Jump to content

User talk:Samsara/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frog

Wow, I looked down the edit history of the article. Frogs must be invading your dreams by now. You've done some great work there. Joyous | Talk 15:14, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I see frogs are your baby..
So,have you heard about the virus that has been killing frogs, and the one that gives birth to live babies? I suppose one does not always have to import frogs for use at medical school. Stellenbosch University used to breed or farm their own supply of Plat-annas. PS in afrikaans plat means flat..Have fun..Gregorydavid 07:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Natural Selection

Thanks for supporting 'compromise edit'! — Axel147 15:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind. I actually should have checked the talk page before I edited, and was kinda embarassed to find out it had already been discussed at such a length. --Fritz Saalfeld (Talk) 12:23, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Modifications to evolutionary psychology page

Hi. I recently made some modifications to the evolutionary psychology page, with some comments on the talk page. Care to check it out and offer some feedback? EPM 19:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Variation and selection

Sorry about the whole tiff on Talk:Natural selection, which apparently has caused your wikibreak. But i did want to thank you for linking the 1911 article I'm trying to move. Alba 03:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I needed to find which pages linked to candidate gene beyond the QG template. I think the natural selection page needs desperate attention, from some science people. Maybe you will show up in a later stage. --KimvdLinde 11:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you quitter  ;) joking aside, you should read sober's book (nature of selection) in your wiki break if you are serious about the selection article. allowing aficionados who read monumental fin-de-siecle oeuvres by naivo-philopautic naturalists to walk all over you and to send you running like a poddle is good neither for you nor for the article. 15:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Merge of Quantitative Trait Gene with QTL

Hi Samsara,

thank you for your comment. While I strongly disagree that QTL and QTG are the same thing, a merger of the two might be helpful for a larger rewrite of the QTL, indeed. The QTG in my humble understanding is the gene identified as a biological explaination for the statistically observed quantitative trait locus. As a more than theoretical comment: a single QTL is not unlikely to have multiple QTGs, like with a strong epistatic effect that that may never have been separated because of their chromosomal proximity.

I do not mind a merger, but it would be a bit of work, I recon.

Curiously awaiting your comments...

Steffen

AID

 Thank you for your support of the Article Improvement Drive.
This week Contact lens was selected to be improved to featured article status.
Hope you can help…

Scala Naturae - Great Chain of Being

Great Chain of Being is (I think) usually synonymous with scala naturae... I suppose some redirects are in order. It's the selected article right now for Portal:History of science, but it could definitely be expanded.--ragesoss 02:27, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry

I missed you on IRC. I can usually be found in #wikipedia-esperanza, but I was working yesterday. pschemp | talk 14:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

nat sel

feel free to simplify the sentence structure. see it's a game now. i want to see how long the right stuff must be out there and keep being reversed for others to get upset with pulverstein and the genious axel (axel removed the idiocy of species being hard to define bcse of natsel though, credit be given) ;)

by the way, you should read sober's book. it's major stuff. although he has a mess when he includes genes in the causal chain of natsel events (this is a really subtle point so don't become apoplectic). i was talking to van valen on sunday about that and we may write an article.

but reading sober's book will focus your tongue enormously, believe me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marcosantezana (talk • contribs)

Frog FAC

Hey Philipp,

The frog peer review has been pretty slow, and there have been no entries into it for a while. Do you want to put it through FAC yet. If yes, could you reply as soon as possible as I would like to do it in the next couple of hours. Thanks --liquidGhoul 11:18, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems you have already started. So we don't conflict, who is doing what? --liquidGhoul 11:22, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Joyous and Lejean are the only other two main contributors I can think of. There is also someone who worked on it when it was first created (pretty much when Wikipedia was first created). I will contact him/her (not for him/her to sign it as a major contributor, just to see where the article has come over the years). --liquidGhoul 11:35, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, scrap that, she (User:Karen Johnson) has not made an edit since 2004, so I don't see it happening. --liquidGhoul 11:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message; I've signed the entry. I'm very excited: I thnk the article looks wonderful. Joyous | Talk 12:17, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it will be fine to mention their names. They should be acknowledged for their contributions, and we are only shedding them in a good light. --liquidGhoul 12:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course not! I said I was kidding! Daniel Case 06:16, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Photosynthetic reaction centre FAC

Thanks for voting on the FAC for Photosynthetic reaction centre (here). You objected to this article on the basis of the lack of inline citations. I have added several inline citations (in the form of footnotes) to the article. That being said, could you please re-look over your vote and change it (either to support or object for a different reason)? Thanks, AndyZ 01:38, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Several more references/inline citations have been added, and information about the sources (outside of ISBN and url access date) have been added. Thanks for your comments, AndyZ 00:25, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

a webpage on Conrad Hal Waddington's work

I find a webpage on work by Salome Gluecksohn-Schoenhimer and Conrad Hal Waddington . It also has the epigenetics landscape of Waddington. , Jieqi

froggy

Hi there. I guess writing is inherently difficult (perhaps agonising). My purpose in providing examples in my critiques on the FAC page is to give credibility to my assertions that articles fail Criterion 2a, and to give the contributors—and Raul654—an idea of how much needs to be done. I'll have a look at the article over the next few days. However, I've just been fixing people's scientific text 12 hours a day, seven days a week for the last six weeks, rising to a frenzy before a big deadline yesterday, so I feel like a having a little rest. Tony 16:04, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samasara—Still quite a lot of the article to run through. Hang in there. Tony 00:26, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

about canalization

Thanks, I find the redirection. I don't know why the search engine doesen't return the hit on "Canalization". The link with parentheses is "Canalisation_%28genetics%29", it may be better to change the tile into "Canalisation in genetics", in which case the link will become "Canalisation_in_genetics".

Award

I award you this Panderichthys for working so hard on biology subjects in Wikipedia.
—pschemp 23:18, 5 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Spread the message of SCOTW

Of course I'll help the project spreading the message. Remember that I was the past-reign moderator of SCOTW. I can't take up the job anymore due to a lack of time, but I'll still come, vote and contribute! Deryck C. 01:51, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, I just noticed the featured users section. Thanks! You said very nice things, and I thought I should let you know that working with you to improve an article to featured status makes it so much more fun and easy. --liquidGhoul 12:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Gastric-brooding Frog

Good job with the translation. I don't quite know what you mean with the taxobox though. The german one seems to use common names first, and it would be a bother to move it over. I can just create it later. I would like to use the Rheobatrachidae as the family. It seems pretty recent that the splitting of Myobatrachidae has been more accepted. For articles in this dispute, I have been using the split families (e.g. Limnodynastidae), as they are what is used on most taxonomic references as well as the French Wikipedia.

I get depressed reading that article. The idea that they may have become extinct in just two years scares me. I heard the other day, that one guy stayed out in the rainforest for two years (in a caravan) looking for one of the species. This is something I was thinking of doing after uni for a while(not in a caravan though). I would still like to do it, but I have to research the likelihood of their existence some more (shouldn't be hard as Mahoney works at my uni). --liquidGhoul 12:11, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it would be harder to breed them than most frogs. They do have a very different breeding style. Also, I don't think they had suspected the dissapearance, as it is the most sudden example of frog decline I have read about. Less than two years from discovery to extinction!! --liquidGhoul 13:04, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I stand corrected

Sir, how wrongly and carelessly I made some points of Jargon unconcerned to the article: Hydrosphere, Many thanks, for I am indebted, to your kindness of pointing it out, as well as for your shrewd analysis. Regards,--A Calday Grammarian 16:52, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

This user thinks it is ironic that thanks for supporting Cyde's successful RFA came in the form of a userbox.

Here's a userbox for you. --Cyde Weys 04:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Frog a FA

Well... it looks like frog is now a featured article. This really surprised me, I was expecting Raul to wait for the improvements before he promoted it. I was worried that we would have to put it through FAC again, but this way we can just fix up nixie's points, and it is still a featured article. I think it is the first featured article this high up taxonomically. Unfortunately, we have to go through the front page day (I thought I would like this with White's Tree Frog, but it is terrible. Only slight improvement, and a hell of a lot of vandalism) but that shouldn't be for a few weeks. Congrats. --liquidGhoul 10:53, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NatSel

Would you consider to contribute again to get a nice and good NatSel article based on healthy discussions and a acceptable compromise such that all views are adequatly included? (i have this on he watch list, so we can dicuss it here)--KimvdLinde 17:44, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look

Thats what I get for making/editing the userpage when half asleep :) -- Tawker 18:24, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, but...

The Illuminatus! collaboration was already (unofficially) active by then, and I had helped all I could. Thanks anyway. -Litefantastic 13:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

Thank you for your input on the peer review of Cornell University. As you point it out, I can very clearly see how bland the article is. Numerous factoids do not make an article great. --Xtreambar 16:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara (2001 film)

Have you seen this (both the movie and the article). My best friend from high school plays the lead, Tashi. It's not released in the US, but you can get a copy from places like eBay. - UtherSRG (talk) 09:19, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again with the frogs!

I have started to improve the Anura family list article in my sandbox. Just informing you, as there are many families without photos, and if you come across a free of copyright frog photo which could be used - don't hesitate to add it. Please, don't go out of your way to look! The sandbox page is here.

At the moment, I am just trying to put in all the families. Once I have done that, I can add it to the article, without losing any information. From there I will start to add info about the families. I won't use the description column, as that is not useful for most of the families, but I still need to think of what other info the list should contain. Any ideas? Thanks --liquidGhoul 10:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

SPR

The Berlin Wall article es really good. So why not be on the board for the SPR? There are a lot of others only having a big list of edits with no real good article. So I like people who finish things and dont edit 1000000 articles to have high score. -- Stone 19:58, 13 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tuatara

I can help, but I may not be able to be as helpful as I was on the frog article. I will check my uni library for those books. Are you referring to the general references? --liquidGhoul 02:30, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just checked, and there is nothing. Good luck with the National Library. --liquidGhoul 02:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turtles

How was I being smug? I noticed no source and when I looked at the ET article, I didn't see anything that verified what you wrote. CanadianCaesar The Republic Restored 02:34, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your Featured picture candidate has been promoted
Your nomination for featured picture status, Image:Grapevinesnail 01.jpg, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate another image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. ~~~~

Congratulations, and thanks for nominating it. Raven4x4x 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Red Queen and mutational deterministic hypothesis

you should cite van valen for the red queen not that secondary guy ridley . best 04:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

alex k is not who first proposed the mutational deterministic hypothesis. Marcosantezana 04:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protection

I would fully support semi-protection, however I think this has been debated a lot (I have never been involved, but look at the Featured article talk page), and they decided not to for some reason. I will have a look at the discussion, because I don't think the good changes made by anons (if there were any) are worth the amount of work that goes into keeping the article un-vandalised. In fact (and I think this happens a lot), when someone deletes sections, it seems to be missed by some of the anti-vandals. It happened in Fauna of Australia and welding (?). I noticed it in White's Tree Frog and was able to fix it, but it was missing for a few hours! I am going to go over the discussion of it now, maybe there is good reason for not protecting the page. --liquidGhoul 12:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I replied on lG's talk, but I'll reply here, too. I once wanted to protect an FA while it was on the main page, too, but I was given this link as rationale for why we don't protect FAs: User:Raul654/protection - UtherSRG (talk) 13:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


WP:SPR

It did not occur to me to wonder how long ago your Ph D was. What a silly comment about 10 years experience. I know Karol is a post-doc, but he has a wonderfull knowledge of chemical physics. I wish he would nominate, but he said he will review. --Bduke 00:34, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply. I share your feelings and some of your specific concerns. I see the job of the Board is to have a few people who feel a responsibility to see something happens. Without it I do not think good reviews will be done on articles where it is not easy to get a reviewer. Did you read my post a few hours ago about how we might go about getting a reviewer about supergravity? That is what the Board will be doing, in my opinion. I certainly could not review that article. My concern is that the whole thing is getting wider and wider. We now have a Medic nominated so we will probably have to cover medicine. The job of the board will just be too broad and too large. I'm not sure I want to bother. I have better things to do. I will not however make a decision until later in the month. --Bduke 00:54, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samsara's goodbye

I have completely and utterly lost faith in this project (Wikipedia) in every possible way, for every possible reason.

Pax tecum (peace be unto you) --Ancheta Wis 13:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All the best! Sorry it had to turn out this way. Tutmosis 01:00, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We'll miss you at the Scientific peer review project!--HereToHelp (talk • contribs) 02:26, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]



The first struggle


Response


The conflict at natural selection
Put back the resignation per this page. KimvdLinde 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]


The final meltdown


Response


Note that I do not suffer from any medical condition, psychological or otherwise - it is genuine frustration that has led to my resignation.


Recommendations
  • Always assume that your opposite is already aware of the points you are raising. Use phrases such as "this thought is probably not particularly original, but..." or "I wonder how you think the obvious problem of ... is being addressed"
  • Give credit when it is due, all the time. And make sure you give credit to the right person!
  • If you find a passage that does not fit in an article,
    • if it has any encyclopaedic value, move it to a different page - if necessary, make a new page!
    • if it could be useful on a different wikiproject, move it there.
  • Do not delete (or propose to delete) articles just because they are short, or you don't understand why they're important.
  • Always be constructive. This is what is so bad about peer review and FA candidacy: people criticise, but they don't help, even when the criticising actually takes longer than the fixing (see )!
  • Leave the politics in politics.


Samsara (talk • contribs) 00:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see.

Sorry to see you go, I'll be here if you ever want to come back. pschemp | talk 02:44, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific community

A wiki depends on a set of close-knit relationships (meaning concord among its members) in support of some project, such as an article, or an intellectual achievement. A scientific community is knit from similar interests. A group of scientific peers, by definition, is a group of equals (in some sense). When a peer review occurs, the participants coöperate (as defined among themselves). The coöperation is the project.

But principled actions can be respected.

It is not cause for celebration when we lose a contributing/producing member of any community. I would like to voice my regret at the circumstances which have prompted Samsara's resignation from Wikipedia and furthermore thank him for his contributions in our behalf. --Ancheta Wis 09:35, 17 March 2006 (UTC) -- Copied from wikipedia talk:scientific peer review

pseudomonas flourescens

Here is my reply on my user page:

In future, could you leave a link (pseudomonas flourescens) to make it easier to investigate? Brian Jason Drake 11:54, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Resignation is no solution

One person with good reputation is simply not allowed to leave because of this! Ever need backup? I will help! --Stone 13:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Come back

There are some wonderful messages for you to read if you drop by... --HappyCamper 03:11, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am very unhappy to see that you're leaving the project. I enjoyed working with you. I hope that this ends up being a temporary break: you'll be missed. Joyous | Talk 00:58, 21 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MathCOTW

Polynomial identity ring

The current Mathematics Collaboration of the Month is
Polynomial identity ring.

Please help to improve this article towards featured article standard.

Last month's collaboration was Group (mathematics)

In case you have time to help contribute! Meekohi 03:32, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My RFA

Thanks Samsara/Archive01
Thanks for your recent support on my RfA which passed 91/0/0. If you ever need anything, feel free to leave me a message! Gflores Talk 06:58, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I do hope you come back, whether as Samsara or some other username. You really are a great asset to Wikipedia. Best of luck. Gflores Talk 06:59, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Samsara/Archive01&oldid=1175537781"