User talk:TedE

This user may have left Wikipedia. TedE has not edited Wikipedia since November 2006. As a result, any requests made here may not receive a response. If you are seeking assistance, you may need to approach someone else.

Thank you for your contributions, you seem to be off to a good start. Hopefully you will soon join the vast army of Wikipediholics! If you need help on how to title new articles see the naming conventions, and for help on formatting the pages visit the manual of style. For general questions goto Wikipedia:Help or the FAQ, if you can't find your answer there check the Village Pump (for Wikipedia related questions) or the Reference Desk (for general questions)! There's still more help at the Tutorial and Policy Library. Plus, don't forget to visit the Community Portal. If you have any more questions after that, feel free to ask me directly on my user talk page.

Additional tips[edit]

Here's some extra tips to help you get around in the 'pedia!

• For Wikipedia policies and guidelines see The Five Pillars of Wikipedia and What Wikipedia is not.
• Find everything in the Directory.
• If you want to play around with your new Wiki skills the Sandbox is for you.
• Introduce yourself at the new user log.
• If you're bored and want to find something to do, try the Random page button in the sidebar, or check out the Open Task message in the Community Portal.
• If you have edits from before creating an account try this.
• To Upload Images with the correct Copyright tags.
• Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~), this will automatically produce your name and the date.

Be Bold!![edit]

You can find me at my user page or talk page for any questions. Happy editing, and we'll see ya 'round.

Joe I 02:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ted - just wanted to say thanks for fixing the project vote smart edits I've done by also adding the main page - I realized I had forgotten to do this after I got through them all and didn't have the time to go back immediately.Nimocks 04:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other thanks: For changing my references to the format suitable for talk pages. Your to-the-point edit title helped me to understand - a skill I admire since I have a tendency towards verbosity ;) - and I will be using the proper [] short form there from now on. Tiamut 15:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Please don't blindly revert to an earlier version. Among other things, your edit [1] removed interwiki links for various languages, which I don't believe you intended, so I've reverted it. When making your edits, please edit only the section you actually wish to change (presumably the "worms" section). -- Curps 00:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's happened to me before: you click on an earlier version in the article's history and then later you start editing it, not remembering that it's not the latest version. In this case, your edit resembled that of "Brambo" from September 24, so perhaps you followed links and ended up editing the older version. -- Curps 00:53, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I think you are right and those pictures are actually of Bandelier National Monument. I've now corrected the images names and descriptions. -- Solipsist 09:26, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the 2-minute turnaround time on the Jaggi Singh article, much appreciated :) Sherurcij ^{(talk) (Terrorist Wikiproject)} 09:01, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I forgot to log in when editing that page. I'd stick with both points of my edits though - Wikipedia definitely doesn't use "," as the decimal separator, even on Continental European articles, or when working in kilometres. Secondly, it's a road, not a bridge. However, it is a road that has a lot of bridges on it - a good analogy is the Overseas Highway in the Florida Keys. For now I'd be happy to leave it in the bridge section. I don't understand why you reverted the inclusion of Category:Roads in Norway - I mean, it is a road, and it's in Norway, right? TheGrappler 18:17, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, apology appreciated :) It looks like you do a lot of good work here, thanks! TheGrappler 18:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the unfortunately too frequent reverts on the Lawrence High School page. How are you doing the reverts so that all of the detailed info regarding the previous edit is included? Alansohn 15:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following was on my User page. I've moved it here. Ted 03:52, 19 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

but it should be anounced what coke did in 1985 on the coke page and the fact coke is made in most countrys with sugar with the eception of the US due to the infalted price of sugar and the goverment price subidies on corn. (placed by) Magnusfl 18 March 2006

I do not know how far you up to date with the conflict that is keeping editors from editing the page. If not, I suggest you have a look at the arbitration case that is currently pending. KimvdLinde 21:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To facilitate, this was the version most people (except Marcosantezana) could live with:

Natural selection is the process in which individual organisms that possess favourable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce. Natural selection works on the phenotype, the outward form determined by genes (the genotype), the environment and the interaction between them. Only heritable variations in a trait will be passed on to the next generation and the frequency of favourable heritable traits will increase in subsequent generations. The underlying genetic variation in traits is the result of genetic processes, such as mutations and recombinations, and can undo the effect of natural selection if strong enough relative to the effect of natural selection. Natural selection, together with other mechanisms such as genetic drift and mutations, is an important component of evolution, a cornerstone of modern biological and medical research.

The term was introduced by Charles Darwin in 1859 in his book "The Origin of Species", as an analogy with a farmer choosing individuals that possess desired characteristics for his breeding stock, which Darwin called artificial selection.

Maybe you find it not god, and in that case, I am curious what you think of that. KimvdLinde 22:54, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a lits of aspects here: User_talk:KimvdLinde/Natural_selection#Natural_selection_aspects KimvdLinde 02:28, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You did a lot of reversions to DeMarco-Becket Memorial Trophy. I have been following the edits of the IP that you reverted (24.87.69.253) and that person has been doing a good job of editting CFL related articles. And at the time you were reverting the page they were trying to put the list of winners into two columns to match other CFL awards pages. They often make many edits that could be combined into one through the use of preview, but after they finish editting their edits are generally good. Eventually this user gave up trying to make the columns work. Just something I thought you should be aware of. Qutezuce 21:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, my apologies then. Qutezuce 21:45, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help. Its nice to see newer users getting involved in some of the behind the scenes tasks. :)

I wanted to also leave you a note to let you know that when placing categories in different sections on the page, please put a colon in front of the category name inside the brackets: [[:Category:Living people]]. That will show a link to the category like this: Category:Living people. The way you did it with the cats you put up for deletion put WP:CFD/W in the categories you were asking to delete. Its a pretty common mistake so don't feel bad for doing it (certainly no harm done). --Syrthiss 19:24, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to be gentle. I guess I could have been subtler. I tried to add the most suitable template. Too much RC patrolling can get you grumpy sometimes. Thanks for the heads up. Joelito 04:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

apers0n 15:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC) Ted, I was wondering why you deleted the link to the American Dermatoglyphic Association in Dermatoglyphics? http://www.adelaide.edu.au/health/anat/ada/[reply]

Ok, the other link below it was a temporary placeholder until I could expand the scientific references for the article properly, and shouldn't have been there, but how is the ADA link 'misrepresented'

Yes, I got confused with all the redirects & moved page. I'm reverting the move right now, and added a "globalize" template to the Great Depression page (which, since Great Depression in the United States redirect to it, thought was just the US page). Tazmaniacs 21:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wonderin what a "c certificate" was. I was in Mexico in May that year, and it the theaters that I saw listed it as X-rated. As this site supports. [2] Was the ratings lessened, or is "c certificate" a synonym for x-rated? 12.220.94.199 01:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks. I guess the rating must of been lowered. 12.220.94.199 02:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ted, thanks for your comments on my RfA. I have to say, that while the two edits you referred to might not be my finest hour, I don't agree they display significant incivility. One was pointing out that a new user was perhaps a little misguided about the standards for content on WP, and the other was a response to an anon IP who called me a "maniacal nerd". I would also say that the two edits in question are several months old. I also dont agree that most of my almost 600 talk edits are related to redirects or unsigned comments, indeed I would say that's quite misleading and Special:Contributions/Deiz would back me up. While I am not necessarily expecting this to change your vote to support, I would feel a little disappointed to be opposed on the strength of these particular concerns. Please give me a shout if there's anything else on your mind. Cheers, Deizio talk 21:44, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, thanks for taking another look at my edits and your new note on the RfA. I truly hope that editors are interested in my contributions as a whole, and take as much time as you have done to have a second look if there is anything they are unsure about. Nice one, Deizio talk 01:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civility[edit]

I totally agree with your prioritisation of "civility" in RfA. It prevents a lot of preventable problems. Tyrenius 19:43, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I use VandalProof, and I can't figure out how to get the program to fill in edit summaries for me. Do you have any idea how I can fix this? --Zpb52 02:41, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I could be missing something here, but as you gave the test 4 template for this edit, the next 3 edits to Lake Forest Academy don't seem to be vandalism. Indeed, they aren't the best edits, but they don't fall under WP:VAND. Blocking should only occur if vandalism continues after the test4 is given. Thanks, AndyZ _t 20:23, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! You might be interested in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science if you haven't seen it already. Anyhow, keep up the good work on Fisher.--ragesoss 21:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, TedE, for voting in my RFA. It closed with a final result of 75/1/0. Now that I am an administrator here, I will continue to improve this encyclopedia, using my new tools to revert vandalism, block persistent vandals, protect pages that have been vandalized intensively, and close AFD discussions. Any questions? Please contact me by adding a new section on my talk page. Again, thanks to all of you who participated!!! -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I will try to work on the areas outlined in your oppose vote. Although I had mostly supports, it's also great to receive feedback on how I could improve. Again, thanks! :-) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to say how much I agree with your comments on civility, and admire your being first to point to this in the Robchurch AfD. Tyrenius 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ted. Thanks for pointing out the fact that I haven't used talk pages a lot, and the constructive suggestions are definitely aprreciated. It is unfortunate as most of my constructive editing is in places where nobody else edits. I deliberately focussed more on the weaker areas of the encyclopedia, so I found myself editing in a rather lonely manner. On the list of articles that I created, which you may want to look at on my userpage, I don't think that any of them have been changed except for typos, cats, templates, pics, formatting, but the content has never been contested. The other thing is geography, election statistics, physics, and mathematics tend to be quite objective and clear-cut and don't tend to attract POV disputes. The other thing is that as there seems to be relatively little high-profile disputes, I tend to centralize the discussion at Australian WP notice board, Indian notice board, Project talk for Indian Cinema and Project talk page for Cricket to get some attention. Also if it is a 1-1 dispute, sometimes I use the user talk directly. In the case of Ajith Kumar, I had six edits to the talk page (which the edit counter doesn't count as they are recent), and talked directly at User talk:Anwar saadat nine times, and also at the Indian board and the Indian cinema board, so there would be a total of probably more than 20 posts regarding one article. The same applies to cricket; I rewrote the Brett Lee article the other week, and posted a summary and reasoning which you can see at WT:CRIC and asked for feedback/questioning, but nobody seemed unhappy about my rewrite. As for the Dravid issue, it fizzled out, so I don't think that I bulldozed the others out of the way. Of course, I would reassure you, that as I have had little experience in the extreme heat of controversial politics and religious articles, I would always maintain a conservative approach if I were to dabble into larger disputes. Regards and thankyou.Blnguyen | Have your say!!! - review me 04:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As your talk page is already filled with RfA subject lines, I won't add another. Just wanted to drop a thanks for pointing out the numbering error on Talk:Criticism of Mormonism. Should you think to, if you happen to notice any other errors on my part, whether during or after the RfA, just let me know so I can set them straight. I appreciate it. Tijuana Brass^¡Épa!-E@ 04:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TedE, The proof that you asked for is up ---- Watchman Fellowship has been tracking cults like this for years.... In answer to your other question, Branch Davidian deaths were not caused by the cult. they were caused by the ATF/FBI etc. Jim Jones is a different matter, caused by ignorant people following Jim Jones into hell. No one (except the cult watchers) knew that the People's Temple were a dangerous cult until the mass suicide in Guyana(?). Many other cults have appeared benign to most of us until there was a mass suicide or mass murder (Does Manson Family ring a bell?) Wasn't there a mass suicide in California in the last few years, something about people being ready to take off in a space ship or something?

And yes, there have been deaths due to the "abusive, manipulative, or illegal control over their followers’ lives"; after being disfellowshipped, John Briggs went home and killed his wife and two small children and himself, his reason (in the suicide note) "without membership in the PCG, we have no salvation"!! That's what Gerald Flurry teaches Malachi's Message, v.7. Malachi's Message can be read at pcog.info if you are interested.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.40.33 (talk • contribs)

Hello again: When I put it in my own words, you tell me you want proof, when I give proof, you want it in my own words, what do you really want, and who are you to be protesting information given which has facts to back it up? Are you a moderator or admin? I'd just like to know what is going on. I'm not attacking anyone, I just want to make sure that both sides of the story are being told, not just some fawning bio of the man. And I'd also like to know why factual information like court dockets, arrest records etc. are being removed. I don't know why the red letters are there, I was just trying to mimic the symbols that others have used to be able to add to the WIKI. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.144.40.33 (talk • contribs)

Hi, Ted. After some thought, I decided to change my vote to an outright delete. The practice described in the article really doesn't have any appropriate place in kiddush. What do you think? HKT 22:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aye, time's the acid test, we'll see... I just thought you'd overstated your case WRT Marcos's RFA, otherwise I'd not have said anything. I honestly have no memory of Marcos & heritability, I'd have to go look at the edit history. I really stopped working on anything he was active on. I don't know how much effort it would have taken to really interact constructively with him, but it seemed far more than any reasonable person ought to be expected to put in (the same could be said of a few people on Nat Sel, list membership debatable, but I think we both understand that well). I pretty much gave up on anything that requiring more than a 15 second attention span some time after that, and it doesn't look like Nat Sel is going to fall under that threshold anytime soon. I'm not planning on trying to clean up any more messes, at least not outside game theory topics, until fall at the earliest. Anyway, good luck with your science (I'm kind up to my neck in childcare for the near future, just going to try and make sure no one burns the lab down over the summer). Cheers, Pete.Hurd 17:23, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may notice that I took Marcos' side for quite a while and resisted some of Kim's efforts, both in editing NS and in the ArbCom lane, but I got fed up with Marcos' apparent inability to use the tools correctly. There was one occasion where I copyedited for him and he found some spurious fault with my edit that did not seem to relate to anything I had written. At that point, I gave up on him. Articles need to be rewritten from scratch once in a while, that's just how things are, and Kim went to the effort and deserves credit for that contribution. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:16, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll try to give it a solid read-through sometime this weekend. Cheers, Pete.Hurd 18:24, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know you reverted Alienus' talk page. Not sure why you did that though. Alienus contacted me and I was replying. Why would you mess with someone else's talk page? I have to revert back.

64.178.145.150

Thank you for the reply. No vandalism was intended. Alienus wrote to me. I was responding. Curious... what is it that makes it look like vandalism?

64.178.145.150 03:56, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again. I looked at the history and I see what you are talking about. It DOES look like Vandalism. But I do not think that was me. Something "weird" happened during the posting -- some error came up and I had to hit reply twice. I notice in the history that my comments do not come up "red" but some deletion does. Not sure what happened, but I promise it was not an intentional act. I was only trying to reply. Thanks for being watchful! I respect Wikipedia and I am a financial contributor because I believe in it. I would not intentionally harm it.

64.178.145.150 04:05, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know about your post. You may or may not know that we had this discussion at length ages ago. The current rewrite of NS is a direct result of the discussions back then, and was a major effort. I seriously doubt anybody will be prepared to go over everything again. I recommend you read Talk:Natural_selection/Archive_002 before taking this any further. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 18:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"or to tell me I'm a complete whack-o" ... ummmm, for proposing that exact definition, or embarking on the attempt at all? ;-) ... I'll see what I can do. -Cheers, Pete.Hurd 18:14, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have a look at it when I have time - right now I'm just scanning my watchlist in between trying to get things done...horrible idea when you need to get things done ;) Guettarda 23:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, thanks for the invitation for the renewed definition discussion at NatSel. I think however that it is wiser that I let it in your hands and refrain from participating. There is still a lot of work that needs to be done at other important articles that I for the moment prefer to concentrate on those instead of spending my energy on a renewed definition discussion. Best -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:08, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was reading the vandalproof page and it says when you make a change the user is blacklisted? Does that mean you cant see comments from me anymore, considering my change was an accident, and now im being treated like a common criminal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.242.86.90 (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry. I'm confused now. Previously I added the category to the articles that the brand names linked to and someone told me that was the wrong thing to do and they moved them all to the redirects. Now you're saying that I was right the first time. Can you point me to a Wikipedia guideline that would confirm your suggestion? Thanks. 148.177.1.219 21:03, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ted. Thanks for your attention to the matter. I didn't think that category additions would work on redirects from a technical standpoint (though now I see they do) and I'm with you that in most cases categories should not be added to redirects. I think that certain redirect classes do lend themselves to such treatment, though, such as redirects associated with the tags {{R from subtopic}}, {{R with possibilities}} and {{R from brand name}} and perhaps a small number of others (though certainly not {{R from misspelling}} or {{R from other capitalisation}}, for instance). Regards, User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:44, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That image is definitaly not public domain originating from the US Government. It belongs to the University of Leicester - they are even credited on the NLM site. The copyright page of that site also says:

When using NLM Web sites, you may encounter documents, illustrations, photographs, or other information resources contributed or licensed by private individuals, companies, or organizations that may be protected by U.S. and foreign copyright laws.

The image is definitely wrongly tagged. You might get away with tagging it as a publicity shot, but I feel you should ask the University for permission too. Please do something with it, otherwise it'll have to be deleted. JRawle (Talk) 19:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. That image is famous, it's often used in the University bulletin here in Leicester. I might contact then to ask permission (tagging it as a publicity shot, as it certainly is!) It would be good to have it on the article. Regards, JRawle (Talk) 00:11, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SCHOOL was rejected. There is no policy mandating that we keep this school. JoshuaZ 03:22, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why was my addition of the U of L Orienatation Babes reverted? This is a great way to get people to go to U of L...who wouldn't want to go to school with Maggie, Toree, or Jenna? 65.138.70.148 05:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Ted,

Thanks for dropping by my talk page and inquiring about the lower incidence of heart disease that I cited on the Down Syndrome article. I actually posted that statistic after getting a question regarding incidence of CHD's in Down Syndrome wrong on a 2006 United States Medical Licensing Examination Step 1 practice test created by Kaplan (Qbank). They claimed that it was closer to 20%, and thinking that their number would be backed up by research and in concordance with the number that the USMLE board of examiners had found through research article searches.

That being said, your google search piqued my interest, and so I decided to go into my medical university's Ovid MEDline search, which looks through thousands of journals to find information on a given subject that has been published in a peer-reviewed medium. I actually found conflicting numbers myself, interestingly enough:

1. The abstract of "Down Syndrome Associated Malformations" in Indian Journal of Medical Sciences 51(10):390-3, 1997 Oct. states that, "in 417 cytogenetically confirmed Down Syndrome patients ... congenital heart defects have occurred more frequently [75; 17.98%] than osteoarticular malformations [23; 5.52]; eye anomalies [22; 5.27%]; and gastroenterological malformations [n 16; 3.84%]." Note that the number given here is 17.98%.
2. The abstract of The association between congenital heart disease and Down syndrome in prenatal life in Ultrasound in Obstetrics & Gynecology. 15(2):104-8, 2000 Feb., however, has a different take on things. This article states that " RESULTS: In the group of 41 fetuses with known DS, the incidence of CHD was 56% ([atrioventricular septal defect (AVSD) 44%, ventricular septal defect (VSD) 48%], the remainder having other heart defects)." Here, the number is 56%. This article is, of course more recent, but it is notable that the sample size of 41 fetuses is much much smaller (and therefore more likely to have a different number due to chance) than the population studied in the article in Indian Journal of Medical Sciences.
3. I also found a study in Indian Pediatrics. 29(9):1113-6, 1992 Sep that states, "Fifty cases of chromosomally proven Down syndrome were studied. A physical examination, electro cardiogram, radiograph of chest and two-dimensional echocardiography was performed on all patients. Twenty-two (44%) children had heart diseases. Endocardial-cushion-defect was the commonest anomaly, followed by ventricular septal defect." This is an Indian study that gives an incidence of 44%.
4. A study called "Down's syndrome: different distribution of congenital heart diseases between the sexes." (International Journal of Cardiology. 27(2):175-8, 1990 May) gives a figure of right around 50% as well with n = 277.

So, it seems that though the most recent article I could find on the subject states around 20%, and although Kaplan and the USMLE state 20%, the peer-reviewed articles I have found give a figure closer to 50%. I suppose that the 50% figure would be backed up by more evidence, and I support a reversion of the wiki article to reflect that; that being said, I might need to have a word with the folks over at kaplan, and perhaps with the medical licensing examiners, to see if I can find out where they got their numbers. Perhaps (probably?) their research into the matter was more comprehensive than what I've just posted here. Let me know if you find anything else, since I am now quite interested to find anything new out.

Rossodio 17:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, Just saw your comments on my talk page -- let me know if and when you find anything, and I'll do the same. I don't know if I'll be able to get much out of the Kaplan people, but I'll try.

Rossodio 00:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Wrong link. The discussion is not about Nature vs Nurture. Original link is right"

The original link doesn't lead anywhere useful and just confuses a reader as to what is actually meant by environment in that sentence. If Life sciences is what is correct, why not link to environmental science, ecosystem or natural environment? Grumpyyoungman01 14:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge violates GFDL. Could you please reconsider your position? User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of material created by Editor A then merging it into another article loses the attribution of Editor A having written the original text. This is a copyright violation. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I appreciate your response. User:Zoe|^(talk) 18:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here I explained my plan about medical genetics wikiproject. Your additions would be useful. NCurse _work 13:37, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't stalk my edit simply because I made a remark on the WhatReallyHappened issue. You can't possibly know more about film structure than I do. Thanks. Roukan 18:39, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all your comments on Wikipedia:Peer review/Down syndrome/archive1. I guess the peer review is officially closed (although I still have it on watch). I'm too close to the project, but I think it has improved based on your comments and criticisms. Thanks, again. Ted^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:31, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It's a darn good article ! Sandy 03:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You resign. What do you want? I'm ready for consensus. I don't care about how we call it (disorder, disease, condition), just work together. "The project is disorder oriented. " - you said. It's not true. The project guidelines are under construction. If you say, the project should be condition oriented, then it'll be. You shouldn't resign at the first hard point. Regards, NCurse _work 14:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

TedE - Maybe I was a bit premature in putting the {{genetic-disorder-stub}} template name up on the guideline page. It was jut to make a start on the page, but I did say on the talk page that the name has not been finalised yet - it doesn't even exist at the moment. We're all in this together, and still in the process of reaching some agreed terminology. --apers0n 16:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone said you'd seen through my strategy. I don't know what strategy, but I'm sure all things are as they should be. ;)

Samsara (talk • contribs) 21:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Balanced Translocation Cross.png. Wikipedia gets thousands of images uploaded every day, and in order to verify that the images can be legally used on Wikipedia, the source and copyright status must be indicated. Images need to have an image tag applied to the image description page indicating the copyright status of the image. This uniform and easy-to-understand method of indicating the license status allows potential re-users of the images to know what they are allowed to do with the images.

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

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

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you need help on selecting a tag to use, or in adding the tag to the image description, feel free to post a message at Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. 04:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

But it seems that the sweet pea seed coat spotting gene (SCP) is describing an interaction between two genes, not a dominance relationship? So this example could fit in the epistasis article. - Samsara (talk • contribs) 12:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medical Genetics/Participants... Thanks NCurse _work 20:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello TedE, and thank you for your support at my Request for Adminship, which succeeded with an overwhelming final count of (105/2/0). I was very pleased with the outpouring of kind words from the community that has now entrusted me with these tools, from the classroom, the lesson in human psychology and the international resource known as Wikipedia. The Free Encyclopedia. Please feel free to leave me plenty of requests, monitor my actions (through the admin desk on my userpage) and, if you find yourself in the mood, listen to some of what I do in real life. In any case, keep up the great work and have a fabulous day. Grandmasterka 07:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there's a consensus that Citizens for Retiring the Penny is redundant or unnessary then I have no problem with it being deleted. I saw that the Coin Coalition had its own article so I figured CRP deserved one as well.--Daveswagon 22:35, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As someone pointed out on the Coin Coalition page, it's hard to tell whether or not the coalition still exists. I couldn't find a website for it or any recent news about it on Google.--Daveswagon 23:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned the "Student Bill of Rights" in your comment, so I presume you know who David Horowitz is and Students for Academic Freedom, and likely also Horowitz's Frontpagemag. In case you missed it, I just left a comment pointing to the SAF site's Bradford coverage page[3], listing seven articles that SAF/Frontpagemag did on the Bradford controversy. Horowitz was one of the leading figures pushing the nationalization of this case. My AfD comment has a little bit more. --Groggy Dice 07:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, maybe we should keep the article now, and delete it in two years. Probably very few people will remember him in two years, I agree, but I have two problems with your argument. First, he became part of the larger Ward Churchill controversy. Picture someone exploring the "little Eichmanns" affair coming across one of the conservative commentaries hailing Bradford as the anti-Churchill. The person reads about how leftist academics are persecuting a Silver Star-winning Green Beret and real-deal Indian, while rallying around an unpatriotic fake Indian like Churchill. The explorer decides to go on Wikipedia to find out more, finds no entry for Bradford, and the misinformation stands.

Second, people like Horowitz can no longer champion Bradford openly and heavily in the mainstream since his disgrace, insuring that he will probably never achieve your threshold of notability. But ignoring Bradford helps them to continue to use this case "under the radar." I noted that he still mentioned the Bradford case in the introduction to The Professors, which came out in February, two months after Bradford's case collapsed. (Without the book at hand, it's impossible to know if he's discussed elsewhere in the book.) Horowitz apparently continued to cite the Bradford case on the radio during his book tour, months after the truth came out. Now that Bradford is "damaged goods," his current level of semi-notability is actually best for them. They can still present a heavily slanted version of his case to arouse the "base," without him being so generally notable that they would face refutation. Leaving him off Wikipedia helps them in playing this "under the radar" game. --Groggy Dice 00:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Ted, I am an unregistered user here just got a message from you saying I changed something and I have no clue what you're talking about! I would appreciate not receving messages that do not pertain to me.

I think I got it now! Amity150 03:24, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ted - Let me know if you get this because I am not sure yet how to message someone, so this is a learning experience. On the huntingtin: I think if the gene is referred to it is not capitalized, right? The article does not seem to be entirely consistent on this either. Anyway, if I am wrong, please accept my apologies! Thanks, amity. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 23:05, 24 July 2006 (talk • contribs) Amity150

I made a legitemate change to 2006 Serie A scandal. I added in the match's that ac milan ect will play behind closed doors not just Juventus' as the page says. I then recieved thins message

<Message Deleted>

IN the page The most annoying thing in the world i just changed it from a redirrect to the crazy frog to an annoying page as the title would suggest. ( it looks like it worked)

The edit to TedE page was just out of pure annoyance with you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.110.249.79 (talk • contribs)

I also dont know how to contackt you directly --88.110.249.79 23:03, 25 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw it on the reques thing and I thought.. how hard woudl it be to google up some basics and toss it into a stub. Obviously much more difficult than I thought ;)--Crossmr 15:12, 28 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reported the vandal to WP:AIV due to repeated vandalism, so we won't be seeing it around for the next day or so. :) MER-C 04:01, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ted, you and/or others need to place something directly on users' "Talk" pages that inform them that it is a violation (never mind how ridiculous) for them to erase their pages to make room for new information. Aside from that, removing old (and unfair) warnings should not be a problem, unless you just intend to make someone look bad (which seems to be the case for me...). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.187.9.149 (talk • contribs)

I have reverted the addition of the cite template in the health aspects of Down syndrome page. There is certainly no consensus that cite is to be used for articles and I find it difficult and unwieldy to use. Hence, I'd prefer to avoid it if possible! InvictaHOG 11:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, are you interested in nominating Down syndrome for featured article since you've done so much hard work on it? I know that NCurse has volunteered to nominate it if you don't feel comfortable! InvictaHOG 15:26, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Ted, I saw your FAC, but might not be able to paricipate, as I've got a killer two weeks ahead with limited internet access. You have a cite tag, which you should try to get rid of before reviewers see it, and you have an external jump in Notable Cases, which you should remove. Good luck ! Sandy 03:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations !! Sandy 02:34, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ted, kudos on your response to Pellionisz on Talk:Junk_DNA. I have been sucked into an unproductive debate with him in the past, and wish I had used something more like your response. Zashaw 02:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Human genome and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 05:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I nominated Enzyme for Featured article a while ago. As you are a Wikipedian who contributes to scientific articles, I would appreciate your feedback on this nomination. Thanks! TimVickers 16:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great work on the Down syndrome page and congratulations on it becoming featured! In case you were wondering, I didn't vote because I felt too close to the page and didn't want it to be seen as a conflict. But it was really featured material! InvictaHOG 02:42, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To Dwaipayanc, Xyzzy n, Wouterstomp, Wikipedical, TimVickers, Arcadian, NCurse, TedE, Jkelly: to all who have helped me develop the article Tourette syndrome, I was hoping you'd have a new look. Jkelly has checked the images, I've asked Tony to do a thorough copyedit to polish the prose when he has time, and I've completed the referencing and expanded the Screening section. I think I've done all I'm capable of, and would appreciate any new input you may have. Sandy 23:58, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think you're right on that. I'll make the change. --Fastfission 18:38, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You voted for Karyotype and this article is now the current Science Collaboration of the Month! Please help to improve it to match the quality of an ideal Wikipedia science article.

NCurse _work 06:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just so you know, the reason I didn't block that IP was that the edits in question were over 2 hours old when I got to them, and the IP had not continued editing since then. With a registered user, I might have issued a block, but with an IP editor, the problem is that a lot of people use dynamic IPs, so the probability is quite high that the block wouldn't actually affect the offender, but might inconvenience an honest user. I don't know why AIV was so backed up; it usually gets a lot more attention, but I'm sure the backlog was part of the reason no one got to that report in a timely fashion. Mangojuice^talk 22:56, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to let you know a featured article you worked on, 0.999..., was featured today on the Main Page. Tobacman 00:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for misunderstanding your example and making an incorrect assumption. You're not the first experienced editor I've insulted by accident. I've had a go at reformatting the style guideline (at a temporary page) and would appreciate your comments. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) for details. Colin°^Talk 23:20, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear TedE,

I am trying to get the Ohio Wesleyan University article to FA status. I was wondering if you might have some time to take a look at it and make some suggestions for improvements (help with editing will be most welcome). WikiprojectOWU 02:14, 12 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When ya can, see this case for your thoughts. Thanks. (Me | The Article) 18:50, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The inaugural March 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 04:07, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The May 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 06:18, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The September 2007 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter has been published. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss 00:55, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new May 2008 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is hot off the virtual presses. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse--ragesoss (talk) 23:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, TedE I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 08:05, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image:Trinitite.JPG is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:Image:Trinitite.jpg. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[Image:Trinitite.jpg]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 07:08, 6 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's here at long last! January 2009 issue of the WikiProject History of Science newsletter is ready, with exciting news about Darwin Day 2009. Please feel free to make corrections or add news about any project-related content you've been working on. You're receiving this because you are a participant in the History of Science WikiProject. You may read the newsletter or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Yours in discourse --ragesoss (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ted, you haven't edited in a while so I have placed you on the Wikipedia:Missing Wikipedians for posterity, thanks for all you hard work in the past, notably to me your work on Huntington's disease gave me a great foundation to work on and since then ( with a lot of outside help) it has gained FA status, couldn't have done it without you! If you read this then I wish you good health, happiness and fulfilment - best wishes and once again thankyou! Lee∴V (talk • contribs) 20:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

ICHTHUS

January 2012

In this issue...

• From the Editor
• What are You doing For Lent?
• Fun and Exciting Contest Launched
• Spotlight on WikiProject Catholicism

---

Ichthus is the newsletter of Christianity on Wikipedia • It is published by WikiProject Christianity
For submissions contact the Newsroom • To unsubscribe add yourself to the list here

Your upload of File:Additive and Dominance Effects.png or contribution to its description is noted, and thanks (even if belatedly) for your contribution. In order to help make better use of the media, an attempt has been made by an automated process to identify and add certain information to the media's description page.

This notification is placed on your talk page because a bot has identified you either as the uploader of the file, or as a contributor to its metadata. It would be appreciated if you could carefully review the information the bot added. To opt out of these notifications, please follow the instructions here. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 11:24, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Ascertainment bias.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:22, 5 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Balanced Translocation.png, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 12:43, 17 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Another one of your uploads, File:Bridge at Pojoaque.jpg, has also had some information automatically added. If you get a moment, please review the bot's contributions there as well. Thanks! Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 14:12, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:38, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]