really deserve it for my puny bit of effort compared to you and DO11.10, it sure brightens up my talk page...and my day!! Thanks! and good luck with your next venture!!! Ciar 05:51, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:

Hi Tim,

Thank you so much for your comments. I followed them and I followed all of the suggestionst that were made on the PR for Ohio Wesleyan University. Do you mind taking a look one last time when you get a chance? I'd greatly appreciate it! WikiprojectOWU 19:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Nature as FA?

I'm so glad that Nature made GA; I was a little hesitant to edit it beforehand, for fear of messing up its chances. How does it get decided? I don't know much about the GA process.

It'd be great to bring Nature to FA, no? I'd like to help — ideally, together with all the other interested editors. I don't want to ruin the article with poorly considered additions, though, so maybe I'll begin by making a subpage on my userpage, where I can tinker with new sections until they're ready.

Regarding the order/structure, I was thinking that we could go from the most comprehensive (eg., universe, physics) to the most specific (e.g., life on Earth) conceptions of Nature, or the reverse. Starting with the latter seems advantageous, since it's the most popular meaning of Nature and allows for more beautiful Figures, not just abstract reasoning. I would be grateful for your ideas on the best organization, though. Willow 21:27, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your wonderfully constructive ideas for Sweater design; I'm much heartened and more hopeful than I was this morning. You are so good for Wikipedia, we scarcely deserve you.

Instead of doing what I should, though, I worked a little more on those Nature notes. They're poorly written, incomplete and unreferenced, but I was wondering if you would look them over to see whether you thought they even belonged under Nature. They seem pertinent to me, but they're kind of different from what's there already. I wouldn't want to mess anything up there; I suppose I should be bold, but I'm not. Willow 00:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks and congrats!

Thanks Tim! And your suggestions were helpful as always. Congratulations on both DNA and your rewrite of immune system - how do you do it? I posted this somewhere in this thread - if you ever get sick of research, you certainly have a future in science writing. I can't seem to find an appropriate shiny thing that you don't already and deservedly possess, so unshiny words will have to do :) Opabinia regalis 01:56, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Hi there

Hi, Tim. I'm doing better every day. :) Thank you for thinking of me: it's exactly the thing I need sometimes. – ClockworkSoul 03:47, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Welcome

Hi Tim, and welcome to the League. We always appreciate any help we can get. Rintrah 09:27, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Resource Exchange

Welcome to the Resource Exchange! ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 14:56, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

My Stem Cell Diagram

Thanks for alerting me to my missing picture. I am not as familiar with Wikipedia internal operations as I could be, but isn't everything backed up and stored forever? I can't seem to find any entry about it on 'images for deletion.' Do you have any idea how I could start tracking this down? I lost my original copy in my great computer crash of 2006.. Thanks again Adenosine^talk 18:29, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Tim, saw your request at the Village Pump - check directly with an admin for help, as they can access the history on deleted articles, and found out what's up. Yomangani (talk · contribs) may help, or JzG (talk · contribs). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:53, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Invitation

Hi Tim!

You're probably busy right now, but I wanted to return your kind favour and invite you to look over Encyclopædia Britannica, which might be trotting off to FA within a month or two. I've been adding a lot over the past few days, but the article seems to be reaching saturation — or I am ;). In particular, if you could look over the "2nd version of the 15th edition" section of the History, I'd appreciate it. I'm not sure if I understand myself, but my text there and perhaps in a few other places (Contributors?) turned out to be a little — vinegary, or at least, ummm, dessicated. If you had any ideas on how to keep the content but lose the snark, my sweeter self would thank you. Willow 22:21, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Amino acid

Thanks. Good work on your part too! I'd love to get that one up to GA—pretty important topic for both intro science students and lay folk. I'm on off-line vacation for the next week, but will work on it week after. DMacks 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: My Disease

OK, interesting. thanks --froth^T 23:37, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Metformin

Thank you for passing metformin as a Good Article, and for your edits. Guess I have to remember to flip the jargon switch when I'm editing! Fvasconcellos 14:10, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Better Source Request for Image:SAM.png

Thanks for uploading Image:SAM.png. You provided a source, but it is difficult for other users to examine the copyright status of the image because the source is incomplete. Please consider clarifying the exact source so that the copyright status may be checked more easily. It is best to specify the exact web page where you found the image, rather than only giving the source domain or the URL of the image file itself. Please update the image description with a URL that will be more helpful to other users in determining the copyright status.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source in a complete manner. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page or me at my talkpage. Thank you. MECU≈talk 17:24, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!

– ClockworkSoul 19:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

SPAM

Thanks for the SPAM, Tim. :) Good days and bad days, you know how it goes. I'm in the lab all day today, so I can't say it's necessarily bad... – ClockworkSoul 23:37, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

• At last, a way to keep my cats safe! Thanks again Tim! :) – ClockworkSoul 04:28, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Help with "Malaria"

Hi Tim. Kurt (Kurtrik) here. I am having one of my wikipedia spells again, and was wondering if there were still things that you had lined up for the malaria article that you haven't gotten around to doing. If you get this message in time, I might put my free MLK day to good use by working on the article. Let me know (on my talk page).

I've revamped the vaccination section. I fear I may have included too much history. It is, in my opinion, relevant to how we've got to where we are today, but maybe not relevant for the general malaria article? I don't know. I won't be upset if it's changed/eliminated in the future. Kurtrik 22:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Gene

I've tweaked it further: It's now accurate, to within my ability to describe a complicated subject, but rather too complicated. Can we simplify it without losing precision, or, alternately, put something before the precise definition that's a bit easier to understand? Adam Cuerden ^talk 21:43, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Re enzyme

Argh, sorry about that. I seem to be developing an unhealthy prejudice against IP edits... Fvasconcellos 13:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Bacteria and humans sub-articles

Hi Tim :) Congratulations on getting Bacteria on the main page. Whilst looking at the bacteria-related articles a while ago, I noticed that there are two articles that seem to me that they could be merged. Bacteria in the human body and Bacteria and human health. Do you think that they could be merged? I'd thought B and health would be a subsection of B and human body. Thanks for your thoughts on this. - Malkinann 03:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

moved

Hi back

I'm (finally) getting back to your comment that you left on my discussion page. I wasn't sure how to respond (being relatively new to the wikipedia), but finally it occurs to me that I should just leave a comment on your discussion page.

It is unfortunate that there isn't a consistent REF standard. However, what I think I was trying to do, is where possibly, I'm trying to use a standard where I can also leave a link to a URL that contains the contents of the actual paper (in case a person wants to read the original.) I think that's especially helpful and educational for scientific papers.

Clemwang 01:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Re: Avian malaria

Done. It was established so long ago that you usually don't hear citations of the original papers, it's mostly more specific now. I think the one I found is general enough though. KarlM 17:14, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Hello Tim, I just stumbled across some of your contributions and I would like to say that it seems you do first rate work. I wonder if you might be interested in looking over an article which has a molecular biological basis? The article is Baby Gender Mentor. It is a current GA and I have nominated for FA here. It looks likely to pass. So far there are 4 supports and no opposes. However, I think only one of those people (so far as I know) has a strong molecular biology background. If you have any suggestions for how to improve the article further, I would love to hear them. Best, Johntex\^talk 05:38, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tim, thank you very much for your review.

• I re-phrased those sentences to make clear these are claims coming from the company.
• I retitled that section to "Initial media attention" to be more neutral.
• I updated Ref 31 with the PMID feature as well as the {{cite journal}} template.
• Unfortunately, the Boston Globe does not cite their primary source for the study on births in India, so I have to stick with just citing the secondary source. Fortunately, it is a reputable source, so I don't think it is ia problem.

What do you think? Johntex\^talk 19:20, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much for e-mailing me the PDF. That is a very interesting paper. It does not contain the exact same fact reported by the Boston Globe. Therefore, I re-worked that little section to use the over-all figures for India based upon the Prenat Diagn paper and provided the citation. Then, I still cite the fact reported by the Boston Globe as a secondary fact. The advantage to the Boston Globe article is that the full text is available on-line to check, while the Prenat Diagn paper is not. The abstract is available at PubMed, but the abstract does not mention the specific fact. Look OK? Johntex\^talk 21:06, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you so much! It means a lot to have the support of an editor such as yourself. Hopefully I will see you around on other articles soon. Johntex\^talk 21:32, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

looking for a moderator and/or contributors

Physics is being rewritten and we are looking for contributors and/or moderators at Talk:Physics/wip Do you have any suggestions? --Filll 16:46, 27 January 2007 (UTC)