User talk:Gareth Leng

Could you please add [[Category:CZ Live]] to any pages you edit (or have edited) that you wish to keep as live Citizendium pages as opposed to pages that were simply tests? I've tagged the few I've edited, but you've done the most editing to date. This way we can work out which pages we intend to keep on Citizendium, and which pages were merely pages that were edited for testing purposes? From the looks of it, you aim to keep all of those changes (and I'm impressed by the quality of some of the improvements), but I just wanted to make sure. Thanks :-) --ZachPruckowski 13:14, 27 October 2006 (CDT)

Hi Gareth, from a fellow editor interested in overlapping subjects

I was thrilled to see that you did some editing on Biology. I'm doing my best to add articles to the Live list, and do not do so without making contributions - but all of the articles need so much work. I have been contacted by some editors who have implied to me that it is expected that we have our own turf, imply I should stay away from articles they are writing or planning to write, and I am not comfortable with that. I love the interactions between interested and knowlegeable people on a wiki. So, please- if you see my name all over the history of an article, it's a particular invitation to join in (not of course, that you actually need one.) Nancy Sculerati MD 13:48, 2 November 2006 (CST)

reply from my talk page

Gareth, I'm a novice at the wiki format. I'm answering you here because I think this is the way to do it - if not, please instruct me. I'm happy to go over the article and play with the language until it sounds right to my ear. But that's how I do it, if I have to justify every word as opposed to its near synonym, or worry that if I change the language so that it all subjectively flows to my ear I must have objective evidence to support each change, I get stuck. I just write in an intuitive way and I get into it where I lose track of everything else but just the writing. Given this situation, how can I help the article? I ask that question sincerely. Nancy.

Thank you, Gareth.I'm going to take a break and then go back to Biology. I'm going to forget everything bu the writing when I do, and I don't promise it will be a better article - but I will try to make it the best Bio article I've read. Nancy Sculerati MD 11:12, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Gareth, I've done some preliminar work on Biology. I added some comments about the text and needed images right in the body of the text. Perhaps you would be kind enough to look at that, and change anything you like. Probably moving those comments would avoid offense, since they really belong in Discussion, but they seemed to make the point best in a draft form of the article. Will work more tonight and hope to finish tonight or tomorrow. Nancy Sculerati MD 14:39, 10 November 2006 (CST)

Slow progress in biology, but progress. Could you kindly read biology talk page (discussion) and respond? Thanks, Nancy

So good to see you hard at work

Well Hello! Now I see where you have been;) I did get to stop by the chiropractic article and looks like you did a fine job cleaning up. The WP version has changed a lot since this version as well, so I might be able to give some input there as well. I haven't figured out where I fit in here yet, but will keep reading. I've started at the author level so I can at least see whether this is something I can help with. So far it looks like everybody works well together. I'm not sure I'm qualified to work with this fine group of scholars, but look forward to throwing my hat into the ring. --D. Matt Innis 21:44, 27 November 2006 (CST)

Sea Urchin

Gareth, this picture of the sea urchin. I'm not sure about the copyright status on it. I did find this permissions section on their site, and have sent an email. I'll wait till I hear back. --D. Matt Innis 13:04, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Also, is the mitochondria picture okay now, or do we want it smaller? --D. Matt Innis 13:17, 1 December 2006 (CST)

Health Sciences Workgroup (Top)

Gareth, As I see, you are an editor of Health Sciences. I am only informing I tagged medicine's articles as Health Sciences Workgroup (Top). Cheers --Versuri 06:42, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Nancy gone?

These two edits ([1], [2]) make me wonder if she has left. She gutted her style from the article as well as her comments from the talk page. The one thing that I noted was adding prehistory into the firt section after the intro. This was something we had discussed and she did not like it at all. But also gone is religion and parkas in cold rooms, things I think she would have been reluctant to take out. Any idea what's up? Chris Day (Talk) 11:55, 4 December 2006 (CST)

Great to see you involved!

Great to see you involved Gareth! ScottYoung 19:29, 4 December 2006 (CST)

I haven't been able to get the protein templates to work at vasopressin or oxytocin and the people at the techinical help at the forum have been of no help. Do you think you could get them working? a lot. ScottYoung 12:49, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Someone took a look and fixed the "Template Machine." ScottYoung 17:02, 24 January 2007 (CST)

Journal of Neuroendocrinology

Gareth, I revised the article here and identically on Wikipedia. I suggest that I have left in the proper amount and type of detail. I'm seeing this as a prototype for the many hundreds ahead. What might do well in addition is titles of a few of the best representative articles--and if you pick open access ones, the links. I'd like your comments. DavidGoodman 21:54, 7 December 2006 (CST)

1. The practice in WP is that thumbnails of the cover are fair use, & I think the same would apply here.
2. we can add their status re Open access, but we would have to check every 6 months.
3. I'd suggest eliminating the "indexed in:" from all of them--concentration on that seems a little old-fashioned. Obviously all biomed journals are in PubMed, & chem in CAS, etc.
4. I'd suggest eliminating an historical list of all the editors,except the first and any famous ones thereafter.
5. I'd similarly suggest not including all the current editorial board.
6. WP doesn't do this but we can find the most cited articles with WebofScience, which won't be available to all our readers. Everything we do here in bio is likely to be a precedent. There's only 1 editor in the Media group so far, and only 3 in library science, so I am not sure how much help we'll get. I'm going to cc. this part to the relevant groups, and see what the other sciences people want to do. DavidGoodman 15:39, 10 December 2006 (CST)

Barbara McCLintock

This is the closest that I found to the 19XX sentence in Biology article. Scientist Barbara McClintock discovered the first TE's in maize in 1948, work that led to her winning the Nobel Prize in 1983 [3]. --D. Matt Innis 23:10, 9 December 2006 (CST)

Biology article approval

Gareth,could ypu please look at the biology talk page and make your comments. Thanks. Nancy Sculerati MD 13:22, 12 December 2006 (CST)

I'd like to do some major re-wording of the Chiropractic article now. warning about edit conflict! :) Nancy Sculerati MD 10:35, 14 December 2006 (CST)

Chiropractic

I see you are doing Chiropractic edits. As an aside, my cast is off and my follow-up head CT (with and withou contrast, the neuroradiologist was a doll and he gave me the grand tour of the final images) is perfect! Anyway, please split off a history article and later today, when the UK is fast asleep, I'll play with the text. Nancy Sculerati MD

Please look at the Forums- healing arts, biology article and the approval process somewhere near the top. Nancy Sculerati MD 09:50, 16 December 2006 (CST)

please look at Chiropractic talk page Nancy Sculerati MD 10:27, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Are you pretty much satisfied with the Chiropractic article? I've asked Nancy for one more look before I'm ready. --D. Matt Innis 14:09, 18 December 2006 (CST)

Check it one more time? --D. Matt Innis 10:19, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Can you add this to that first references. Spinal nerve chart --D. Matt Innis 10:59, 19 December 2006 (CST)

Okay, made some significant changes per Larry's suggestions. I don' think you'll haev any trouble with them, but do make sure to clean up my wording! Thanks! --Matt Innis (Talk) 15:35, 20 December 2006 (CST)

Hey Gareth. After sending Tom Kelly to the Chiropractic History, I realized that it was still the "shortened" version that you had worked so hard to make fit into the chiropractic article before it got axed. Any problem with me reverting to the WP version again since it has its own article? --Matt Innis (Talk) 12:04, 15 January 2007 (CST)

I knew you'd see it that way, I like the janitor job, no headaches and you sleep better at night:) --Matt Innis (Talk) 16:03, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Hi

Hi Gareth, Merry Christmas. I was in the process of editing the nculear chemistry page and I was having the thought that a discussion of the different processes by which new isotopes are formed is too detailed for the nuclear chemistry page and that it belonged somewhere else. Please could you tell me what your view on this point is and what do you think would be the best page for the reader (in terms of content, should we make it more detailed or less ?).Mark Rust

Hi, I saw with interest that you suggested that journal references should be checked as part of the process of apporving an article. I have used a large number of Elsevier journal references for writing the nuclear chemistry page, I do not know if you want to read each reference in full but if you want to look at the papers (or just the abstracts) then please go to [4]. I think that the idea of an editor who has had little to do with the writing making a judegment about the journal references is a good idea and should be a part of the peer review process which leads to the approval of a page.Mark Rust 05:39, 28 December 2006 (CST) (NB I have also put a copy of this message on the talk page for nuclear chemistry)

SIMFUEL is the name given to the simulated spent fuel which is made by mxing finely ground metal oxides, grinding as a slurry, spray drying it before heating in hydrogen/argon to 1700 oC. Journal of Nuclear Materials, 1991, vol 178, 48-60 gives a good synthesis for this solid.Mark Rust 10:43, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Snake Venom-Neuromuscular Junction, Coagulation Cascade etc.

Gareth, I see you are busy but I would so like your help that I ask for your attention. The article on snake venom from Wikipedia was a reprint of a no longer copyedited article from 1911. I have been rewriting it. There is that whole business of alpha and beta bungaro toxins, and the entire clotting protein cascade to consider, along with complement and the kinens and the general issue of tissue inflammation. As I have been going to hyoer links on these, they are mostly in poor shape. It's been years since I studied the physiology of the neuromuscular junction and the several other of the topics here. Now, of course, I'm learning a tremendous amount, but I had hoped that you might look over things and keep them accurate. I hope too that all this might be right up your alley and you might join in. Please look at the discussion page about the references. Happy Boxing Day! (or is that strictly English?)Nancy Sculerati MD

metabolism

Gareth, Pedro Silva has written a very nice article on metabolism that he has also supplied some original images for. I hope we can deal with the edit conflicts, but I have suggested that you, and Chris, and David, (so far) all take a look. I think this is going to be a wonderful article, but after our chiropractic approval- deapproval-approval process, I think many of us should look and polish. Please look as soon as you can. Nancy Sculerati MD 09:50, 29 December 2006 (CST)

I put the weight lifter picture in metabolism and wrote a caption. Please look at it. Remove or modify as suits. Nancy Sculerati MD 09:13, 31 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Gareth - Pedro has put a newer version for approval (down at the bottom of the talk page). If I have two more editors on board, I'd be happy to approve it this evening. -- Sarah Tuttle 14:49, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Wheat

Could you take a look at Wheat please Gareth and give an opinion at the discussion page there on whether it should be approved please?

David Tribe 00:48, 3 January 2007 (CST)

VS

Hey Gareth! When you get a minute can you stop by the Vertebral subluxation page? I've made an effort to clean up the first section and need your expertise. I'm starting to go blind;) --Matt Innis (Talk) 22:21, 11 January 2007 (CST)

Micrurus fulvius

Hi Gareth. I saw the changes you made to Micrurus fulvius. Although I'm okay with most of them, I'm not entirely happy with the two style changes. That's something that I've applied to over 100 articles and CZ and WP, particularly those in Category:True vipers. The minor style change is where you've added parentheses to the publication years of the references (all of mine are without), but the major one concerns the common names.
I parted company with the practice of using common names for the titles of these articles early on (there's a discussion about this in the forum). One of the criticisms people have of using scientific names instead of common names for articles titles is that it's no longer immediately evident what the common name is of the species. Because so many snake species have multiple common names, or even share the same ones, many of the snake articles at WP that have scientific name titles anyway, with the common names included in the introduction. However, that just isn't good enough for the critics.
As a result I felt I had to come up with something new, and so developed the style you see in articles like Vipera berus: some popular common names at the top, occupying in a single line, separated from the introduction by hard returns, and the rest of the common names in a separate section below the Description area (where local of foreign language common names are also included). This is the most effective method I can think of to make sure visitors will see those common names as soon as possible. It's also a good way to show that there is often more than one common name for a taxon and that one common name is no better than the next (I hate placing one common name above any others, which is why I don't use them in the taxobox). I put a lot of thought into this style and many people seem to think it's a good solution.
If you'd like to comment or think you have a better solution, I'd like to hear it (you can answer here, since I've got your talk page temporarily on my watchlist). --Jaap Winius 14:42, 14 January 2007 (CST)

Hi Jaap, Feel free to revert any or all of my edits. I guess I thought that they wouldn't be controversial which is why I didn't explain, but if you take a look and prefer different that's fine with me. Journal dates in parentheses is something we've done on the other approved articles, but there's no agreed rule, so long as there's consistncy within an article, but that's how they come out if you use the journal cite boxes. As for common names, I was just struck by the duplication and the short section, so it seemed natural to merge them. Maybe the answer is to propose a formal consistent style for these articles and put an explanatory box on the Talk pages to avoid others doing what I did here, which is coming in and making changes that seem right and consistent with other approved articles but which might not be appropriate for this subcategory of articles? Gareth Leng 03:56, 15 January 2007 (CST)

RNA interference

Ive been busy on Wheat and HGT I've just got round to reading your comments on RNAi. Interesting to see your take is quite different to Dereks!

Meanwhile WP entry on the topic has changed a lot and is a feature article on the month in a mol biol group, They've got some very nice images too. Ill work on a bit more David Tribe 06:23, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Physiology

Gareth, would you be so kind as to put just what you said in Physiology:talk in the "bank" in a suitable manner in the article. I looked at the Wikipedia Physiology and I did not find anything I thought was useable. Help us write what Physiology really is. Nancy Sculerati MD 18:53, 26 January 2007 (CST)

Thanks, Thomas Kelly and I (and hopefully others) will work on your excellent plan. Meanwhile, before you get that grant in- take a quick look at Jesus:Talk. thanks Nancy Sculerati MD 11:12, 27 January 2007 (CST)

Style for references floated

Gareth, I'd like to hear your comment on this in Biology/Draft talk David Tribe 06:36, 30 January 2007 (CST) [http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Talk:Biology/Draft#A_Style_manual_for_citation_from_PloS_Biology_Slightly_modified_.3F ] I'm trying to develop a model for reference style based om PloS

recruitment letter

could you help me with this? http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Recruitment_Letter#Version_2_for_Biological_.2F_Health_Sciences -Tom Kelly (Talk) 23:47, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Approval RNA interference

Ive put an approval template on RNAi , take our previous exchanges as amounting to your agreement. Lets try and get another one up. David Tribe 23:54, 6 February 2007 (CST)

Gareth read the CZ internal email or email me : Be wary of Chris Day David Tribe 04:19, 9 February 2007 (CST). (explanation to others- this was made at a time of vandalism, and does not refer to the real Chris Day David Tribe 23:07, 24 February 2007 (CST))

Advice on 'Life'

Taking the Life article in its current draft, what would you like to see further developed or modified. I have much more in mind for this article, especially work on the later sections, but would like to consider the practicality of getting out a draft that qualifies for consideration of approval. Would expect to work further on a Life/Draft. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:04, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Input needed on how to educate more people on category importance

http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,539.0.html -Tom Kelly (Talk) 19:42, 15 February 2007 (CST)

adding Bio Workgroup to your contributions which relate

Hello, could you go back through your contributions and add Category:Biology Workgroup to the appropriate articles? thanks! -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:25, 15 February 2007 (CST)

Deleting articles

I admit I've been mostly out of the loop for much of this year, but I've noticed that very many articles are have been deleted, or are being slated for deletion. What's the criterion; are all WP articles now being deleted? If so, that seems like a major change in policy. However, I'd rather keep the Asp disambig page, if that's okay with you. I've shorted it now to include just two entries with no red wlinks. --Jaap Winius 11:31, 18 February 2007 (CST)

Biology/Draft

There are some recent changes suggested at Biology/Draft about Anatomy versus Morphology (favouring Morphology). As far as I'm concerned its a minor issue either way, but the proponent is insistent, and I don't see why they cannot be included, unless they make confusion elsewhere. Have you any advice before another Approved version of Biology goes through? The is extensive discussion at the non-draft talk page. David Tribe 01:04, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Dates De-wikified

Hi there Gareth... Just noticed you have de-wikified the dates in the new article for the United States Constitution.... Just wondering if there is something I've missed regarding the wikification of dates in CZ....? I am used to wikifying dates in WP and my own wiki, so was surprised to see them go missing. Could you fill me in please? Paul James Cowie 13:38, 20 February 2007 (CST)

I notice that dates are still included in general information regarding how to edit CZ [5]. Anyway, as I have already requested, please fill me in.... I'm confused! Paul James Cowie 13:51, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Thanks for the welcome

Glad to be back! :-) Nancy Sculerati MD 14:26, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Elenchus

Can you look at the history of this deleted article as well as the Elenchus_on_wheels article? One of them probably has the content that Damien is looking for. re: User_talk:Chris_day#Elenchus_on_wheels Thanks Chris Day (Talk) 05:02, 21 February 2007 (CST)

It's all there now. Thanks you both. Damien Storey 07:31, 21 February 2007 (CST)

HGT thanks

thanks again for that effort with HGT. I think on challenging articles the effort to conquer the science and communication can overwhelm the copy-editing, and I value your judgmement and encouragement . In these cases version 1.1 is fairly important. Biology was also helped by the late edits. I'm glad I had Wheat to do as well. Your effort makes sure we add to our portfolio of decently finished articles. But also we cannot afford to keep on quibbling over minute details of good articles.David Tribe 23:06, 24 February 2007 (CST)

leads

Gareth, I think Christo is absolutely on to something about leads and I think this can be a major diff between WP and CZ that distignuishes us. Can you imagine the Chiropractic article if we could just start with the discussion of what it was and let it flow all the way to the end where it talked about what it wasn't? I would like to see the Healing arts workgroup use this format. Do you think it is feasible? --Matt Innis (Talk) 11:19, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Healing Arts

Gareth, when you get a chance can you look at this? -Matt Innis (Talk) 12:58, 26 February 2007 (CST)

Health Science

Gareth, I'm making a similar request. [[6]] Nancy Sculerati MD 09:25, 27 February 2007 (CST)

Jesus

If you agree, could you please do so? I don't knoe the wikiediting well enough to do it. I tried. Nancy Sculerati MD 06:15, 2 March 2007 (CST)

Chiropractic

Gareth, your help needed on chiropractic again!. -Matt Innis (Talk) 19:19, 4 March 2007 (CST)

thanks

for your contribs

Abstract vs "summary lead".

Referring to the problem you have with the time wasting arguments about what should or should not be in a lead, I wrote a little essay at Article mechanics about my opinion that summary lead structure should be replaced by a formal abstract. It may be too revolutionary for present thought on encyclopedia structure and style, but one has to remember that until late in the 20th century even the finest medical research articles had no abstract (cf Fleming on penicillin, or the first articles on TB and streptomycin). --Christo Muller (Talk) 06:49, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Abstracts seem right for some topics, but not for others. Where lead-ins appropriate starting point, authors should have freedom for creative lead-ins related to the TOC just following. Sometimes abstracts better when written after article written.--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 18:20, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Added pgraph to 'Scientific method' article

Gareth: I added a paragraph in the Alternative Views section. If you don't think it fits, remove it:

Some scientists focus their activity on making precise and detailed observations of a phenomenon, gathering data, organizing it in sensible ways, making it accessible to other scientists. We do not disqualify those scientists as ‘scientists’ on the grounds they do not employ a scientific method. Other scientists might use their observational data to generate testable hypotheses to disconfirm or not, and other scientists might test those hypotheses by experiment, and others to try to reproduce the findings. That illustrates an instance of the scientific method in action realized by the combined effort of two or more scientists, not necessarily in the one generation. Regardless of the hopefully rational approach each scientist employs, however, none can leave their biases and passions outside their mind. The scientific method is the endeavor of humans, prone to error for many reasons, prone to creative insights by nature.

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 18:11, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Now reading as follows:

Some scientists focus their activity on making precise and detailed observations of a phenomenon, gathering data, organizing it in sensible ways, making it accessible to other scientists. We do not disqualify those scientists as ‘scientists’ on the grounds they do not employ a scientific method. Other scientists might use their observational data to generate testable hypotheses to disconfirm or not, and other scientists might test those hypotheses by experiment, and others try to reproduce the findings. That illustrates an instance of the scientific method in action realized by the combined effort of two or more scientists working with different methods, not necessarily in one generation. Regardless of the hopefully rational approach each scientist employs in her 'scientific method', however, none can leave their biases and passions outside their mind. Sometimes biases and passions contribute the advancement of science. The scientific method is the endeavor of humans, prone to error for many reasons, prone to creative insights by nature. But scientists agree on the need for verifiable knowledge, and they cannot suppress the emergence of novel perspectives and paradigms.

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 18:53, 6 March 2007 (CST)

Wilk

Gareth, thanks for your comments on the Wilk suit. I don't think this matters to the discussion, but because you seem to value accuracy, I would like to put this by you. You listed some "facts" related to the case. Number 3 was:

• 3) four chiropractors took the AMA and others to court on this basis, even though by this time the AMA had lifted its boycott on members working with chiropractors

The case started in 1976 and the AMA changed their postion in 1980. I think chiropractors consider that the AMA would not have changed their position had they not been "advised" to do so. Whether this is true or not is frivolous, but I do think it does speak (to those who lived through it) about what chiropractors "think" happened. --Matt Innis (Talk) 10:02, 8 March 2007 (CST)

I think you are right. The door had already been opened some, though I think there were still issues like chiropractors not being able to order the "new" CT scans, use public facilities, medicare, etc.. Defintitely lots of hard feelings. -Matt Innis (Talk) 10:51, 8 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth, your recent edits Life

Gareth: Thank you for 'erudite'. I trust you refer to the content as scholarly. I have tried hard to keep the text as unambiguous as possible, to facilitate its accessibility. I appreciate you help in 'simplifying' the text, especially the consolidations.

I would like you to know some things about my writing style:

• Whenever possible, I try to avoid using the verb 'to be' and its declensions (e.g., is, are, was, etc.). I do that mainly because I consider them weak verbs that give the sentences no force, or dynamism, or strength--the result of taking the easy way out. I prefer to find an active verb, a legitimate one or sometimes a coined one whose meaning the context makes clear. The more active verbs in a piece, the more dynamic the text gets, as I see it. In many instances, you change the verbs I used to the weaker 'to be' versions, and I don't quite see why. I think 'to simplify'. But if so, I feel we should not support that mode of 'simplicity', which one might interpret as 'dumbing down'.
• Another reason I try to avoid 'to be' forms: They often seem dogmatic and at the same time in reality only state a partial truth. For example: "Plants are living things". But if one posits what plants 'are', one must have a longer list of the identities of plants, much longer. Depending on context, one can write more specifically. For example, in the context of the discussion of 'semantic primes', I would write: "Plants define as living things". In a context of exemplifying living things, I would write: "Plants qualify as living things". Of course, 'are' works both places, but then you lose the richer and more specifying 'define' and 'qualify'.
• Another reason I try to avoid 'to be' forms: They often encourage using the passive voice, which often submerges the subject or agent, and tends to dull the writing.

I do not follow that standard as a 'purist' would. "To be"s have their place in my writing, but I use them sparingly. Nevertheless, I would not try to dissuade you from re-writing my sentences with 'to be' verbs, as it often forces me to rethink the sentence to find an active verb that will strike you as apposite.

Regarding your suggestion to convert lists to prose: I prefer to use lists to reduce the density of the prose. They encapsulate the messages, making it easier for the reader to get the messages and take them home with her. I plan to write a short essay: "Ten reasons for using lists in CZ articles." As time permits.

Regarding your: "I cut this out: "Interestingly, in English, according to the Oxford English Dictionary, the verb 'to live' preceded usage of the noun 'life' by some 300 years." not because I don't find it interesting, it's the kind of aside I always like, but because this is about the written use of the word, we know nothing of its spoken use."

Indisputable. I have read two histories of the making of the OED. It would surprise me if English speakers spoke the word 'life' during the 300 years in which we can feel certain they spoke 'live', yet 'live' but not 'life' found its way into writings. Knowing how OED combed the literature, not finding 'life' suggests the English didn't use the word. Still, I only try to justify, and have no real problem bdropping the sentence. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 13:49, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Regarding your: "The scope of the topic is of course vast and you have to select some path through, and I can see many possible very different articles on this theme. I think things that come to mind are, in chemistry, the division between organic and inorganic, and in biology, the concept of a vital spark - and maybe Frankenstein."

I totally agree. Right now I focus my thinking on the various perspectives scientists have on what fundamentally constitutes a living system--hoping in the end to generate a synthesis. That accomplished, much else needs consideration.--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 14:02, 9 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth: Collaboration, a many wondrous thing. In saying that, I speak of two separate experiences, the experience of 'collaborating'--with you, a fruitful and enjoyable one--and the experience of 'wondrousness'. When I say 'collaboration is a many wondrous thing' I feel as if I speak not for myself but simply repeat what a reality says. That may make no sense to you, but technically the two locutions distinguish two major language groups, the apodictic languages and the dispositional languages. Indo-European and certain Asian languages. With the dispositional approach I feel I speak for myself, the author.

Thank you for the generous editorial license, which I intend to avail myself of 'with all due respect'. As I said in my earlier comments to you, I eschew the purist's fanaticism.

I agree with you about the passive voice having its place. In fact, if the reader doesn't definitely need to know who/what does the action of the verb, if the passive moves the reader more smoothly from the previous sentence, and if it gives the reader a more consistent point of view (e.g., the scientist's vs. the biological system's)--then I'd go for the passive. No law against it. But those provisos all requirement judgment, and for that two heads often do better than one.

I too find that, in trying to avoid use of the passive as a non-reflective automatic, the results sometime seem contrived. I take that as a challenge, to exploit the power of the active voice without rendering it seemingly contrived. I consider myself in the 'practice' stage, with dictionary online at hand, hunting for those arresting active verbs.

And warmest regards in return --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:24, 10 March 2007 (CST)

I got it!

I got the picture! I love it! Where were you thinking to put it? -Matt Innis (Talk) 08:36, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Okay, Lets try the chiropractic page first for this one, although the healing arts page sounds interesting. I'm pretty sure about the license. The government stuff is public unless there is a specific copyright on the works, which I don't see. As long as we give credit to NIH NLM we shoul dbe okay I think, but I am no expert on this!!! -Matt Innis (Talk) 09:10, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

It's in. I'll let you do the legend. I do love the description on the website. --Matt Innis (Talk) 09:41, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

wow

I have no idea what happened with this edit. All I actually did was format the references. I suspect it is a cache issue rather than a edit conflict since my edit was significantly after you last edit. I must have been editing an historic version without knowing. These bugs are a pain, certainly, now, I will double check the diffs more often. Chris Day (Talk) 12:43, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

OK now I know what happened. I started editing a version prior to your edits, stopped,retreived the Nansel D, Szlazak M. ref info then submitted my version, thus deleting your additions. I must have overridden a warning note with out realising. Will be more careful in future. Chris Day (Talk) 12:47, 14 March 2007 (CDT)

Can we consider Life for approval before CZ launch

Gareth: If CZ launches soon, as Larry says, it would be nice if it had an approved article on 'Life'. Could you re-look at Life and see if you think it could go as a first-draft approval?

It definitely would benefit from further work, but that could come with later drafts. Getting it approved as it stands also might generate a wider collaborative discussion.

I have started working on a glossary section, but fear other things will slow down progress to a superlative section. Not absolutely needed in first draft.

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:17, 20 March 2007 (CDT)

Need help with image.

Gareth: Trying to incorporate new image, Biobooks6.jpg into Life without success. Can you help. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:37, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Issue with either moving to NFS or the fact that we're currently set up temporarily on a different server while Jason works on the pilot server. Not sure if it's a bug, or just Jason and Greg working on something. I'll bring it up on IRC. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 23:07, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Found the problem - we forgot to move the program that makes the thumbnails for us over to the new server. I emailed Jason and Greg. Hopefully one of them is still up (they've had a very long day today). It's actually probably a simple fix (move a few files from one server to the other), but I don't have a server admin password to fix it. -- ZachPruckowski (Speak to me) 23:22, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

Chiropractic approval

I made some significant changes throughout the Chiropractic article, I explained why on the talk page-mostly I wanted to have "stand-alone" neutrality, and I wanted to be accurate about the whole Flexner thing, which I believe is very relevant, but not to Chiropractic education (only indirectly and years later) but to why the AMA was so hostile to chiropractic professionals, especially the organization, probably over and above working physicians (though I haven't made that point.) Please check it. I think also-as I said somewhere (Talk page again?) additional pictures would be nice-maybe a patent medicine bottle? If the Canada thing is too strong under safety-please remove it. We can put it under critical views. Thanks, Nancy Nancy Sculerati MD 06:44, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Dog

Gareth, do you like dogs? Could you help me out with Dog so it can get approved. I did a lot of work on it but I ran out of steam. Thanks for your consideration of my request. Nancy Sculerati MD 15:22, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Need help restoring a previous version of Life

Gareth: A student named Joe Quick today did an extensive rewriting of the Life article you and I have been working on. He called it a minor edit, but he actually made a zillion changes, seemly arbitrarily, and removed all but one of the images I included, painstakingly. I did not notice it until I edited a section and saved it.

Could you please look at it, and if you agree, restore the version immediately prior to Mr. Quick's.

This distresses me very much. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 16:50, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Gareth: On re-look, it appears Joe Quick somehow restored an old old version of Life. Could we restore the version immediately before Quick's. I'll go through afterwards to see if he made any original edits. I have offline stuff I want to add, so eager to repair. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:06, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Gareth: No need to do anything. Zachary figured out the problem and fixed it. Plan to update Life tomorrow with many edits I did offline, then will ask you to look it over. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:40, 24 March 2007 (CDT)

Regarding title change for Life article

Gareth: Nancy feels strongly about having the phrase 'living systems' somewhere in the title of the Life article. I suggested, among others:

• Life (principles of living systems)

Nancy says that might be okay with her, but to run it by you, David and Chris.

I feel strongly about keeping "Life" as the primary title, but have no objections to a parenthetical qualifier.

Could you go with "Life (principles of living systems)"? If so, would you consider nominating the article for approval. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:58, 30 March 2007 (CDT)

I think a one word title is best, and I could not go with the change. I'd even say that "living systems" has a methodological POV. DavidGoodman 22:53, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

template for workgroup education

Do you think it will be useful for people who are actively writing but have not joined a workgroup or are not adding workgroup categories to articles? We could place this on certain people's usert talk pages. Feel free to edit it and please make a comment on the talk page if you are able. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Template:Workgroup_introduction -Tom Kelly (Talk) 21:56, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

stuff of life

Gareth, do you see what I'm getting at? Can you help out with some polish? Nancy Sculerati 07:56, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Just saw your ether/ester cut in the cells section. I completely agree with that edit. Chris Day (Talk) 02:47, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Emergence

Then Gareth, instead of talking ABOUT it, and in language that does not explain it as well, why don't we just take the time to explain it, to actually present it- we could use fieflies, flashing- and I'm sure we could illustrate it to get the idea across, with both the flash and other illustrations showing hyperpolarization. Make animations of both, maybe, for the next addition. Aren't you eager to keep working on the Life/draft page? ; ) Nancy Sculerati 05:30, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

answered you on my talk page. starting to wake -up (need coffee!) Nancy Sculerati 07:19, 10 April 2007 (CDT)

Not a colloquialism?

In this edit, you said that the phrase "killing two birds with one stone" is not a colloquialism. Would you care to expound on that please? --Joshua David Williams 09:58, 11 April 2007 (CDT)

Life V 1.1.

I have put Life/Draft V 1.1 up for approval. Your views on that are welcome, cheers D David Tribe 19:35, 15 April 2007 (CDT)

Journal of Neuroendocrinology - disclaimer

Hi Gareth, many thanks for your message (I did not know). Now, I put your disclaimer in a template {{WPauthor} on top of the talk page. This is intended to guarantee that it will be visible and always in place. Could you consider using this template if a similar situation arises? Such standard could help automatically determine whether an article needs Wikipedia credits or we have the primary author. Thanks again, --AlekStos 09:48, 17 April 2007 (CDT)

Life

Dear Fellow Biology Editor. The article Life is in danger of being left with out significant bug fixes for another indefinite interval if we continue as we are doing,. All the scientific issues and punctuation issues are resolved but the constable is still not assured of editor support for the bug fix. Would you kindly make no more addition except copyedits and place a note indication your support near the approval template so we can move on. In the event that Life V 1.1 is approved ignore this request. David Tribe 00:12, 21 April 2007 (CDT)

Contraception (medical methods)

Gareth, this article is not done- but is developed. Could you kindly be its approval editor? Perhaps comment on what it needs for approval? It is certainly allowable (and expected) for the editor who nominates for approval to do "editing" in the actual article, just not author it- I am sure there are things that need revision and that there have been onmissions-could you take a look? Nancy Sculerati 07:00, 15 May 2007 (CDT)

Supten Sarbadhikari has seconded the nomination, but neither he (apparently) or I (explicitly) understand how to add his name to the template. Can you help? Perhaps you woiuld also update the version? Nancy Sculerati 08:56, 17 May 2007 (CDT)

Adding my approval to 'Contraception (medical methods)'

Gareth: In it current state, I can enthusiastically add my approval to the article. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 16:18, 18 May 2007 (CDT)

Please stop and help on something constructive

How about Evidence-based medicine? Nancy Sculerati 12:00, 20 May 2007 (CDT)

Speaking of which, I think you are very much on the right track at Intelligent Design. I agree with this quote especially:

My problems with the article have been a) that I don't think the argument for ID has been made as clearly as it should be, and that the scientific rebuttal has been in the past presented as a rebuttal by authority and ad hominem attacks, not through cool logic and analysis.

Thanks for pitching in. Please let me know if I can be of assistance. Will Nesbitt 05:10, 23 May 2007 (CDT)

Irreducibility Complex

Bravo! I really like what you started there. I did a bit of an edit, but I just wanted to say thanks! Will Nesbitt 06:47, 25 May 2007 (CDT)

Journal cite template

How can we correct CZ's journal cite template? It uses the deprecated method of linking to PubMed by requiring 'id= PMID 17443604' rather than 'pmid=17443604'. Using the deprecated format means the diberri tool does not build links with he pmid at CZ.Robert Badgett 09:26, 4 June 2007 (CDT)

refs in DNA

Gareth, just a heads up when trimming refs. These two edits ( [7] and [8]) removed refs with the format <ref name=author> CITE info <ref> When this format is used there are other references in the document that rely on that information. The other refs would be in the form of <ref name=author/> i.e. they do not contain the details of the cite. Its a bit laborious but if the master ref (the first occurance in the document) with the citation is removed the info should be moved to the next occurance of the references. I did this for you here. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a better way to solve this problem so we just have to be on guard when cleaning out the redundant references. Chris Day (talk) 11:49, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Convention for name attribute of ref tag

The new version of the Diberri tool (http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/?type=pmid&add_ref_tag=1&id=) solves this problem by defaulting to a standard naming of th ref tag, <ref name="pmid12345678"/> or <ref name="isbn123456789"/>. If everyone follows this standard we should be ok.

However, problem is the CZ using a deprecated method in the cite reference template that needs updating. CZ links to pubmed using id = pmid 12345678 whereas it should use pmid = 12345678. How can we get this fixed?Robert Badgett 23:41, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Can't we just update the template? It is better to enforce this sooner than later. How does it work? And what is the output? Is there an example in wikipedia you can point out? Chris Day (talk) 00:20, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

If click edit of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#Low_carbohydrate_versus_low_fat, you will see what form the diberri tool (http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/) provides to the citation template. Note that the diberri tool and the template work together to create full text links to source articles with the doi. Also can use isbns instead of pmids.Robert Badgett 15:37, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Intelligent Design

Gareth, I'm quite happy with your work on the ID article. I had become dispirited with the direction the article was taking. Your presention is fair. Please let me know what you think of my tiny little edit of the first line.

I have already mentioned that I think the last paragraph doesn't belong in this article.

I think it's important in a controversial subject like this to end the article with the possibility that against all odds the minority position might be correct. This leaves the minority position a measure of dignity, but does not concede the point to them. This angle of writing is often employed by National Geographic, Discovery another other "science" programs when they report on psuedo-science. This is what entertainment writers sometimes call a "stinger" and it's not quite the same thing as a conclusion or summary.

As my background is more suited to entertainment writing, while those of my ID editorial colleagues are more scientific, I think my suggestion is falling upon deaf ears because I haven't found a way convey this idea to them.

This is cobbled together as quickly as possible, but I would suggest something to the effect of:

Conclusion

While Intelligent Design may have scientific components, in its present form, ID cannot rightly be labelled as scientific theory. Still, ID cannot be labelled as religion or philosophy, nor can ID be casually dismissed as wrong-thinking. ID cannot be labeled as science, but neither can science disprove ID. Perhaps in man's never-ending quest to understand more about his universe the day may come when there will be no wall of separation between the disciplines of science, theology and philosophy. Until that time comes, ID will remain a controversial idea outside of realm of conventional science.

Fairness and truth are important. Currently, in the United States, the proponents of ID are arguing-in the courts (in many jurisdictions) that ID is science, or at least that the "theory" represents a controversy in Science. As Citizendium purports to be vetted by experts, and as Gareth Leng is known to be an expert in science, such wording could be taken de facto as proof that serious scientists consider ID an open question as to its accuracy. That is why it is crucial that whatever wording is used is not put in by Gareth Leng "as a FAVOR" . Certainly Will, nothing stops you from writing that yourself. Again, such a statement from Dr. Leng - or any recognized scientist, ebven in a non-approved article, has different implications, and could be used by a good lawyer to portray ID as recognized by a scientist as "not wrong-thinking" or as an "unconventional" form of science. I do not imagine that Dr. Leng has had much experience in the American courts. He would be well advised to only write exactly what he believes. Nancy Sculerati 19:03, 18 June 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, I'm in favor of both truth and fairness. So we are in agreement there. I'm also in favor of not representing psuedoscience as science. So again we are in agreement. The favor I'm requesting is not in that I want Dr. Leng to make a representation which he doesn't espouse.

Further, you should be aware that the only reason I brought this to Gareth is because of he requested my input on my talk page. I really don't have the time to devote to ID, especially since I came to the idea by chance and not because I'm some ID evangelist. I do believe the universe was intelligently designed. I've yet to read anything that would stand as scientific evidence to back up this conclusion. I am assuming that you have taken my note to Gareth to mean that I'm trying to slip something in hiding behind the credentials of another. I am not.

Rather, my point was that I when I made this suggestion to the general audience, no one bothered to respond. It is impossible to figure out why an argument is rejected without feedback. At least in the paragraph above, you state what your objections are. Once I am aware of your objections, then it's possible for me to respond to your concerns.

One of the reasons I have a hard time taking on delicate issues like this is because I feel compelled to issue a long preamble to make sure that someone doesn't mistake my intentions (as you have above).

Preamble aside, the concept that the universe may have been created by a higher power cannot be labelled as "wrong-thinking" at any level. Like any rational or informed person, I concede completely that when you reduce the best parts of the current claims of ID down to essentials, ID is not science. Rather, it nothing more than a null argument. But I cannot concede that ID is "wrong-thinking".

The perspective I can best provide is one that a layman might get when reading an article such as this. I didn't know anything about ID, but I have a rational brain and a limited knowledge of science and biology. It's fun for a layman to read about things like bigfoot, UFO's and ID. The process of learning about these pseudo-sciences is educational because one learns about real science when debunking pseudo-science. When that educational process terminates with a definitive kick in the pants on the way out the door the layman takes that to mean that the scientific community is part of the conspiracy. The layman takes a definitive stance as a kick in the pants, because he's not yet fully convinced that you are right. The reason the layman doesn't entirely take the debunking at face value is because he really doesn't have your level of understanding about science. He just needs a little more education. But he doesn't take well to a kick in the pants on the way out the door because he doesn't fully understand what your saying. A kick in the pants doesn't convince him he's wrong. It convinces him that you're part of the conspiracy.

I would label ID (at our current level of understanding) as "unconventional science". What is unconventional science but UFOlogy, chiropracty, most crypto-zoology, phrenology and other wackiness. Is it a bridge-to-far to allow ID to be labeled as "unconventional science"? I don't know I would rely on your expertise here.

I'm just trying to close the door on this without leaving a bitter taste in people's mouth. When a true believer watches National Geographic debunk the Bermuda Triangle mysteries or a supposed bigfoot sighting, they always conclude the program by conceding while these hoaxes are no mystery, debunking them still doesn't prove that "X" is wrong. Most rational people figure out the message. Others are led to do more research. More research leads to more education. The more education someone has the less likely they are to believe in poppycock. This is my point.

One last point of agreement: Dr. Leng would be well advised to only write exactly what he believes. Will Nesbitt 09:12, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

Your intentions, which you write about repeatedly, are not any kind of issue on CZ. What is an issue is that an Englishman who is regarded as an expert in Science who has no experience in the copurt system in the US - but who repeatedly shows a willingness to stick up for the "underdog" in alternative medicine and other fields, is vulnerable to presenting a view that could seriously injure science education in the USA if it was used as ammunition in the wrong hands. Ifd that has something to do with your intentions, Will, it's not anything that has been stated ort implied (excpt by you, just now.). And YOUR intentions are not the point, what is written is the point - and by whom. That's all. Nancy Sculerati 11:29, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

I'm not quite sure how I got off in the wrong direction here. On the other hand, I'm sure that what you're understanding me to say is not what I'm meaning to say. I apologize for being unclear.

I think Gareth has successfully translated my gibberish into something others can understand because I'm quite happy with the direction I'm reading in the article. The article appears fair-minded without conceding a whit of nonsense to anyone. Then the article finishes up with a measure of the "but you're not an idiot if you want to believe" that the article requires to avoid endless arguments and the appearance of bias against "God".

Perhaps I'm a bit naive, but I don't see anything in this article that could be construed to damage anything in the American educational system. Will Nesbitt 13:06, 19 June 2007 (CDT)

A curious exchange. I'd never write anything that I thought to be wrong, and so wouldn't knowingly distort facts or an argument to suit an agenda however worthy the agenda. I don't speak out for the underdog unless you class science as an underdog; it's a mistake to think that to present a contrary position clearly and logically is to support that position. It seems to me that scientists has an obligation to challenge their own beliefs and preconceptions, and they do so by confronting the very best and strongest arguments against them. To sustain any argument with integrity, a scientist must know the arguments against, and in the strongest form that they can be made. To argue aganst a strawman - an attenuated argument deliberately phrased in a way that it can be readily dismantled - is dishonest, just as it is dishonest to argue ad hominem - by disparaging the opponent, not by addressing the argument. I can't be responsible for the American educational system, but I'm sure that science can't be defended effectively by rhetoric, elisions, distortions or misrepresentations, but only by reason. We don't know it all, we cannot explain everything, there are many things we do not understand well and our present understanding is provisional. To say these things is not to diminish science, but to explain our need for it. If we depend on our authority for support rather than on reason, then we are vulnerable - who, after all, gives us authority? In the end we have authority because of the respect of society, respect that must be earned by reason if at all.

As a bottom line, I will not write anything I believe to be wrong, even if it is to support an agenda that I endorse. I will not let arguments that appear to support my own beliefs go unquestioned if I know that those arguments are flawed or irrelevant. I will not let contrary arguments be diminished for the purpose of more easily attacking them, nor will I deny inconvenient arguments space merely because they are difficult to counter. I will not pretend that attacking the proponent of an argument is an attack on the argument itself. I hope that any good scientist would say likewise. Gareth Leng 04:26, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

I would hope for and ask for nothing more or less than this from anyone. I hope I never accidentally implied anything otherwise.

That said, great work on the article! I'll have a few more comments over there. Will Nesbitt 07:05, 20 June 2007 (CDT)

Gareth, your work on the ID article is exemplary. Along with Will Nesbitt I would consider myself an ID sympathiser and despite it stating the scientific objections strongly, I can bear to read every word of the article as it is currently written. I commend you and the other authors on the excellent work (I know Will Nesbitt has also had a not insignificant hand in it). I think the article reads like an encyclopaedia article, is reader friendly, well balanced, neutral and makes arguments fairly on both sides without being completely dismissive. I looked in on the article about a month or two ago and found it to be disturbingly biased and very hard to read. I was pleasantly surprised to see the current version which is above all, reasoned.

The only small point in the article which I found strange was the argument about the lack of perfection in supposedly designed systems. That particular argument seems tangential. ID proponents don't make the assumption that the design is perfect, nor that it hasn't been corrupted. Nor do they deny that aspects of nature reflect Darwinian processes. So it seems irrelevant that examples of suboptimal "design" can be found in nature. In short ID proponents don't seem to claim that everything in nature was designed. Naturally the comments about genetic detritus, gene copies, pseudogenes, etc. are relevant, but they are made in a slightly different spirit.

Something that might be added to the article is some commentary about Behe's arguments in his new book that the limits of Darwinism can be detected empirically. Probably you are in the same position as me in having not read the book, but may have seen the recent press it has been given. Behe is apparently pro-evolution, accepting common descent. He believes there are measurable limits to Darwinism and he appears to believe that evolution has been pushed by design beyond those limits. From what I can tell, he compares at a microbiological level, systems in which the end appears to have been intelligent creatures with other systems where there appears to have been no such end. There have already been reviews of his book by prominent scientists and popularisers, but it is probably too early to see how reasoned rebuttals of his main points will go.

As for myself, I don't like where Behe's arguments lead him. But I certainly have to admit that they are novel from a philosophical perspective (though Simon Conway Morris seems to have something in common with his point of view, though distancing himself from the ID movement).

Once again, well done with the penmanship. William Hart 07:11, 6 July 2007 (CDT)

=DNA

I slapped "Nancy" 's To approve back on DNA. Please advise if there is dissent. David Tribe 02:45, 6 July 2007 (CDT)