Splette

Welcome!

Hello, Splette, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

I saw your message at the talk page of Service Civil International. I need evidence of your claim of permission; please note that publishing this page here means you release the text under the GFDL. Send an e-mail to permissions at wikimedia dot org, mentioning this page. Thank you. Chick Bowen 02:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I strongly disagree with your assertion that PyMOL has "nothing to do with chemistry". It is a molecular visualisation tool and is used by chemists and biochemists for molecules of all sizes from quite small, which is my use, to large proteins. Why did you assert that? I would be interested to know before I think about reverting your last edit. --Bduke 21:44, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Ok, if you insist, revert my deletion. From my knowledge Pymol is mostly used for representation of proteins and DNA and rather seldom for other chemical components... --Splette 22:05, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess it is used quite a lot in the area between small molecules and proteins or DNA. I have been using it for some drugs, which clearly are chemistry. Of course it could be argued that DNA is chemistry too, but I will not go down that road. The last think we want is a disagreement between chemists and biochemists (there are quite enough wars on WP!), so if in doubt I think we should use both stubs. --Bduke 22:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Thats fine with me. I thought someone who doesn't know what he was doing put that tag there ages ago. Seems like I was wrong. - Splette 15:47, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Splette,
danke erstmal für deine Übersetzung von Jordanhill Railway Station. Wenn du mal wieder was übersetzt, denke bitte daran, die ursprünglichen Autoren zu würdigen (wie es die GNU-FDL vorschreibt). Ich habe das mal für dich nachgeholt, aber es wäre besser gewesen, dass bereits in der 1ten Version zu vermerken.
Falls du mir antworten möchtest, so hinterlasse mir bitte einen Kommentar auf meiner deutschsprachigen Disku, ich bin zu selten in en: --DaB.

Hi DaB., danke fuer den Hinweis. Das war mir gar nicht klar, dass ich nicht nur beim Einbauen von externen Texten darauf achten muss, sondern auch Wikipedia intern. Macht aber irgendwo Sinn. Ich werde in Zukunft darauf achten. Es sollte aber mal jemand den Artikel weiter uebersetzen. Da ist in den letzten Stunden ja einiges an Inhalt hinzugekommen...

--Splette   14:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

That's difficult question, but I think it comes down to does an Adobe Illustrator have copyright over figures that I make with it? Secondly, I don't think DeLano would care if we emailed them. We do cite them by linking to PyMOL if click on the image. Let me know what you think. --vossman 23:57, 2 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi Neil, I am not a license expert but the source code of PyMol is licensed under the GNU General Public License (GPL). Thus I was wondering if the created images of this free software have to have be shared under the same license or if they in fact are public domain. I couldn't find anything regarding this topic in their license agreement. I really don't know but it would be good to find out. I think in the future more and more pictures of proteins or chemical compounds will be rendered with PyMol and published here.

Well, one thing is for sure. When creating an image there has to be a citation in any case: "All non-sponsors who use this Build to prepare a publication, presentation, animation, or web site must therein acknowledge PyMOL by name. Failure to do so creates a spnsorship obligation in the form of a liability for payment of current-year PyMOL subscription fees to DeLano Scientific LLC." --Splette   18:53, 3 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well, I am a sponsor of the project so I have no worries. :) I agree with you and I will release all future pictures under the GPL. For my journal publication I do reference them, but most of those pictures don't belong here on Wikipedia (too specialized). I'll try to contact DeLano Scientific for their feelings on Wikipedia specifically. --vossman 20:46, 4 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Splette, how is it going? Thank you for supporting my Request for adminship! It passed with a final vote of 73/1/1, which means that I have been granted adminship! I look forward to using these tools to enhance and maintain this wonderful site. I will continue regular article/project contributions, but I will also allocate a sizable portion of my wikischedule toward administrative duties :) Thanks again, and if you have any questions/comments/tips, please let me know! — Deckiller 04:40, 10 March 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, I'm not sure how to communicate with people on this. I think you got the Arp2/3 slightly wrong. I think it should say that in the barbed end branching model arp2/3 associates with the pointed end.

amulekii —Preceding unsigned comment added by amulekii (talk • contribs)

How can I talk to you? I'm trying to figure out how to nucleate some actin growth. Do I need a WASP to activate my arp2/3 if I wanted to use it to nucleate? Are there other ways to nucleate it that might not require such a two-step process? Amulekii 21:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I guess while I'm at it, I wanted to know how I could stabilize actin. Does phalloidin do a good job? Is it toxic? Is there a cheap way to stabilize actin without phalloidin (like some peptide I could synthesize)? Thanks. Amulekii 22:11, 18 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, is this where I'm supposed to talk to you? I don't really get this wikipedia thing.

Yes, I'm in Ph.D., but I had to start over after I proved to my professor that what he wanted mt to do was impossible. He wants me to make monodisperse protein-based filaments. I wanted to use actin or MTs maybe (or any other natural filament). I wanted to be able to nucleate so that I could control the number and size of the filaments (e.g. I want to be able to put in five nucleators and get five filaments.). Also, we're making the monomers in cell-free E. coli extracts so it's likely that I will have trouble achieving the concentration necessary to make the filaments without nucleators. Speaking of E. coli, do you think that would be possible? I found that formins and also artificially constructed trimers can nucleate as well. And formins might be better than arp2/3 because it appears that arp2/3 is designed for dynamic lamellapodia isntead of something more static. I think that's why it makes the 70 degree angles. One more thing, do you know if phalloidin would cause undesired nucleation of my filaments? Thanks Amulekii 04:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Something is wrong with the cookies on my computer, so I wasn't able to read that paper you refer to, but I'll look at it when I'm not on this computer. About controlling the length and number. Yeah. I know that's really hard. Actually I think anything even approaching a true monodispersity of length would be impossible without a template of pre-defined length, or perhaps nucleating them between two fixed caps that were a defined distance.

No x-ray structures yet? I've been looking for them. If you say they don't exist I'll search a bit more, then just believe you. What are the best models we have? I am interested in mutating the interface to try to enhance the binding (as I am working with low concentrations, and I'd rather not use phalloidin). I'd really like a model of the filament that is as good as possible. Also, Are the N and C termini exposed in F-actin? Sorry to ask you such basic questions, but I'm just starting this project, and there are still a lot of things I don't understand. I wanted to know if the termini are exposed because instead of Arp2/3 I wanted to nucleate with maybe a string of three monomers. You may already know that several years ago they were able to nucleate actin by cross-linking three monomers. I want to do something similar, which would be simply to link them (assuming the termini don't get in the way) which I imagine would siginficantly increase the likelihood of forming a trimer that could nucleate my filaments.

I can't tell if Mts are a better choice either. I'd like them because they're stronger, and I want to make stuff out of them. But my biggest challenge for now is that they both apparently need CCT to fold. Amulekii 22:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Oh yeah. About my project. That's about it. I just want to make some kind of filament that can be controlled and stabilized and I want to do it using E. coli extracts. It's tough, but I guess that's good, or someone would have done it. Amulekii 22:29, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I looked at both those papers. They look pretty interesting. I'll file them away as they may come in handy. How do you speak English so well? Amulekii 04:41, 26 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Many thanks, i'm glad that someone else realizes this. Batman2005 03:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. I guess with the Championships the article got a lot of attention. But I have a feeling that some people are trying to push their agenda. The entire Trivia section is POV in my opinion. It only tries to state how polish Poloski is. But I don't want to remove it before discussing it on the discussion page. --Splette   ^Talk 03:23, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Well you've got my support in removing it, trivia sections are generally looked down on because if the information was truly encyclopedic, it would be elsewhere in the article in the first place. Batman2005 14:21, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

Yes, well at least they have a source for the allegation of the anthem now. Still, I think the article is POV. --Splette   ^Talk 14:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)Reply

There's no need to rediscuss the issue at the talk page. Just remove ot whenever you spot it. I haven't spotted it. Well done. Cheers -- Szvest 13:07, 22 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I suggest to discuss this topic in Template_talk:Infobox_Digicam#Suggestions--Marc Lacoste 08:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Errr, why was this entry created on your userpage and not at Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals?

I've no idea... have you been clicking things again? You idea is good.. if you havn't already, copy and paste it to proposals, to see if anyone argues a different program. Thanks for your interest. --Username132 (talk) 19:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Splette. Much of the organization page is bot-constructed: I'll try to explain.

1. There is a bot, Mathbot, which uses the {{Wikiproject MCB}} templates on the various talk pages to build the Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/MCB articles by quality page. There is no need to manually add article to the Organization page.
2. An application I wrote takes all information on that page, and merges it with Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization, as follows:
   • The status, importance, and comments for all listings are copied directly from Mathbot's page. Any manual changes to the Organization page are lost.
   • The "sections" on the Organization page are preserved, so you can freely move any number of listings from, for example "Fundamentals" to "Cell Biology".
   • Any that exist in the Organization page but not in the Mathbot page are automatically labelled in its comments section as not having a {{Wikiproject MCB}} template.

Hope that helps, and if you have any more questions, feel free to ask! – ClockworkSoul 17:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

The changes look good - thanks :) – ClockworkSoul 15:56, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome, coordinator :) --Splette   ^Talk 15:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Splette! I really like that you've included a happy face in your signature. The project really could use a little more mirth, you know? But I also seem to remember reading earlier this year (when some of these signatures got really out of hand) that it was recommended not to have images in signatures. Do you know if that's been reversed? If not, it would be perfectly appropriate on your user page, of course. :) ... aa:talk 17:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey Splette, thanks a lot for supporting me in my recent RfA. It succeeded, and I am very grateful to all of you. If you ever need help with anything, please don't hesitate to ask. Also, feel free point out any mistakes I make! Thanks again, —Khoikhoi 05:04, 21 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

moved to user page SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

– ClockworkSoul 22:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Since you volunteered, I took the liberty of adding this section to your discussion page, so we would all have a place to give you work to do. ;) So here are some protein representation picture requests for you to consider:

• Bcl-2-associated_X_protein (BAX) [1] ~Doc~ EquationDoc 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply
• BH3_interacting_domain_death_agonist (BID) http://www.pdb.org/pdb/explore.do?structureId=2BID ~Doc~ EquationDoc 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

BTW, perhaps it would be better to add, say, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/ProteinPictureRequests where all of those interested and capable (ie. not just you) could field such requests...I've added a comment along these lines to Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Proposals. ~Doc~ EquationDoc 16:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I agree, a more central place to file requests makes sense. Anyway, I uploaded an image for BAX. BID will follow... --Splette :) ^Talk 15:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

I just saw it--you rawk! ~Doc~ EquationDoc 15:24, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

By the way, I just created a protein request page, Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Requested proteins so you can add it to your watchlist if you like, and we can stop cluttering up your talk page. :) I will add the BID entry there. ~Doc~ EquationDoc 16:25, 11 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for your nice comment at Talk:Expulsion of Germans after World War II. Sca 16:34, 14 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

Hey - wondering if you'd mind creating another image for proteasome in the same style as the existing ones, but with alpha and beta subunits colored differently? (Possibly just with the 20S particle.) I think it would be useful to illustrate how the alpha-beta-beta-alpha stack is arranged. BTW, I also commented on your diagram suggestion on Talk:Proteasome, but it was a good week or so after your post. Opabinia regalis 04:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

An editor has made some major changes to this article, could you please return to the FAC and provide some feedback on whether or not these are an improvement? TimVickers 21:22, 2 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

Merry Christmas, Joyeaux Noël, Frohe Weinachten, Wesołych Swiąt, Linksmai Kalėdos, Весёпый Рождествόм!

Sca 22:26, 24 December 2006 (UTC)Reply

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

hi splette, I gotta apologize. I undid your revision at Hospitality service because I though you were a spammer (u were not logged and I missed your comment on the discussion page), sorry. I didn't wanna start an edit war or something. Anyways, I do believe, that other we should mention a wide range of different hospitality services in the article. There isn't that many anyway. Don't you think? Liebe grüße, --spitzl (talk) 17:17, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Reply

See reply at my talk page. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

As a Scot with a wholly British ancestry (back at least until about 1100) can I just say how very frustrating it is to find Users like Space Cadet pushing an ultra-nationalistic line on Wikipedia. I tend to get on well with Poles until any mention of 'their' history and then the relationship dissolves. If we adopted their ridiculous yardsticks we'd have to return much of northern Scotland and the Orkney Islands to Norway - and reclaim vast chunks of the rest of the world which we once ruled. So you are not alone. Let me refer you to the following quote, taken from the 1815 Edinburgh edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (vol. xvii, p.69): "With regard to the history of Poland, we are not to gather the early part of it from any accounts transmitted to us by the natives.....we must have recourse to what is recorded concerning it by the historians of other nations." Some things never change. Regards, David Lauder (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I am just wondering if its 'wavevector' or 'wave vector' or even 'wave-vector'? A google search didn't help me to draw a conclusion... Thanks, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 20:16, 15 January 2008 (UTC)Reply

I sorted out the disambiguation and re-directed it there. LOTRrules (talk) 20:52, 27 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks --Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:07, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

--Zeitgespenst (talk) 14:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Splette,

I am a professor writing a book on physiological biophysics. May I have permission to use your zinc finger image on Wikipedia? Thanks.

Pat Dillon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 35.9.122.30 (talk) 19:55, 18 March 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - glad you find it useful!! Do let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement. Verisimilus T 21:15, 14 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I have a font problem. will fix it now. --Squidonius (talk) 16:40, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you! Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 16:56, 15 April 2008 (UTC)Reply

moved to user page SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:59, 20 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Splette, ich habe eine Frage zu dem Bild "Liquid water hydrogen bond.png". Kannst Du mir sagen mit welchem Wasser-Modell Du gerechnet hast, und viele Punktladungen das Wassermolekül hat, bzw. welches Wassermodell Du genommen hast? Danke, HerrMarder (talk) 12:00, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hallo, ich habe das Tip3P Modell mit dem CHARMM package benutzt. Gruss Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:41, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Ich hab das Bild mal in den deutschen Wasserstoffbrücken Artikel eingebaut. Viel besser als die alten Bilder :-) Kannst Du die Info beim Bild hinzufügen (Also Wassermodell und Kraftfeld)? Gruß HerrMarder (talk) 08:58, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Danke. Ja, kann ich machen. Gruss Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 09:19, 15 May 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Splette,

ich habe Quellen gefunden zu den beiden Grafiken, die dir noch ein Dorn im Auge waren. Informationen zu den Primärenergieverbräuchen findet man bei der AG-Energiebilanzen, z.B. für 2007 unter http://www.ag-energiebilanzen.de/cms/verwaltung/files.php?path=../../daten/1198152893_91.0.92.253.pdf&name=Primaerenergieverbrauch_2007a.pdf&mime=application/pdf Dort gibt es auch Zeitreihen etc. Die Europa-Sache ist etwas schwieriger. Da gibt es immer einen Bericht vom EurObser'ER, der auf Englisch und Französisch, nicht aber auf Deutsch erscheint. Das PDF zu 2007 gibt's unter http://www.energies-renouvelables.org/observ-er/stat_baro/barobilan/barobilan7.pdf . Ich würde auch mehr Änderungen selbst vornehmen, aber gerade im Statistikbereich kostet mich das als Neuling momentan noch extrem viel Zeit. Mal schauen, wozu ich diese Woche noch komme. Gruß, Jonas Sonnenschein 80.153.20.244 (talk) 15:42, 20 May 2008 (UTC) Reply

your driving totally sucks!Myheartinchile (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate your honest comment. In the interest of you safety I would suggest you watch out when driving in Southern Germany and Tennessee as these are the places I chose to increase my driving experiences. Best regards... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 01:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:Cahit Kulebi.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)Reply

Is it ok if I translate this image [2] into another language? Daniel107 (talk) 20:33, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Of course. If you want I could also sent you the original photoshop file. This might do the editing easier for u? Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 21:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to get into Wikipedia fights on an article, but you can't just undo someone's edit (especially one that just brings Bias into question) solely because it's the first edit on the account. For your information (not that it should matter) that was not my first edit by a longshot. Read the article before you just delete something because you feel like someone is too new. My fulltime job involves clean coal research and energy, and I'm guessing that supercedes your credentials on the matter. Rocetmal (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Obama Obama is a redirect to the closest sounding thing to "Obama Obama" that wikipedia has an article for. Grundle2600 (talk) 18:08, 17 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi again! It's OK that you want others to offer their opinions. If it gets deleted, that's OK too. But it is kind of funny, and it's certainly possible that someone who typed in "Obama Obama" could enjoy the joke. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:46, 29 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

While I have not done the detailed enough research to actually place it in the current article or my rewrite and splitting of lit from sci I have seen anecdotal evidence in a number of sources that most people would agree are for the most part are unbiased that when asked in an anonymous manner the number of client scientests that agree with the orthodox conclusion on GW is defently less then 50% and in some cases as small as 25% (See "Crighton is *TOO* kind..." on the discussion page for on referenced citation to such a study [when I find the actual citation I will add it]).... thus "Leading" is completely inaccurate and only reflects the "consensus" when asked in a manner where the answer given is tracable to the person who made it... that is the reason why I said some... I am not ready to challange the 16 of 18 citation but when I complete that section of the sci. crit rewrite I will cite it and likelly update the current page since "leading" vs. "some" is a direct violation of NPOV... I also think that "Awards" section is also high biased for a more balanced POV see how I handle it in the lit. rewrite —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 02:47, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, the thing is that if you search for responses of (notable) climate scientists to the book, I think you will have a hard time to find any of them who will agree with the book while it is an easy excercise to find critical reviews. Have you read any positive reviews of active climate scientists? Just to clarify, I am not refering to general polls whether global warming is occuring or not, whether it is man made and so on... I am explicitly referring to climate scientists' opinions about the book, because that is what the paragraph is about. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 02:57, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

A article/petition (which required a verifiable research position/professorship in Climate Science or closely related field) that made even stronger claims then Crichton I found while researching a paper essay on the issues raised in SoF was signed by well over 300 people. The petition was accompanied by a 30 page topic overview/lit. search paper that essencially comes to the same conclusions Crichton does. If I remember right the paper was written in 03 or 04 and when I find it again I will make clear ref to it --Aryeh M. Friedman (talk) 03:04, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Yes, let me know when you find it. Although it wouldn't matter for this particular sentence which is, as I said, about the book State of Fear, not the positions on climate change that the book may propagate. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 03:10, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I highly disagree since the current article does include sci. crit of the sources cited it is important to establish if a scientific consensus does or does not exist because if it doesn't "leading/all/most/etc." is not NPOV where is "few/some/there is a split" are all NPOV. Additional 99% of the conterversy over SoF is the science not the lit. so a very solid effort has to be made to summerize it without buing guilty of what MC's critics claim he is doing... while defently not complete I started to put together some of the sections on the sci/pol rewrite and for at least the easier to verify questions the evidence is overwelmingly that Cricton is being intellectually honest in his use of the science (but the science it self has to be translated into layman's terms for the avr article reader to understand the disbuted parts) [3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 03:19, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Oh no, this would be original research. First of all you are right, that most of the SoF criticism is about the science in the book and not so much from the literature point of view. But this is because of the unique style the book was written, giving a false impression of being scientific while it is pure fiction. For layman it may not always be easy to tell the two apart. Wasn't there even a hearing of Crichton in the US senate or something? About a pseudo scientific fiction novel!!! Anyway, back to the point. As editors, it is not our task to find the truth (that would be original research) but to report what reliable sources reflect. So, if there is a reliable source that scientist A said something about the book, then it can go into the article. No matter if we think he is right or wrong. However if someone else who is notable said he is right (or wrong) and there is a source for that, too, we can add it to the article. Well, you get the idea... But as for the consensus, we don't have to come to a conclusion ourselves. It is already there and pretty clear, too: "..no remaining scientific body of national or international standing is known to reject the basic findings of human influence on recent climate". But a long list of national and international scientific academies and societies that explicitly agree with the IPCC conclusions. There is really just a few individual scientists left that disagree with the overall conclusions and half of them seem to be funded by ExxonMobil & Co (and may it be through think tanks such as Heartland Institute and so on). Talking of which, the list you mentioned earlier wasn't this one by any chance? Or the ones mentioned in the paragraph below? Anyway, I do disagree that Crichton is being intellectually honest. He never tried to reflect the actual science. Instead he cherry picked some bits of it and used them to get his opinion across. This is clearly reflected by the upset scientists mentioned in the "Scientific criticism" section. If they complain that he misused their results, maybe Crichton was not just trying to explain the science behind climate change to the layman.... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 04:02, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

As section one of the sci. crit rewrite shows:

• While the story is defently fiction the citations are real and I have listed at least 5 citations to show that with *ONLY* one of them (heartland) being at all favoriable towards Crichton or his use of the science they *ALL* agree that the citations are in fact authentic. Thus to call it "pure fiction" is incorrect (it is fiction based on either real representation of actual science or misue of the same real science)

• In the next section I will be looking at what the critics say both for and against Crichton's accurate use of the science and then look at if there is a consensus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 04:13, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hmm, I am more and more wondering if a complete rewrite of the article by one user is a good idea. It sometimes is, if the article is complete rubbish. But as we see already now with this conversation, it is not easy to come to come to a consensus (about the article) and there have been quite some discussions going on about that article already. While the current state of the article might not be the best, I think it is closer to a consensus than a complete rewrite by one author would be. I just don't want all the discussions to start all over from the beginning again. You may consider to improve the current article bit by bit (even section by section) and see how that goes. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 04:28, 22 August 2008 (UTC) PS. You are right, it is not 'pure fiction' but fiction nevertheless and I have no idea what that is doing in a senate hearing.Reply

The senate often calls charismatic witnesses instead of true field specialists to get PR for the given hearing... I read the discussion of the current article complete opposite then the way you do... basically it shows that the lack of consensus is not just me and you but pretty evenly divided among non-causal comments... I agree consensus on highly conterversial topics is a very weak area for wikipedia (or any other non-peer reviewed collaborative medium) for example even though I haven't reads them I bet the article on abortion is highly contested or is the on the israeli-arab conflict... the purpose of the rewrite is an attempt to remove the more outragious NPOV... I just had two friends who violently disagree with me on my personal conculsions on SoF agree so far the rewrite is more NPOV then the current one —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aryeh M. Friedman (talk • contribs) 04:46, 22 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

I think you removed a wrong link: "Third Oil Crisis" hasn't been updated for 2 months (and is still there), whereas "peak-oil-crisis.org" has the last update less than 15 mins ago (and is removed). Regards, Xpert

Uh, might be. If so, can you fix it, please? Thanks for catching that... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:52, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Done Jkks (talk) 19:12, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Splette. You mentioned that you are interested in peak oil. I wonder if you may be interested to edit the Oil shale economics. Oil shale economics is an one of the oil shale series articles. The purpose is to bring all this series articles to the FA level (currently only the main article Oil shale has FA status and the Oil shale extraction is under FAC review). As you see, the Oil shale economics is still far away from the FA and even GA status. I think that the first target should be the GA status and the FA after that. Unfortunately I am myself a quite "wikitired" at the moment and not very creative for editing this series articles. I also feel that "fresh" editors with fresh look and ideas could be great help for developing this article, so your input is appreciated. I would like apology if this not your area of interest. Thank you. Beagel (talk) 15:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the invitation. To get this article to FA level will be quite some work, I think. I am not sure this is for me but I promise to have a look at it. Cheers, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 17:40, 24 August 2008 (UTC)Reply

This is just a courtesy message to let you know I revert your recent edit to RDS. I have a problem with the wording "despite the fact that" which you put in. I know you say this was an original wording but there are heavy POV implications in it which go beyond NPOV. NPOV is to include the criticism of it in the following sentences, but why "despite"? Do let me know if you disagree on further reflection and perhaps we can try to find some better wording. --BozMo talk 08:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hey, thanks for letting me know. I had restored this passage from an erlier version. User Unilli had changed it six days ago. Previously Punctilius had editid this passage of the article in a similar way. Punctilius was later confirmed to be a scibaby sock...

Now, back to content. You have read that section of the article, so the point is, that although Shell invests only a small amount into renewable energy they put a lot of money in advertising it, thus attempting to greenwash their image. I don't insist on 'despite the fact at'-wording and we can also drop the 'reputation-building' if you think that this is POV but I would still like to put the sentence back in. Do you have a suggestion of how to improve the wording? Thanks. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 18:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

I would be happy with "whilst" instead of "despite the fact that". --BozMo talk 19:37, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Sounds good. I have changed it now. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:54, 9 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Having made an effort to remove some exaggerated claims in the article Effects of Global Warming my edits [4] were reverted by you saying that it needed more explanation on the talk page.

I obliged, and explained in fair detail every edit I had made on the talk page, saying that, if no-one objected, I would revert the revert. I left it three days and no-one did, so I reverted it, stating in the edit summary to see the talk page. However, I was disappointed to see that you reverted it again with absolutely no justification, explanation, or any sign you had even read what I had posted on the talk page.

Please explain why you undid my efforts to improve this wikipedia article or else stop reverting them. You're entitled to your opinion, but unless you can justify it, as I have, please stop reverting this edit. I don't want an edit war, but unless you act responsibly, that's what we'll get.alexllew 07:39, 10 November 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I was wondering how you got the zinc atoms in your picture Image:Zinc finger DNA complex.png? I'm using http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/files/1a1l.pdb and pymol too, but I can't figure how to get the Zinc atoms to appear. Any help would be appreciated, thanks! --Rajah (talk) 00:04, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Hi, thats pretty simple. The cartoon model will only show protein and nucleic acids. So, create a selection for example

sele zinc, name ZN

then, for this selection chose 'show spheres' in the menue or if you prefer command line, type:

show spheres, zinc

Then you can change the color and also the shpere size:

set sphere_scale, 0.4

Hope that helps, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 06:37, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks, that helped a lot! I got it now. --Rajah (talk) 18:05, 4 December 2008 (UTC)Reply

In this revert you said that blogs were not good refs. The ref was a proper article on News.pl mentioning an event concerning a blog. The blog was news, not a source, and therefore your revert was a misapplication of WP rules. Please do not revert other people's edits without proper reasoning. Thank you. Malick78 (talk) 19:01, 16 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reverting my comments as vandalism? --GoRight (talk) 18:50, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ups sorry, I made a mistake. Somehow I must have been in the history and thought the vandalism of the IPs was the last edit. Thats why I reverted to Kim's version rather than Hexachords. Sorry, again... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:05, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

I figured it was a mistake of some sort. No problem. But given the wikidrama that Raul is likely to cause if I revert anything, would you please be so kind as to restore them yourself? --GoRight (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Ok, one sec. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:16, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Should be done now. I better stop editing for today. :) Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:22, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much. --GoRight (talk) 19:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Nah, I was just cleaning up the mess, I created.... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 19:40, 20 January 2009 (UTC)Reply

Why are you reverting my site? seems like someone should be reviewing everything you do!

How about you start reading up on some of the rules here. First, its a good idea to sign all your posts - even on talk pages - with ~~~~. Even better: create an account. Concerning your link, keep in mind that wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Only verified information should be included in articles. A tabloid like the Daily Mail is one of the worst possible sources to include. Read more here on reliable sources. Also WP:LINKS gives some information what should and what shouldn't be in an external links section. The aim is not to include as many links as possible into an article... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 20:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

P.S. And whats with the muppet?

I was being lazy [5] William M. Connolley (talk) 22:20, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. I was about to do that revert myself but you were faster. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 22:32, 13 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't want to polarize on this issue, you comment wasn't so much as incoherent than long, and if it offended you I'm sorry. You seem to have a lot on your mind. Is there something you want to say? ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:50, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, no I am not offended. Sorry if I gave that impression and also sorry, my post was very long. Must have been my longest post in a year or so. But yes, perhaps its a good idea to resume the discussion here, since we are maybe the only two people who actually care about this section and there may be more important things to discuss on the GW talk page. I guess we agree, that its a good idea to generally keep 'see also', 'external links' and similar sections in an article as brief as possible. I am all in support of that: [6] [7] [8] [9] So, if I get you right, you see three issues with the section: It takes unnecessary space, from the style point of view its use is discouraged and its already in the box? I am not sure I got my point across in the other post, so I may repeat myself.

As for space, I don't see the problem. Just three lines. There are other ways to remove unnecessary stuff. For example pictures of drunken forrests or sea ice, that add no real info to the article. And you don't seem to have a problem with the many {{main}} and {{seealso}}s. Take the one in Economic and political debate. These ones alone are 3 lines long but only link to a handful of articles, most or all of them are also linked to in the navbox. So why are these okay but the 2 links in 'See also' that link to all the GW-related articles and explain the terms in the glossary are not ok? Aren't the index and glossary more important to guide readers who look for more information?

As for the style, there is no rule that forbids 'See also', not even in FAs. All thats stated in the rules is that a good article doesn't have to have such a section and that the danger is that they tend to get cluttered. Thats not the case here and lots of other FA articles also have a brief See Also section. So why not this one?

Finally the fact that its already linked to in the navbox at he bottom of the page. So are all/most of the other {{main}} and {{seealso}}s and many other links. The problem is that this box is well hidden and thus easily overlooked. The box is very extensive and the links to index and glossary are even in fineprint. If you don't know that an index and glossary even exists you'll never going to find it in this article without the 'See also' section.

Ok, not sure I made myself more clear now but I really care about the GW article and I want to make sure this topic is as accessable as possible for the average Wikipedia reader.

Regards, Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

My essential point is that a section is necessity. Necessity is a criteria of inclusion, which entails that I'm arguing from a question of: do we need it? I've positioned myself to answer no. The See also is a section devoted solely to a list of links. There are no links that can be added without duplication. Because there is no compelling reason to keep this section, it should therefore be removed.

Space, duplication, style guidelines and so forth are secondary or non-essential points. It is a red herring which leads an argument in a circle. Do not get caught in this roundabout. These points can be switched back and forth depending on who's presenting them; I've presented them in my second post[10] and you in yours. They essentially amount to nothing more than a warrant in an argument, which establishes your interest or intent. You can usually present your essential point in one paragraph.

Because of this, my answer is no. You do not need to repeat yourself, you do not need to bold your text to help me read, you do not need purport to yourself or I any ill or poorly developed intentions. I'm here to improve the article, and I know you are the same. The essential point is what I'm looking for. But. If you want. I'll reiterate responses to your last post. Just ask one more time. I've never held you to anything less, and I expect the same. Your thoughts are important, learn to develop them in an articulate and coherent way. You are capable. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Oh, Ill repost here then:

• I agree with Splette and for the same reasons. It serves a different function than the links in the article and the box at the bottom of the page.
• As for "do we need it?" I would say no, not really, or I guess it depends on what we mean with "need" in this case. However, in my opinion, the right thing to ask is: "does it improve the page?", in this case I would say yes.
  —Apis (talk) 05:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

That's a good way to put it. I'm using a minimalist view. In my opinion its purpose is already accomplished, and the links are rarely used which can be observed from the page view distributions. For these reasons I believe we're to the point to come down and say: improvement isn't from how much you can impress the reader with. We know what they want from their clicking habits. And we won't burden them with anything more. Without the See also the remaining sections receive greater emphasis. I'll concede to what Splette thinks. After that we'll move the discussion back to Talk:Global warming and I'll close the thread. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:51, 17 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for the delay. I had a feeling we both agree that in general the overview article Global warming should be limited to the necessary. But our views differ in regards of 'See also' being necessary or not. But now I keep wondering again if I made myself understood: Its not about impressing the reader, its about making sure he finds what he is looking for. Do you believe that a reader who is looking for an overview of the articles will find index/glossary at the bottom of the navigation box? I think many readers even overlook the box itself, since its collapsed and hidden away beyond the endless list of notes, references, further reading and external links. As for the page counts, comparing those of index/glossary with Global warming is unfair. Global warming is the first hit when you type this term in google etc. Its like the Main page from which everyone starts out at first... Many readers come to Wikipedia to learn more about the controversy of global warming (rather than the science behind it). But if you put the page counts of an article such as Scientific opinion on climate change [11] (17891 hits last month) or List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming [12] (10884 hits) in relation with the counts on Glossary_of_climate_change [13] (2360 hits), the difference is not that extreme, really. However, if the minimalst view is what is driving you, how do you feel about my previous proposal to trim redundant and irrelevant content of the article elsewhere. For example the photos of sea ice and drunken forrest that I mentioned earlier. I feel they add no information to the article at all. Perhaps trimming some of that stuff will attract less debate. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 04:39, 21 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

I don't agree with you, I have a different view on the pageview statistics, but I'll concede with you. The See also stays. I was on wikibreak up until last week, if you'll repropose, I'll look at it. Nice talking to you, discussion is moved and closed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:52, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

This isn't related to the COI. Thinking about it, I believe that casual readers will overlook the box, I also believe that those readers are also not serious enough to take advantage of those section even if it were there. Therefore the section is irrelevant to those readers. Serious readers will likely go through the whole article and will not overlook the navigation footerbox. This is all speculative though, but it has a reasonable basis.

Page view distributions is based weekly, they follow a weekly pattern—so give pageviews weekly, not monthly, save some thought. and I believe a comparison between "Global warming" and the articles in the See also is reasonable. The two articles, which are articles that are a list of articles. It was actually created as a compromise. Usually categories are used to accomplish for this purpose, however to reduce link span within the See also, these two articles were created as a compromise.

Using the navigational footer was actually an interesting new concept I'm looking at in WP:LAYOUT. It's an offshoot of a proposal to create a new section titled "Related information" at the bottom of the article to contain these boxes, with the reasonable basis that some articles used them to the extent that it could be its own section. I didn't agree with the proposal, under the actual practice clause, but it started the concept that: the navigation footer boxes could replace the see also, it provides a more dynamic and organized means to present links with show and hide, took up less space than if it were presented as a see also, and would be grouped with information that would "extend the reader's understanding" which is the original intent of the External links and Further reading.

I've concede with not removing the See also; this discussion is long enough, and I value your judgment. If you believe that it should remain, then I won't remove it unless there is a strong reasonable basis that would be beyond a reasonable doubt—which differs from a preponderance of evidence. I'll leave it to you if you want to bring the discussion back up again. You've got what you've said you wanted, these are my thoughts. ChyranandChloe (talk) 06:38, 22 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hey ChyranandChloe, thank you. And in fact I agree with much of what you say. Yes, many causal readers will overlook the box. Also, some readers will overlook the See also even. Some readers just can't be helped, I know that. The online attention span is extremely short (there is a reason why the average youtube clip length is below 5 min). I saw people posting question on the WP talk page of an article ignoring the fact that the exact question was answered 2 threads above. I am not a general defender of the 'See also' sections in WP. In fact, I agree with you, that they are not good style. For certain articles, a info-box at the bottom of the page might be a better solution than a 'See also' section where lots of article links accumulate over time. Its just that for Global Warming I don't see this, because of the huge reference, further readings and EL sections. And as you say, the index was a compromise for not cluttering the 'See also'. (I did realize that you are very concerned with Layout questions on Wikipedia in general.) As for the statistics, recently, I read somewhere that 'Global Warming' is among the top 100 most visited articles in WP... out of almost 3 Millions. Surely lots it gets lots of clicks from google searches where the visitor is not willing to spend 15 min to read through the entire article + following additional links. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 06:41, 14 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yeah, I know the statistics. I do a lot in Layout. There are some interesting paradoxes about this this guideline, unlike WP:MOS or WP:CITE, WP:LAYOUT uses a very different approach to its recommendations. WP:PG prescribes that guidelines must document "good" and "actual" practices; most people who go into the MOS only care about "good". Layout is different, we can't just pull up the MLA or APA handbook and say: this is what we're going to tell the editor. No, the second clause, "actual", becomes very important. So far I've ran two major statistical analysis on what people are using.[14][15] I can say with certainty that 70% of articles applicable under WP:LAYOUT actually follow it, and that the section "References" is by far the most popular section used to contain verificiation (we're talking about a difference of about twelve times). I think this is probably why WP:LAYOUT is better accepted than the riddiculously lengthy WP:MOS.

I don't like style guidelines in general actually. They're contentious. Some editors, I would have to say, worry me sometimes. I mean, to go to arbitration and allocate 32 remedies.[16] That's pretty extreme. The reason why I deal with this is that is that WP:FA and WP:GA can actually withhold approval if the article being proposed doesn't follow WP:LAYOUT. It's political in that sense, so over time you sort of learn how arguments end up in a loop, a red herring, and how to get out of it. What our discussion was about was about, in my opinion, was the threshold at which we make our decision. It's how certain we were. There are two commonly used thresholds and they are: the preponderence of evidence, and beyond a reasonable doubt. I think it satisfied former, the latter, not so much. Well, that's how style guidelines work. ChyranandChloe (talk) 07:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi. I have emailed you to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 19:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)Reply

...for your recent participation at talk:Matt Sanchez. The article seems to have some difficulties and attention from impartial editors can only help. Given your background in science and what I've seen of your editing habits elsewhere on WP, I think your neutrality and style would be a gift there. Thanks, Doc Tropics 23:29, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

No worries. Actually, thank you for doing the edits. I am not really interested in the article. A while ago I came across it by chance and saw the mess. But when I went to the talk page, I realized the true extend of the history of drama (which I still don't get, really. Is Sanchez that important...?). Either way, I didn't care enough about it to get involved but it has been on my watchlist since then. I am glad a consensus seems to have been reached, finally... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 23:52, 21 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I honestly don't know enough about the article's history yet. It was mentioned on another page as being in need of attention, so I took a look. The writing in the first paragraph was ...jarring...enough that I felt compelled to request some changes. Now I wish I had spent more time reviewing the talkpage history instead of just the article, as some of the personal interactions there clearly have their own momentum at this point. This is certainly going to take some patience, but BLPs are an area of critical concern and we can't be too careful. Doc Tropics 02:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please do not revert, just find the source please.--Jacurek (talk) 08:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

I am edit warring because I reverted once? Though it is correct that other WP articles are not valid as a source, one quick look into that article would have given you the source you demand. Therefore I do not understand why you simply deleted the entire sentence. Even without source, a fact tag would have done the job, per WP:NOCITE. I have added the source now and reinserted. Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 09:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Twice. P.S. Thank for the source by the way.--Jacurek (talk) 09:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are welcome. Well... now twice :) But the second revert was the one were I added the source and obviously you hadn't seen that yet when you left the note on my talk page... Splette :) ^{How's my driving?} 09:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hallo! Danke für Deine Hilfe bei der Bearbeitung des Artikels Lech Kaczyński in der englischen Wikipedia. Mir scheint, daß dort jemand etwas voreilig meinen Beitrag editiert hat. Nun, ich habe jetzt externe Link zum Urteil des Europäischen Gerichtshofs für Menschenrechte eingefügt, ich hoffe, daß jetzt Ruhe ist. Rownosci (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading Image:MartinKarplus.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. 72.88.35.224 (talk) 02:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Because it properly belongs in the history section. Also it's unsourced. Also one should be worry about edits in the lede made by single purpose accounts.radek (talk) 23:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Well, thanks for getting back to me about it. The user who has added the bit may be, but I am not a single purpose account as you can see and I don't see a reason it should be removed. Given facts don't necessarily need to be sourced in the lede. Besides the fact, that the info has no source, do you have reason to believe, that it is wrong? As for history, much of the info in the lede is historical. So, what is the problem with this particular bit? I do think however, that the exact number of inhabitants doesn't necissarily needs mentioning in the lede. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, having a closer look at the contributions of this editor, yes he seems very new, yet edits like he has spent time on wikipedia before (especially the sensitive German-Polish articles, if I may call them so). So, may be a sock. But that's beside the point because I don't see a problem with the particular edit I reverted and also with the boldin of alternative Names for the cities. Does that violate any wikipedia rule? If so, could you please point it out, because I always thought that common alternative name should also be in bold. Thanks, SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 00:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks - I'll correct that immediately. This was caused by a fault in the keyboard of my laptop. Cheers, Mathsci (talk) 03:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

No problem. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:59, 21 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:Desaniyoung.JPG. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. feydey (talk) 19:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi Splette,

In reference to the article on recycling:

1. I liked very much what you did already, and would like to help if I can with the ongoing tasks.

1. My first language isn't English either, but I thought yours was... Are we splitting hairs? Anyway, if we focus on the other issues (completeness, accuracy, etc), someone is bound to come along and help with our English if it's necessary.

1. I am trying, at the moment, to find reliable, usable sources for a more serious criticism of recycling. Even if my bias is pro...

1. Other than that, I'm not sure I'll be able to help a lot. I have always been interested in recycling, since I was a kid back in the eighties, stemming from my interest in the environment, and I have some hands on experience in it, but I am no specialist and have no degrees, related or otherwise. Also, my involvement with wikipedia is less than two weeks old, I think, so there's a lot to learn for me...

1. Please feel free to ask any questions you want to, or to reject the offer of cooperation if you see fit - I won't be offended. I decided not to edit that article yet after I saw your interest, and I think you are better qualified for the task. But I don't mean to shrug off responsibity onto other people either.

Saludos, Thamus (talk) 00:14, 27 August 2009 (UTC) P.S. please send answer to my talk page, I might not notice it for a while otherwise  ;) Thamus (talk) 01:47, 28 August 2009 (UTC)Reply

Re [17]: I'm not sure whether I knew what you meant or not, but I didn't intend to imply that you meant something different from what you meant, and I apologize if I gave that impression. Rather, I was using the phrase to mean something different from what you meant. in my opinion, WMC had taken a position on content matters on the article. That opinion puts a different perspective on the situation. ☺Coppertwig (talk) 00:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

When you made this edit, you commented, "Please discuss changes on the talk page first."

I did discuss my changes on the talk page before I made the changes. Your accusation that I did not discuss them first is inexcusable.

Grundle2600 (talk) 17:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

So you reached consensus before you added those bits into the article? Because I can't find it anywhere. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:47, 25 September 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi I've created this project and wondering if you would like to help on it? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Meteorology,_Climatology_and_Ecosystems your help would be much appreciated Mark999 20:24, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

In labeling my edit of the An Inconvenient Truth page "vandalism", you are in blatant violation of WP:CIVIL. You owe me an apology. Heqwm2 (talk) 17:07, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

You are funny. First you call me an asshole [18] then you demand an apology because I called your vandalizing edit, well... vandalism?! SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 17:32, 1 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please be careful with civility; "nonsense" is not a good edit summary [19]. See WP:CIVIL. Nor should you describe a content dispute as "vandalism" (WP:VANDALISM) [20]. regards, Rd232 ^talk 10:01, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for your advice. I will be more careful about using the label vandalism. But I do stand to my 'nonsense' edit summary. It really is blatant nonsense. I have no other word for it. Have you had a look at what this was about? The editor claimed [21] that this graph [22] is distorted because the x axis doesn't go all the way to zero like here [23]. Both graphs show the same data. There is absolutely no reason why the x-axis should start at zero (also see the discussion about this topic on the talk page of the editor [24] where I and another editor tried to explain). With some other editor I may have assumed for good faith but after seeing the endless complains at the talk page of that editor, I felt he has exhausted his amount of good faith. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 19:03, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but you should still avoid this kind of thing in edit summaries, because it's stripped of all context that might justify its use to a third party, for one thing; and it can't be edited if you change your mind or want to explain, for another. Referring neutrally to previous comments on the talk page is preferable to expressing yourself in this way. Rd232 ^talk 01:31, 4 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for your advice. I will keep it in mind. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

SPLETTE, you said that you weren't sure the award should be mentioned at all. But for the sake of argument, taking for granted that it is mentioned, you did not opine on what's the best way to refer to it. I hope you will give your opinion so that I do not inadvertently misrepresent you. ~YellowFives 04:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hi, yes perhaps I should comment there (but not right now, falling asleep, it is 5 a.m. here). I've just read your posts. You were not misrepresenting me. The article has been on my watchlist for quite some time. I was also aware that the blog got an award, but I did not realize the background of this award. Just as you said, without any further explanation it is misleading. My first choice would be the deletion of the mentioning of the award because I don't think it is as notable as it name makes it sound. If there is no consensus for that, it should be explained. I haven't yet made up my mind whether it is better to mention 'Wizbang' as you suggest, or explain the background otherwise. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 04:14, 2 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Yes, we keep removing something from that page, mainly because it's incorrect. And the lady has stated many times she hates having that there. Perhaps, instead of begging others to "stop removing stuff" you should investigate why it was removed first. As it turns out, you're constant undoing of removals is promoting false wikipedia articles, not us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.129.193 (talk) 07:50, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Who is 'we'? You might consider getting an account here. It is quite confusing to follow all the edits and reverts of the different IPs. Yes I do revert unexplained removal of material. And how am I supposed to 'investigate' why you remove this material? You never leave an edit summary, neither do you discuss your removal on the talk page, as I asked. Finally, what subjects of wikipedia articles want or don't want to have in their articles is not relevant here. By the way, are you sure you reverted to the version you wanted? SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 08:42, 6 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello! And thank you very much for working on this I'm sure it is brilliant, but I can't find it! Hope you can help, regards, Captain n00dle ^T/_C 01:04, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello, have you checked [25]? I uploaded the new version in place of the old one. If you can't see the new version on that page, try to reload the page with CTRL+F5 or Shift+F5. So, the file is there. However, all the thumbnails seem to be not updated yet and still show the old version (even when you refresh). I find that odd, too... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:17, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Okay, I checked. It seems to have been a glitch with the thumbnail creation routine at the Commons. If you come across the same problem again, this thread is helpful [26]. I was able to recreate the thumbnails and it seems to work now once you refresh. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 01:27, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Brilliant thanks! Captain n00dle ^T/_C 11:44, 10 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

As you participated in the recent Audit Subcommittee election, or in one of two requests for comment that relate to the use of SecurePoll for elections on this project, you are invited to participate in the SecurePoll feedback and workshop. Your comments, suggestions and observations are welcome.

For the Arbitration Committee,
Risker (talk) 08:34, 12 November 2009 (UTC)Reply

Please read my question to you on the Anti-Polish_sentiment talk page. Thanks in advance for your reply. Jniech (talk) 16:22, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the note, I replied there. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Giving yours and other replies some thought. I will reply on the Anti-Polish sentiment talk page hence will not watch your talk page assuming we will discuss issue there. Thanks for the reply. Jniech (talk) 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Sure. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 18:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Splette. I would like to ask your opinion if the Shale oil extraction article is ready for the FAC nomination or is there anything more what should be done? I also wonder if you would be around to assist during the FAC process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 19:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I just read the article again and yes I think it is totally ready for FAC. It is very well written, informative and balanced. I am kind of busy this month (my PhD is nearing its end, finally) and copy-editing is not really one of my strengths. However, if you need any help with the images or formatting (references etc.) let me know! Cheers, SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 23:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Thank you. Beagel (talk) 17:59, 11 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

You mentioned at the talk page of Shale oil extraction - as I read it - that you'd be willing to help improve an image showing earlier processes - there's one there if you're still willin. Somehow it turned out lower-res than I expected. Hopefully, Novickas (talk) 22:07, 13 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

With regard to your last comment at Abd page, the "global warming", MD and Marxism appear in the same phrase because all of them belong to scientific theories of questionable quality. To be more precise, they are not theories at all, they are something Richard Feynman called "not science" as physicist-theoretician. Why MD is not really a theory? Why it fails to predict even the starting point of the trajectory (the native structure), while claiming to correctly predict the whole trajectory? Because it makes a dirty trick of applying the Classical Mechanics theory to the case where you do not know the forces. Just for starters, do you know that all types of van der Waals forces (I am talking about "6-12") are dependent on the dielectric properties of the environment, because they are ultimately of electrostatic nature? They are 10 times weaker in water than in vacuum, and this has been directly and experimentally proven by measuring the Hamaker constant for interactions between different materials in media (see the textbook by Jacob Israelachvili). Is that something included in MM/MD? The single most important problem of molecular modeling is correct and sufficiently precise calculation of free energy, and people can not do that and therefore failed to predict protein structure even in the field of homology modeling. And yes, some people are doing disservice to this project by creating articles like List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming instead of Criticism of global warming, whatever this criticism might be.Biophys (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Splette, If you are happy to let people like Ludwig waste their time on global warming - then please say so in the discussion - that is what the discussion is for - but please have the courtesy to both me and ludwig (and anyone else reading it) to let me recount my experience and give my honest well considered advice so that Ludwig can decide for himself whether he might e.g. be able to approach the editing without falling into the same traps and like most other editors before completely wasting their time. 85.210.3.125 (talk) 22:40, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello, this is not about letting Ludwig waste his time. It's about not letting all other editors waste their time. Please read WP:SOAP and WP:FORUM. There is also a note at the top of the talk page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." However, feel free to post your message to Ludwig's talk page if you fancy a general discussion about 'global warming zealots' and wikipedia being a 'greenspin website' SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 22:55, 20 January 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, is currently undergoing a two-month trial scheduled to end 15 August 2010.

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under pending changes. Pending changes is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial. The list of articles with pending changes awaiting review is located at Special:OldReviewedPages.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 17:56, 19 June 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Splette I hope you are doing fine. It has been quite a long time since we last time discussed the FAC nomination of the Shale oil extraction article. Since then the article has been stable without any major changes. Therefore I think that this time it will be ready for the nomination. I would like to ask you to take a look and say your opinion about this. If there is any unsolved issues, please discuss this on the article's talk page. Otherwise, I will nominate it after few days. I also hope you will be around to keep your eye on the nomination process. Thank you in advance. Beagel (talk) 17:42, 20 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Hi, I've been working on a small game built around animal quizzes and I wanted to let you know I've used one of your pictures.

I found your picture here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Red_poison_dart_frog.jpg

And I attributed the picture like this: Splette with this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Splette and also added a link to the license: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en

I hope you're happy with it, please let me know if this is not the case. You can find the game here: http://apps.facebook.com/animalalbum Or through here: http://www.facebook.com/pages/AnimalAlbum/156339584490672

Kind regards, Garfunkel Jansen (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

P.S. Thanks for taking the picture and making it available.

Hi Splette, many thanks for the new images that you have added to the article. I drew the original ones using PowerPoint hoping one day someone more talented would replace them. I am especially impressed by the drawing of the structure of tobacco mosaic virus. Best wishes, Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 08:57, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

Hey Graham, thanks a lot for the feedback. I'm glad to see that the graphics are appreciated. The tobacco virus image was a bit of a byproduct of an illustration I was working on. Let me know if I can help with other graphics... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 11:34, 21 July 2012 (UTC)Reply

I appreciate many of your images, but I don't think the HIV figure is an improvement. While the shading in the new one has some aesthetic appeal, it reduces contrast and provides less information (some might argue clutter, but those concepts are at the heart of understanding the clinical course of HIV). Let's see if someone else re-adds the figure you generated. -- Scray (talk) 04:44, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the feedback. I gave the diagram some thought before I got started. I made every change for a reason. When I find the time I will write on the talk page so we can discuss with the other editors. The current graph has some serious problems besides clutter. One example: look at the point in time of the primary infection. This should be at 0 weeks. Instead it's at about 1 week. That's plain wrong. Ok, more later when I got time... SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:23, 26 November 2013 (UTC)Reply

Oh, thanks a lot! Much appreciated. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 03:07, 5 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, I've nominated it for Featured Picture status (see here). It might require a couple of edits to tip it over the line if you'd be happy to make them. Probably should have notified you earlier but I'm new to the Featured picture nomination system. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:57, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

Ah great, I'll reply there. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)Reply

I have come across your wonderful designs of various organic molecules. Which, according to you, is the best, Open Source and Free Molecular modelling/graphics software?
I have a list in Wikipedia [List of molecular graphics systems], but I don't know which would be the best according to its ease of use.
I have perused your talk section on PyMOL. Will it be easy to learn & use for novices like me?
Eager for your advice.
Regards,
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 12:13, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I would suggest to use PyMol. I like it best and it gives nice results. But like any other molecular viewer the interface is not very intuitive and you will need to invest some time to learn hot to use it. Read a few tutorials and check pymolwiki.org to get started. An alternative for PyMol would be VMD. I haven't really used that in years but back then I found it to be less intuitive and I prefer the style of the PyMol renders.

Most images I make for Wikipedia these days are rendered in Maxon Cinema 4D, which is a professional 3D software and thus has a much better render quality than the internal render engines of either Pymol or VMD. Good luck. SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 12:46, 8 April 2015 (UTC)Reply

Sorry for replying late :( Please feel free to send me an email at the same username at gmail dot com. Then I would avoid this delay in my replying/query.

Thank you very much for your information! Does it mean that you create molecular structure in PyMol, save it in a format read by Maxon Cinema 4D and then open it in Maxon and render it?

Now, my daughter and I are novices in PyMol. We have only just begun! :) I have seen the page http://www.pymolwiki.org/index.php/Practical_Pymol_for_Beginners. Begins with a protein molecule. How can we begin by building a simple molecule, say, methane, or carbon tetrachloride, or butylene? Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 06:30, 18 April 2015 (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) 13:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

I've a suggestion for you. The Wikiversity Journal of Medicine accepts submissions of medically-related images for publication. The format is to give some scientific background, describe the history of any previous versions of the image, references and sources, and the decisions made for how to present the information. It's an interesting way of having a searchable (on google scholar) cite-able record. It was featured in the signpost last week too (link).

• E.g.: Häggström, Mikael (27 March 2014). "Diagram of the pathways of human steroidogenesis" (PDF). Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. 1 (1). doi:10.15347/wjm/2014.005.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Your medicaly-related diagrams such as File:HI-virion-structure en.svg might make good submissions if you're interested. I think its an interesting experiment in bringing together the Wikipedia and Academic communities so I'm also submitting {{Eukaryote_gene_structure}}. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)^talk 01:25, 1 July 2016 (UTC)Reply

The caption says "icosahedral", my eyes say "dodecahedral". I'm slightly confused. Paradoctor (talk) 23:13, 12 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Indeed, it seems confusing because the way the different capsid proteins are arranged makes it look like they are pentagons and thus the structure a dodecahedron.

But apparently icosahedral is correct: https://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/Rhinovirus SPLETTE :] ^{How's my driving?} 14:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Surprise, surprise. After some reading around, I learned that the dodecahedron has icosahedral symmetry: Solids with icosahedral symmetry § Solids with full icosahedral symmetry. So, the capsid is a dodecahedron, icosahedral symmetry and all. Probably a good idea to point that out in the caption, lest another noob gets tripped up by this. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 15:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hallo Thomas,

vielen Dank für die Visualisierung des HIV-1-Kapsids. Bei dem Bild könnte man aber denken, dass unten links das komplette Hexamer=1 Molekül p24 sei. Tatsächlich bilden ja diese 6 p24er das oben und unten links abgebildete Hexamer. Könntest du das z. B. einfach so lösen, indem du ein Monomer mit einem Rahmen umgibst oder einkreist, so dass das klar ist, dass ein Monomer = p24 ist? Was denkst du? VG --Julius Senegal (talk) 14:27, 30 September 2024 (UTC)Reply