User talk:TimVickers
|
|
Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained
As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:48Z
Barnstar
It was a while ago, but I haven't forgotten.
<Moved to trophy cabinet> :)
ref:deletion Satish Babu
Hi, The page Satish Babu was deleted on 13th of February.It was about the contributions of a journalist to the Regional Media. Can you let me know how it could find relevance and where i can find the deleted page? User:Madhuritalluri(talk)
Admiration
I admire your image works !
Thanks!
thank you very much!!! You´ve been very useful, keep in touch! blitox
RfA Thanks
Thank you
|
Thank you for voting in my RfA, which passed with 194 supporting, 9 opposing, and 4 neutral. Your kindness and constructive criticism is very much appreciated. I look forward to using the tools you have granted me to aid the project. I would like to give special thanks to Tim Vickers, Anthony and Acalamari for their nominations. Thank you again, VanTucky |
April 2008
OK :)
Barnstar
Moved to trophy cabinet.
Thanks!
Moved to trophy cabinet
Well done
Moved to trophy cabinet.
For your help on Pulmonary contusion
Moved to trophy cabinet
Evolutionary history of life
Hi, Tim. I as far as I can see you've been the most active recent editor of Evolutionary history of life. A couple of us have posted comments on gaps & questionable structure at Talk:Evolutionary history of life - as the nost active members of WP:CEX we've been doing a fair bit of work recently on early life on Earth. I've also outlined what I think the article should cover, plus a list of additional sources that might fill the gaps. In view of the effort you've put into the article your comments would be very welcome. -- Philcha (talk) 18:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Hi, Tim, I see you've been taking an interest. Could you look over what I've done so far and comment at Talk:Evolutionary history of life. I think, perhaps rashly, that I'm over half-way through. The next big item will be the colonization of land, featuring mosses, fungi, arthropods and tetrapods. After that I hope it's a fairly simple cruise through dinosaurs (can't omit them, readers would be disappointed; will include origin of birds), therapsids+mammals, flowering plants, social insects (impact; peculiar genetics), hominids (I remember a phrase "evolutionary speed demons", must find a ref for that), the role of mass extinctions and the fact that evolution continues (featuring guess which moth plus anti-biotic resistant germs). But before I start to wind down I'd like a second opinion on the choice of topics and presentation in the front end, which IMO is the more important. -- Philcha (talk) 22:17, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
DNA Article
Hello Tim.
I am an AP Biology high school student with plans to synthesize and article that would have the caliber to attain the Good Article status. However, a perfect score can be consumnated if the article achieves the Featured Article status. Thus, I have been contemplating about a topic would have the potential to meet these guidelines. I deduced that perhaps an "Introduction to DNA" article could fulfill the requirements. After observing that you were a top contributor to the DNA article on Wikipedia, I figured that you could advise me on whether to pursue this or not. Is the type of information found in your article possible to simplify? Could it be put into a format that would be suffice for and introduction level piece?
This is a project that is not due until next year, so I have a reasonable duration of time to ponder over this notion. Here is the link to our class page that identifies our goals and project information: Wikipedia:WikiProject AP Biology 2008
Thank you for your time.
--Wikitrevor (talk) 00:19, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
- Note: Tim, it seems more teachers are realising the value of contributing to Wikipedia. I would be happy to be a mentor for this one, if you want me to. I think Introduction to DNA is a good idea. If you agree, please point them in my direction. Graham. Graham Colm Talk 20:45, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Electro Homeopathy
I've done some work on this page which is currently an AfD (and on which you commented). Nonsense though the science behind the topic almost certainly is, it does have some interesting history and might be saveable. Have a look at the rewrked page and see if you think there's the basis for an article there. thanks Brammarb (talk) 20:24, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Adoption
Hello again, Tim.
Pardon my delayed response. I've been battening down the hatches here on the coast of North Carolina since tropical storm Hanna set her sight on my region.
I would be delighted to receive your mentorship throughout this project. Much thanks.
Cheers. --Wikitrevor (talk) 18:21, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to Genetics
After reviewing the Introduction to Genetics article, I concluded that it seemed as if it already incorporated an Introduction to DNA element within itself. So I may need to consider an alternative topic that has not been integrated into another.
--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:35, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Biology Interests
I am considering an Introduction to Bacteria article. I think that topic is rather intriguing. Additional topics of interest include: enzymes, enzyme kinetics, enzyme inhibitor, and the cell nucleus.
--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Topic Selection
Ah. That seems like a fantastic idea. I'll definitely consider that one. That was a good point--an introduction article is best suited for a broad subject.
My hunch for these "Introduction to..." articles is essentially derived from the accomplishment of my AP Biology teacher. He wrote the Introduction to Evolution featured article and he mentioned he was a supporter of introduction articles.
--Wikitrevor (talk) 18:54, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
In second thought, a specialised article might be more opportune for focus and concentration. Generating a strong article about one specific subject could possibly be stronger than an article geared towards a wide area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikitrevor (talk • contribs) 18:59, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I believe I'll continue contemplating about some articles of interest that are of a more "narrowed-down" type. I'll generate some ideas and get back to you on that.
Thank you very much for the brainstorming session.
--Wikitrevor (talk) 19:14, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
Tim, would you like to have a glance at Wikipedia:Featured article review/Helicobacter pylori before Marskell gets to it? Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:31, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
Introduction to Microbiology
Tim, after pondering about potential article topics, I concluded that Introduction to Microbiology is a splendid idea. Perhaps we could tentatively establish this as the selected subject. And we can always select an alternative if we discover anything that would diminish this notion. This subject seems like a lucrative opportunity to shoot for Good Article and Featured Article status.
Best regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 01:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
- Kudo's to Trevor; he is bright enough to solicit help from one of the best science editors on Wikipedia. Tim, regarding how much to help. My hopes are that the students will step up and generate the content and required citations. Formatting, organization, guidance on writing style, and grammar will likely need considerable tweaking. You may recall "The List" generated on the discussion of Introduction to Evolution page by Awadewit. Basically pointing out concerns; but leaving them to find solutions. Its a fine line, I agree; however, they should play the role of the primary editor. They are allowed multiple attempts at GA; so if they are gutted the first time - then they can always bounce back. Thanks for offering to mentor. If any concerns should arise feel free to email at my school account, --JimmyButler (talk) 02:02, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
This is a fabulous project, and i look forward to watching it develop. KillerChihuahua?!? 19:03, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Thank You!
Hey! Thanks for directing User:Jfdwolff to my article! I cannot express in words how much help he will be in guiding me to writing a better article. Again, thank you for taking your time to help me out (as well as some of my fellow students, I see)! Cheers! FoodPuma (talk) 23:46, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Article Change
Hello Tim.
I was just perusing Molecular and Cellular Biology stubs, and I discovered an article in need of revision and expansion that struck me as very intriguing. The topic is Mycobacterium tuberculosis. I feel that the topic has a lot of potential to reach Featured Article status. Let me know if you would suggest this pursuit or if I should stay with what I have.
Best regards. --Wikitrevor (talk) 22:46, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes, there is that line between the virus itself and the source that causes it. I will try and avoid transcending that barrier between the two subjects. I think I might be able to pull it off. There is multitude of research I found that keeps the focus on Mycobacterium tuberculosis, as opposed to TB itself. I guess I'll give it a try and see if I can keeep from venturing into the sister subject. Thank you very much for your input. It is greatly appreciated.
Regards, --Wikitrevor (talk) 23:10, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
No idea on "glyceryl-glass"
I haven't run into it, but it's listed under gel filtration products at Sigma. Probably something that predates Sephadex. My two initial guesses from the name were a crosslinked form of glycerine or a form of glass beads that had been surface derivatized. --Smokefoot (talk) 00:07, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Safety of the LHC
I'm not worried about black holes, but have they considered resonance cascades? It seems they might be worried, as this photo proves that they've enlisted the help of Gordon Freeman! Where's my Hazard suit? Verbal chat 10:30, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Tim, Chagas is getting close; we may be able to remove it from the citations list. But there's a discussion about the apostrophe here; unless you object, it seems everyone so far says to lose the apostrophe. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:27, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- Hey Tim—just saw who your supervisor was. Wouldn't you like to work on the article a bit? I'm sure you could add something to the Treatment section (hint, hint ;) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Ping!
Have you had a chance to read my e-mail yet? I'm kinda stuck... --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 22:15, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
- No problem, I realise your time is precious, especially since that video from Bill praising you at Wikimania
--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 23:33, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Looking for input on Rosetta@home
The article on Rosetta@home was recently promoted to GA, and even more recently got a peer review by Graham Colm. Since I would like to nominate it for FA, I thought I would ask for another source of feedback before doing so from someone knowledgeable in biochemistry and molecular biology. If you have some free time, could you critique this article? If not, perhaps you could direct me to someone who could? Thank you! Emw2012 (talk) 23:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)
Applications of evolution and other things
Hi Tim. I noticed you deleted my coral example from the evolution article. Why did you do this? This was the only example of how understanding phylogenies can be of any practical value, unlike the others which are just applications of natural selection/microevolution. I would like to see a real world example of how knowing phylogeny has actually had practical benefits though; it seems somewhat hypothetical.
Do you think we should have an article on this subject, applications of evolution?
By the way, I seem to have managed to get the biologist John Endler (the one who is often cited for his work on guppy evolution) interested in contributing to Wikipedia. I have suggested he write an article 'natural selection in the wild', which is the name of one of his books. What do you think?
I have tried about 4 academics now and this is the first positive response. I was beginning to think it was a waste of time, but I'm much encouraged by this result and will have to try emailing more biologists. Richard001 (talk) 05:08, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
- I never said 'understanding evolution', I said 'understanding macroevolution', but somebody changed it (I don't know why; no edit summary was given). It could also be rephrased as 'understanding phylogenies/evolution above the species level/evolutionary relationships' etc. However, 'evolutionary relationships' can also include shorter term relationships, like the origins of HIV. Richard001 (talk) 22:39, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
FYI
On my page: [1] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 13 September 2008 (UTC)