User talk:Thorwald/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Uilpata

Hi, Thorwald! I replaced Mount Uilpata with Mount Dzhimara, as the former is in fact the second highest point. If you have coordinates for Dzhimara, please feel free to add them. Thanks!--Ëzhiki (erinaceus europeaus) 22:21, Sep 3, 2004 (UTC)

• Hi, Ezhiki. Sorry about that. I was wrong about Uilpata. I do not have the coordinates of Dzhimara, however, if I ever come across them I shall add them here. Thorwald 02:21, 4 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Google worth

1. 03:58, 17 Nov 2004 m Sergey Brin (Changed "$6 billion" to "USD 6 billion (10^9)")
2. 03:57, 17 Nov 2004 m Larry Page (Changed "$6 billion" to "USD 6 billion (10^9)")

Why did you change this? I think when $ is written on its own it is pretty clearly USD, especially when in an article about people who own a US company. Is the added 10^9 to help distinguish between the American billion and British? Again it is clear from the context how much is meant.

• I agree it does look a little "bulky" and maybe an over-kill in trying to use npov and to internationalise the content. The 10^9 is to distinguish between the United States "billion" and British usage. Feel free to revert it back to how it was before. I just wish the United States would join the rest of the world in order to standardise things.

Maxwell relations

Hello - I want to make some massive changes in the Maxwell relations page but I want to run it by you first, since you have worked on that page a lot. The Maxwell relationships are just the four equations numbered 1-4 that are now in the page. The other differential equations are not. I would like to rewrite the page to include just those four. The other differential equations deserve a separate page, that we could call perhaps "Thermodynamic equations". Paul Reiser 02:44, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

• Paul: Hello. Thank you for the questions and your interest in this article. When I took Physical Chemistry, my professor taught us that there were six Maxwell relationships. We even had to prove each of them as a homework problem (I have provided two of these proofs). I am completely open to any changes. However, I would like to keep the proofs in the article. We could put the other differential equations under a new article. Thorwald 05:25, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

According to my tome "Thermodynamics" by Randall and Lewis, Maxwells relations are derived from the differential definitions of thermodynamic potentials of which there are four main ones. (see thermodynamic potentials.) There may be others that could be defined, (see http://web.mit.edu/chemistry/alberty/part6.html) which would give rise to more Maxwell type relations, but the two proofs that you have are definitely not of this type. I really think that, since they are not Maxwell relations, they should be included in the new page, rather than the Maxwell relation page. Paul Reiser 12:06, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:A-B-Z-DNA Side View.png

Thanks for uploading Image:A-B-Z-DNA Side View.png. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL}} to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as {{Non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:Image copyright tags#Fair_use. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Zsinj^Talk 20:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for the note. I created both images in the Z-DNA article. I have fully released them into the public domain. Thorwald 16:19, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi there. I really like these images. At the moment I'm working on the main DNA page. I was wondering, for referencing, which PDB files did you use for these images? Thanks again for the great illustration! TimVickers 21:42, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks. I made these two images several years ago and I don't remember just now the PDB codes. They were made in Linux using the software from CCP4. I will look through my data and see if I can't find the PDB codes for you. --Thorwald 22:05, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you. If it jogs your memory, the PDB page on DNA has several examples. Might you have used these? TimVickers 17:36, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Phylogenetics software

FYI, I noticed your list of computational phylogenetics software, which was pretty but redundant with the existing list phylogenetics software. So I swiped your formatting for the existing list and converted computational phylogenetics software to a redirect. Any objections? (Also, it's great to see more computational biology people around!) Opabinia regalis 08:11, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

• Hi. I actually didn't realise there was that other article. It is nice having your list, as it has more entries. However, the reason I chose the title, "Computational Phylogentics Software" was that there seems to already be a trend for using this as a naming convention (e.g. Sequence alignment software). I actually prefer your title, as "computational ... software" seems somewhat redundant. Whatever we, and the Wikipedia community, choose is fine with me as long as we are consistent with it. (note: Yes. There are too few of us computational biologists. We should start our own sub-community, e.g. "Category:Wikipedians_who_are_computational_biologists".) --Thorwald 20:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, there hasn't been much activity in this area besides us, so I guess for these purposes we are "the community" :) Keeping the parallelism with sequence alignment software sounds to me like a need for the improvement of phylogenetics, which is not so great at the moment.

Since I recently became more actively involved with Wikiproject Molecular and Cellular Biology, I had vague ideas about spawning a daughter project on computational biology, but I didn't think there'd be enough people participating to make it a worthwhile fork. (Maybe we do need a userbox to help collect us.) Opabinia regalis 03:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject Votes

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject has recently opened two surveys that will help to decide the direction of the project. First, nominations are currently being accepted for the position of coordinator of the project. Second, votes and additional suggestions for the official title of that position are also being taken. As a member of the project, we hope that you'll drop by and voice your opinion. – ClockworkSoul 03:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

– ClockworkSoul 21:11, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Computational phylogenetics peer review

Since you seem to be familiar with the subject, I wanted to let you know I've requested a peer review of the computational phylogenetics article here due to concerns about its accessibility or lack thereof. Any thoughts you have on the subject or edits to the article would be appreciated. Thanks! Opabinia regalis 04:04, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject

Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter

The project main page has gotten a facelift!
When people visit the project, the very first thing that they see tends to be the project's main page, and with this in mind, the main page has been completely overhauled. To enhance readability the various "goals" sections have been merged, and a detailed "how you can help" section has been added. To increase accessibility for more established members, the links to any resources that were in the main body text have been moved onto the navigation bar on the right. Finally, the whole page has been nicely laid out and given a nice attractive look.
New project feature: peer review
I'm proud to announce the addition of out newest feature: peer review! The MCB peer review feature aims serve as a stepping stone to improve articles to featured article status by allowing editors to request the opinions of other members about articles that they might not otherwise see or contribute to.
Project progress
The article worklist
We’ve had quite a bit of progress on the worklist article in the past month. Not only has the list itself nearly doubled in size from 143 to 365 entries, but an amazing three articles have been advanced to FA status, thanks in great part to the efforts of our very own TimVickers! Remember, the state of the worklist is the closest thing we have to quantifying the progress of the project, so if you get the chance, please take a look at the list, pick a favorite article, and improve it!
Collaboration of the Month
Last month's Collaboration of the Month, cell nucleus, was a terrific success! In one month, the article went from a dismal stub to an A-class article. Many thanks to all of the collaborators who contributed, especially ShaiM, who took on the greatest part of the burden. This month's Collaboration of the Month, adenosine triphosphate, isn't getting nearly the attention of its predecessor, so if you can, please lend a hand!
Finally...
The project has a new coordinator, ClockworkSoul! The role - my role - of coordinator will be to harmonize the project's common efforts, in part by organizing the various tasks required to make the project run as smoothly and completely as possible. Many thanks to those who supported me and those participated in the selection process.
ClockworkSoul, project coordinator 18:16, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
If you wish to opt out of having the newsletter posted on your talk page in the future, you may add yourself to the opt out list Newsletter concept and layout blatantly "borrowed" from the Esperanza newsletter.

This month's winner is proteasome!

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

A-, B- and Z-DNA Structures

What was the source for your A-, B- and Z-DNA structures? I would like to make an version with a white background... - Zephyris _Talk 00:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!

– ClockworkSoul 14:49, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

RMSD article

I've disambiguated it to Root mean square deviation (bioinformatics)—RMSD really is used in many disciplines besides Bioinformatics... I've listed a few applications on root mean square deviation. DanielPenfield 22:30, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

The Arusha Project

Until there is an article to disambiguate to, there shouldn't be an entry on the dab page for The Arusha Project - which is why I placed a redlink there. For details, see WP:MOSDAB. Which would you prefer - a redlink or nothing? Josh Parris#: 03:39, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

• I have taken care of it. I wanted the link to remain there until I had time to start the article (which I have just done). I disagree with the MOSDAB policy . . . we need "placeholders" until full articles can be created. --Thorwald 04:43, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Native disorder in protein structures

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions to the Native disorder in protein structures article, but for legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted.

Feel free to re-submit a new version of the article. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must include on the external site the statement "I, (name), am the author of this article, (article name), and I release its content under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 and later."

You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here. You can also leave a message on my talk page.

---

The main page does have a copyright mark on it, and contains the following disclaimer on this page:

Material published by UCL central offices is copyright UCL and may not be reproduced without permission. Copyright exists in all other original material published on the Web by staff or students of UCL and may belong to the author or to UCL depending on the circumstances of publication. The UCL 'dome' logo and the letters 'UCL' are the registered trade marks of UCL and may not be used without permission.

Therefore, such material must have posted on it its release to the GFDL, or follow other Wikipedia policies to be published here. - CobaltBlueTony 04:17, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

Radio.blog.club

I have added a "{{prod}}" template to the article Radio.blog.club, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. RJASE1 ^Talk 20:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Radio.blog.Club. We have already considered this before. The vote was to keep this article.--Thorwald 23:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Google maps

I removed the external linkage to Google Maps in the body of Plymouth, Montserrat. I would suggest looking over Category:Coordinates templates and readding the geo info in an external links section. See Ogle County Courthouse for an example of usage on that particular place (though that specific template may not be right for the Plymouth article. IvoShandor 11:50, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Saskatchewan population growth

Your Saskatchewan population growth graph has a rather odd y axis labelling scheme. Is there a specific reason for going into IT exponential notation on a general public site like Wikipedia? Not just 1.2×10⁶ but IT "E" notation of which many are not familiar! I'd probably switch units to thousands, or stick to normal figures and use separators ("1 200 000" or "1,200,200") for clarity. — Ghiraddje 00:44, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree with you. I have uploaded a replacement plot. Thorwald 01:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationales

If you do not manually type fair use rationales, any non-free media you have uploaded will be deleted. Just having {{Non-free album cover}} will not cut it.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:14, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Says who? If the bot is not smart enough to figure out that album covers are fair use, then the bot needs more work before it can or should be put into action. --Thorwald 06:31, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

The bot is working fine. You need to be fixed. Read over Wikipedia:Non-free content and Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline. If the non-free media that you upload does not contain a rationale for its use in each article it is used on, then it will be deleted. {{Non-free album cover}} states that the image is copyright to someone other than yourself. It does not say why it can be used in the article you put it in. A fair use rationale will.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 06:57, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright. Fine. I shall explicitly add "this image is under fair use" to any album covers I upload. By the way, no need to resort to ad hominem attacks (i.e., "You need to be fixed"; see Wikipedia:Staying cool when the editing gets hot). Not something I'd expect from an admin. I still think the bot needs to do a better job. This is a democracy, isn't it? --Thorwald 07:03, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

That is not sufficient. The template states that it is fair use. A fair use rationale states why the English Wikipedia can use it under fair use. Look at Image:Statesman.png for a fair use rationale. Look at Image:Pikachu.png for several fair use rationales. Look at Image:Power Rangers - The Official Single.jpg for a fair use rationale for an album cover. All of these are permissible. Just typing "this image is under fair use" is not permissible. I'm sorry to be the bad cop, but you needed to be informed and hard.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:15, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Dude. I know the what the law states on fair use. I have been using this clause professionally since May 2000. Really. You need to chill a bit here. There is no need and no excuse for your "you needed to be informed and hard". That is just silly! These may be the "decisions" of a select few "admins", but it does not reflect the general will of the community (to which Wikipedia belongs! Remember that!). --Thorwald 07:20, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

These are decisions by the Wikimedia Foundation itself. We are being stricter than what US Fair Use law permits.—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:25, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

foundation:Resolution:Licensing policy—Ryūlóng (竜龍) 07:30, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:Supreme Beings of Leisure-album.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Supreme Beings of Leisure-album.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Division Kent

A tag has been placed on Division Kent requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a real person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Undeath (talk) 16:18, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Bachelor Girl info removal

Hi, as i created all album and single pages except one for the bachelor girl pages, it was a dissapointment to see them removed. Why was this?. The chart positions etc are all on their own pages so their was on need for the removal of them or the template at the bottom of the page. User:Billy4kate, Talk

Proposed deletion of Wes Burden

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Wes Burden, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. dissolve^talk 07:08, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

An article you created maybe deleted soon: Tools which can help you

The article you created, Wes_Burden maybe deleted from Wikipedia.

There is an ongoing debate about whether your article should be deleted here:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wes_Burden.

The faster your respond, the better chance the article you created can be saved. This is because deletion debates only stay open for a few days, and the first comments are usually the most important.

There are several tools and other editors who can help you keep the page from being deleted forever:

1. You can list the page up for deletion on Article Rescue Squadron. If you need help listing your page, add a comment on the Article Rescue Squadron talk page.
2. You can request a mentor to help explain to you all of the complex rules that editors use to get a page deleted, here: Wikipedia:Adopt-a-User. But don't wait for a mentor to respond on the deletion page.
   
3. When try to delete a page, veteran editors love to use a lot of rule acronyms. Don't let these acronyms intimidate you.
   Here is a list of your own acronyms you can use yourself: WP:Deletion debate acronyms which may support the page you created being kept.
   Acronyms in deletion debates are sometimes incorrectly used, or ignore rules or exceptions.
4. You can merge the article into a larger or better established article on the same topic.

If your page is deleted, you still have many options available. Good luck! travb (talk) 09:29, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Modeling point processes in R

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Modeling point processes in R, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

This page is extremely specific and is possibly the only article on a single module of a language on Wikipedia.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. Melelaswe (talk) 03:18, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

external links in the body of articles

See:

"External links should not normally be used in the body of an article. Instead, include appropriate external links in an 'External links' section at the end and/or in the appropriate location within an infobox or navbox." Wikipedia:External links#Important points to remember

and

"If an article has external links, the standard format is to place them in a bulleted list under a primary heading at the end of the article. External links should identify the link and briefly summarize the website's contents and why the website is relevant to the article." Wikipedia:External links#External links section

also WP:NOTLINK, articles are not lists of external links.

P.D.: I was going to ask in the talk page of WP:EL, although I see that someone made already a similar question ;Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 23#when are external links allowed in the body of the article? --Enric Naval (talk) 00:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

• These "policies" are only suggestions, not hard rules. The guideline, "No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justifiable", is clear and this case is "justifiable". There are cases where it is appropriate to use external links inline (e.g., in a table). This article is certainly such a case. Until we write each of the associated articles, the external links should stay, as they help the user find the packages. This is the primary goal of Wikipedia: Helping users find the information they require. --Thorwald (talk) 00:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

No, helping people to find stuff that is outside of wikipedia is a violation of WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The main goal is writing an encyclopedia (WP:ENC). Also, if you look at WP:REDLINK, leaving red links compels people to write those articles. Also, people might link at the "What links here" to see if a certain mane is being used often, or to find other articles pointing at the article they are creating so they can check them out, or to check if it's linked from many articles before nominating it for deletion as a measure of its "popularity". By using external links you are breaking all of that.

Leaving an external link will also not let you see when an article has been finally written. For example, I left a lot of wrong bluelinks like Desmond, which I should have changed to Desmond (software). However, I also made visible a few correct bluelinks: LAMMPS, Materials Studio, RasMol, which are now replaced by external links. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:47, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

As I said before, these are guidelines, not rules. I don't care if it is a "violation" or not the goal of some people on Wikipedia to help people find stuff; it is my goal (and has been for the ~six years I have been active on Wikipedia). Anyway, my compromise can be seen on my last edit of the article (i.e., I moved the external links to a separate column). --Thorwald (talk) 02:06, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much. That looks good enough to me, I was mostly interested in that the names were red links; I explained my reasons here to another editor (I reached a similar agreement with him about the links at List of nucleic acid simulation software but your version looks much better, I'll tell him about it). Again, thanks for understanding and for finding such a good solution. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:25, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I think the original version was better, but a separate column is also acceptable. But in this case column "Website" should not contain a "link", but a source name. And should not be empty cells, even where article on Wikipedia exist. Please look at my latest version of List of nucleic acid simulation software. (P99am (talk) 09:00, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

Perhaps the idea of a separate column is good enough if the work is done accurately. Look what happened now:

• We have a column with the same "link" statements.
• Some of the blue links become incorrect.
• Some names of programs black and some red, without any principle.
• Half of the links had become red. This is too much. We must keep in mind that Wikipedia for the first time for users, and only secondarily is invitetion for the editors.

To meet some formal rules are not sufficient reason to do such things. Those who want to improve the article should make a good job, but do not break the page. I therefore propose to revert to the original version - with external links. (P99am (talk) 14:28, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

It is easy to criticize, but better to help fix things. You didn't give any specific examples to the new "problems" you find with my latest edit. What did you mean by "We have a column with the same 'link' statements"? Which of the blue links became "incorrect"? I fixed the names in black (you could have as well). We should rename the "links" to the names of the institutes the packages originated (like you did in List of nucleic acid simulation software). I actually now think the new version is better, as it retains the external links (for our users) and reminds the editors which articles need to be created (the red links). The new version should stay, but be improved. --Thorwald (talk) 21:02, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I fixed a few incorrect blue links at [[List of software for molecular mechanics modeling]List of software for molecular mechanics modeling]]. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:31, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Philomena, Duchess of Vendôme

Hi. I'm letting you know about this suggestion since you participated in the AfD. Best, Olaf Davis (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Solyma

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article Solyma, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process.

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached.  _Mr\ ^Lore 02:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

The Historian

You have added an infobox to the above article, citing "external parsers". Could you please explain what this means? Thanks. Awadewit (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

• They are websites (e.g., dbpedia), RSS/Atom feeders/readers, bots, programs/software, etc. that rely on standards or guidelines set in Wikipedia for them to work properly. Every time these "standards" change (such as the removal of the infobox), the external parsers no longer work for the page in question. --Thorwald (talk) 04:50, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
  • I'm not really sure why we are obliged to do things a certain way on Wikipedia for external programs. Infoboxes, in my opinion, are undesirable for a number of reasons. One of the most important is that they discourage new users from editing (see the usability study). When the first thing that editors see is a bunch of confusing code rather than the clearer text of the lead, they are highly discouraged from editing. What is gained in a novel article from the infobox does not outweigh this, in my opinion, since the infobox just repeats the information from the lead. Awadewit (talk) 17:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

BLAST

Hi, lists of commercial links are generally not acceptable in articles, per WP:EL. Please consider reremoving the links that I cleaned up in this article. I looked over each of them and judged them in accordance to our guidelines and I removed the ones that the community generally feels shouldn't be allowed. If you feel otherwise, can you explain why you feel this particular article or a particular link within it warrants an exception from our guidelines? Thanks, ThemFromSpace 11:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

• Hi. Sorry about reverting you. I thought you were simply section blanking. I agree with you that the commercial links are unnecessary and I have just removed them. --Thorwald (talk) 12:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)

Unreferenced BLPs

Hello Thorwald! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 1 of the articles that you created is tagged as an Unreferenced Biography of a Living Person. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring this article up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 11 article backlog. Once the article is adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the article:

1. Kate Crossan - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of JYNXT

I have nominated JYNXT, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JYNXT. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.

Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Oo7565 (talk) 18:44, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Multiple sequence alignment

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. You are being notified as you have made a number of contributions to the article. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Multiple sequence alignment/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Your edit to History of supernova observation

Please discuss at Talk:History of supernova observation#Change in date format. I would like to view the policy you are citing before reverting again, as you didn't present it in the comments. If you are thinking of WP:UNITS, that doesn't apply to the dates. If you are referring to a non-Wikipedia convention, then that is automatically overridden by the Wikipedia standard, WP:DATERET. Wikipedia has it's own set of standards and conventions, which apply unless stated otherwise as in WP:UNITS. Thanks.—RJH (talk) 15:51, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to use disruptive, inappropriate or hard-to-read formatting, as you did at History of supernova observation, you may be blocked from editing. There is a Wikipedia Manual of Style, edits should not deliberately go against it without special reason. Jc3s5h (talk) 15:15, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

• You have no right to do that, as I was just using the official templates. Go gripe with them about their use. --Thorwald (talk) 16:14, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I have reported this matter at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

January 2011

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for edit warring, as you did at History of supernova observation. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection.

February 2011

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for contravening Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy, as you did at Tim A. Peters. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Jclemens (talk) 05:37, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Thorwald (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

Let me start by saying that I am not sure if I should put this "unblock" message/template here or somewhere else. I have been editing Wikipedia for over 6 1/2 years (with over 4,700 edits) and this is the first indefinite block I have ever received. I understand the reason why and I apologize for my actions. I seriously thought I was keeping the Tim A. Peters in good form and protecting the deletion of sourced material. I do not know Mr. Peters nor do I have anything against him. I simply thought other users were deleting sourced information because they didn't like what it reported. If that was wrong to do, I apologize and will no longer edit the article in question. In closing, I thought I would at least receive a warning before being blocked indefinitely and so quickly. I love editing Wikipedia and always have only the best intentions. Please help me resolve this issue so that I can get back to helping improve Wikipedia. Thank you for your time and any consideration you may give this request. Sincerely, Thorwald (talk) 00:49, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Accept reason:

Thanks for indicating your understanding of the issue's seriousness. Please resume editing without any restrictions, save to be as careful when reverting material on to BLP pages as you would be if you were adding it in the first place. Jclemens (talk) 05:19, 24 February 2011 (UTC)