From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Newer talk is at the bottom of this page.

---

Contents 1 Older Talk 2 More Talk in 2008 2.1 Wikipedia Weekly thanks you 2.2 AfD nomination of Hyperspace theory 2.3 Recent edits... 2.4 Greeting and thanks 2.5 Homeopathy and AGF 2.6 Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained 2.7 ep. 41 2.8 Crick et al 2.9 Bob Olby's new biography of Francis Crick due in December 2008 2.10 Change 2.11 Francis Crick 2.12 ROSALIND FRANKLIN 2.13 Dennis Thomas

[edit] Older Talk

User:JWSchmidt/Talk archive - and barnstars

[edit] More Talk in 2008

I do hope you like the long email? More to come when THE biography is published by CSHL Press!!

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.38.202 (talk) 19:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, but I may have lost your email in my spam filter. I have a new email address active for this wiki account. Please send me a short email there (click the "E-mail this user" link on this page) and I'll give you a return email with the new addy. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

If "long email" was joke then I guess the short email with a link was what you sent. It just showed up in my inbox. --JWSchmidt (talk) 19:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Read and enjoy it my friend! Do you want the same (by email) for Wilkins? Happy New Year! Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.108.7.114 (talk) 20:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

"E-mail this user" = sorry John I cannot find it, please give me another clue? regards, Martin

On the left side of this page, in the "toolbox".
"Do you want the same for Wilkins?" <-- sure. --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry John I think I will have to log-in! IF you find any SERIOUS discrepancies between 'your' Wikipedia article on FHCC and what I sent you earlier, do please let me know ASAP please? Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.203.177 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

John, any informal comments on what I sent would be appreciated please? I hope you have found it interesting reading and will look forward to the full biography published later this year. Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.110.169.200 (talk) 12:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Weekly thanks you

		The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
		Thank you for all your hard work in going back into our archives and making images for each episode. The pages look much better now. The Placebo Effect (talk) 22:38, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AfD nomination of Hyperspace theory

An editor has nominated Hyperspace theory, an article on which you have worked or that you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hyperspace theory and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Recent edits...

Did you mean for this to go on the talk page? Mercury at 06:29, 21 January 2008 (UTC) I have actually commented about it on the talk. Regards, Mercury at 06:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Greeting and thanks

I just saw your postings in Talk:Homeopathy and wanted to let you know that it is not unappreciated. There are many editors who do not participate regularly in that space due to the ongoing incivility issues, some of which I see you have already been subjected to. Thanks for helping. Your comments are very well reasoned and correct in my opinion. —Whig (talk) 18:36, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You might find the current discussion at Arsenicum album interesting, as that seems to be where a number of constructive editors are participating. —Whig (talk) 18:53, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Constructive? It's a POV load of woo. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Homeopathy and AGF

JWS, I just read your comment to ScienceApologist regarding assuming good faith. I think it's easier to AGF individuals in non-controversial issues. It is impossible with articles such as Homeopathy. Part of the problem is that one of four types of editors show up:

1. Reasonable editors (whatever their POV). These are so rare, I think we should build a statue to them. They actually understand NPOV, undue weight, etc. Unfortunately, for articles such as this one, SPOV=NPOV, and many individuals don't understand that equality.
2. Anonymous POV warriors who show up and argue tendentiously and uncivilly.
3. Registered but SPA accounts who argue tendentiously and uncivilly.
4. Registered accounts that have a one-track mind about Pseudoscience, that is, it works, we just don't understand.

Honestly, a lot of editors who have a science or medical background are getting frustrated. We put up with a lot. SA is just the surface of this frustration. I think lecturing him is unfair, unless you read the vast number of whining, arguing, and other negative comments from the POV warriors. We are frustrated. Tendentiousness should be one of the standards of uncivilness, because it's getting harder and harder to be nice. I'm no longer nice, because it is getting too difficult to put up with the POV warriors. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 19:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Informing past contributors of new TFD for Template:Maintained

As you were a contributor in the last TFD, I am letting you know that {{Maintained}} is again up for deletion. Please review the current version of the template and discuss it at the TFD. Thanks! — BRIAN0918 • 2008-01-30 17:47Z

[edit] ep. 41

Hi there!

There's a new episode of the podcast now live - episode 41: Interview with Angela Beesley. If you'd like to make an image for it that would be lovely.

Since we talk about how she has her own mainspace article - you could use her portrait and place it in between a big set of [[ double square brackets ]]. Just a suggestion.

Best, Witty Lama 11:17, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Crick et al

Although I have decided to work on improving the Maurice Wilkins article, I have just noticed how little reference there is to the LMB MRC Laboratory of Molecular Biology, in the Francis Crick article? As YOU are the leading light on Crick as far as I am concerned, can I respectfully suggest it needs some more on his time at the LMB please?

91.108.16.49 (talk)Martin Packer91.108.16.49 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:31, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm busy in the real world. You should be able to make your suggestion at the Crick page. --JWSchmidt (talk) 04:32, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Bob Olby's new biography of Francis Crick due in December 2008

Francis Crick: A Biography by Robert Olby; Hardback - ISBN 9780879697983; December 2008; Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press; Price: $TBA

"This engrossing biography by one of molecular biology' s foremost scholars reveals the remarkable evolution of Francis Crick' s scientific career and the shaping of his personality. From unpromising beginnings, he became a vital contributor to a remarkably creative period in science. Olby chronicles Crick' s life from his early studies in biophysics, to the discovery of the structure of DNA, to his later work in neuroscience and the nature of consciousness. This account is woven together with insights into his personal life gained through access to Crick' s papers, family, and friends. Robert Olby' s book is a richly detailed portrait of one of the great scientists of our time." (from Scion)

Contents Time Line Introduction 1. ' You're a Dog If You Haven't Got A Nobel Prize' 2. A Difficult Act to Follow 3. From the Provinces to the Big City 4. War Work for the Royal Navy 5. Biology at the Strangeways 6. Helical Molecules at the Cavendish Laboratory 7. The DNA Fiasco 8. Two Pitchmen in Search of A Helix 9. A Most Important Discovery 10. Publishing the Model 11. Employed by the John Wayne of Crystallography 12. The Genetic Code 13. Preaching the Central Dogma 14. Crick as Experimentalist 15. Speaking out on Controversial Subjects 16. Biological Complexity 17. Leaving the 'Old Country' 18. Taking the Plunge: Neuroscience 19. From the Searchlight to the Soul 20. Eighty-eight Years Biographical Index Subject Index

No doubt whatever Professor Olby has to say about Francis Crick can be used to improve this article; very little of Matt Ridley's 'potted' biography has been interpolated into this article, but Olby's full length (450 pages) scientific biography contains references and an index, both of which were missing from the Matt Ridley biography for reasons of space. Olby's biography of Crick has been many years in writing and Crick insisted that it NOT be published during his lifetime. Four years after his death, a full biography is being published by CSHL Press.

John, while I am pleased you effectively ignored the Matt Ridley version of Francis Crick's life - I think you will find ample new material in Bob Olby's version to 'improve' the article!

91.110.217.162 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:33, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I hope even a dog like me can appreciate it! --JWSchmidt (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Change

"Change is good." Have you been to Detroit?Lestrade (talk) 14:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] Francis Crick

http://www.oxforddnb.com/public/dnb/93883.html

Any comments?

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 19:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] ROSALIND FRANKLIN

John in the absence of Alun:can you 'repair' her article at the top of the page, not done by me?

Martin —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nitramrekcap (talk • contribs) 21:07, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your help John!

Martin Nitramrekcap (talk) 02:21, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dennis Thomas

John, your comments and especially your article "Wiki Science/Semantic prosthetic" are enlightening. Great perspective and understanding delivered with sincere humanity. Your very fresh view that language is a prosthetic to learn what other people are thinking is a tremendous concept. A viewpoint (in many respects) that Richard L. Ballard has advocated since 1987-1993 when he was working on the government Star Wars project. His phrase is "theory-based semantics." It appears that you were also inspired by Carl Sagan. For Ballard, it was "Episode 11: "The Persistence of Memory" that confirmed that one of natures greatest accomplishments was to invent the brain. Ballard developed a knowledge science out of his "machine assisted decision support" work while with the government, then translated that work into a machine that represents every form of human knowledge - it KNOWS. It defies in representation the religions of linguistics, logic and self-consistency in favor of what we regard as a true miracle of nature - the human brain. Thanks for the post. Dennis www.knowledgefoundations.com / dlthomas@knowledgefoundations.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.129.33.171 (talk) 14:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)