User talk:Josh Grosse

You're very welcome. Nobody gives Wikipedia's most experienced users nearly enough credit. --Ryan! | Talk 08:54, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind, but I nominated you for adminship; you may want to accept the nomination here. Good luck, Ryan! | Talk 10:36, Mar 7, 2005 (UTC)

Re WP:RFA

I guess you know, but you have been nominated for adminship. A main consideration for success is you accepting! Cheers, and good luck. Smoddy (t) (e) 18:34, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Congrats, as of a few minutes ago, you're a sysop! I suggest that you read Wikipedia:Administrators' reading list and Wikipedia:Administrators' how-to guide before using your new-found powers, but that's by no means a requirement. Happy editing! Pak aran 18:11, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Dictyostelium discoideum genome

Just in case you are interested, Nature 435, 43 (5 May 2005) has just published "The genome of the social amoeba Dictyostelium discoideum". The article is free: you don't neet to be a subscriber (just a registered user). Here is the URL: [1]

Cheers,

JaimeGlz

Thanks, Jaime.

Mantidae

I appreaciate having outside eyes come in and look at this. Thanks for cleaning some of it up. One question is though, where do we put links to the species of mantids that we actually have articles on? Perhaps the taxobox isn't the right place, but certainly somewhere in the article itself. Thanks Wikibofh 30 June 2005 22:20 (UTC)

Nevermind. I'm a nimrod. They are in the article. Sorry. Wikibofh 30 June 2005 22:22 (UTC)

Don't be. Linking to groups we have articles on is a common problem. In this particular case, these three species all have a point of distinction - they're found in North America. In general, though, lots of species won't have anything particularly distinctive about them. In that case, it might be best to leave them unlisted on the article page, and let people find them via the categories? Just a thought. Thanks, Josh

Endosymbiotic chloroplasts of eukaryotic origin in protists

Sorry about the boneheaded edits I made to Euglenozoa and Cercozoa, and thank you for reverting them so quickly. My notion of what a chloroplast is got a lot bigger after I went back and read more carefully. --Eric Forste 8 July 2005 01:00 (UTC)

Trypanosoma articles

I'm wondering if you would consider reverting the trypanosoma pages. You know, those seperate pages could be very useful in the future if they were expanded. Establishing a new page is the first step towards developing the new page. Even though they are not very interesting at this point, in the future, if they were carefully expanded, they could really make a difference in the set of trypanosoma articles on the Wikipedia, which disease includes chagas and sleeping sickness. It really helps to have the seperate pages available in order to describe the finer differences between the various trypanosomes. That can't be done if each of the seperate species is assigned to the same page. Does this make sense? Please think about it. --McDogm 03:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I read the Talk:Trypanosoma; I am sure you thought the spp pages weren't going to be developed. I am planning on making taxonomy boxes for each, and adding information about the differences (whatever scant difference there may be) to each. It could take a while before the articles aren't subject to the obvious editing instinct to put the spp into the one page; I totally understand the edits. Rest assured, I am following these articles; they are not orphan stubs. Let me know if you think this is reasonable. Sincerely, --McDogm 04:04, 11 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"If you're planning to expand them, please do, and accept my apologies. However, the sheer number of stubs you've created on a variety of different groups makes me seriously wonder if it wouldn't be better to wait until the information is there. The basic versions, you know, can be retrieved directly using the article history. Josh"

Yeah, I am going to expand them, but I have to wait until they are more substantial or they will just get taken for orphan stubs again, obviously. Thanks for your support. --McDogm 08:06, 17 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Just a final note before you archive this discussion: I spend a lot of time on zh.wikipedia and sometimes on ko.wikipedia, and I am a little spoiled by the environment there. It is as though the Wikipedians over there are a lot more confident about the future of their Wikipediae, and coupled with lower activity rates, they are able to create many articles that wouldn't last on en.wikipedia., because the high user rate on en.wiki creates a lot of "filler" and vandalism which of course needs to be continually pruned away. A lot of articles on zh and ko are empty structures that will be filled over time, and if they were on en they would would be VfD'd as being unprofessional, in a Wikipedia way, for the above mentioned reasons of there being too much filler and vandalism on en, due to the volume. So when I spend time on zh and ko I come back to en with a very optimistic point of view viz a viz the potential of the Wikipedia, and this is how I came to be authoring stubs that were reintegrated into an original article. Sorry for the trouble. Cai jian. Have a nice day. --McDogm 08:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is definitely true that if there are multiple articles about spp in one genus it seems a little more confusing to the average student, but I have a lot of faith in the reader to find the information that he or she needs. My vision of species pages is to create a lot of room for the subjects to be discussed -- that is, the trypanosomes, or the different plasmodia or eimeria. Because the idea of writing these pages is to entertain and inform the reader, while at the same time hewing to the science, it is a task in creative copywriting, and one should certainly not try to hastily produce pages that have tax boxes and pertinent information just to fill the empty topics. Not to mention, I myself am not a career biologist or doctor, and I would defer as a matter of course to anyone who is. Since protista species articles, and many others in the field of parasitology and biology, are indeed difficult to write based on the high level of scientific ability it takes to differentiate between and then to write about the various species involved, I would have to spend more time with the material before any such article larger than a stub would make sense scientifically/encyclopedically, given the extant nature of the Wikipedia and its need for clear, quality articles, and its housekeeping requirements. When I feel more confident with the material I will actually try to do the work of writing about the different plasmodia and trypansomes, if it helps the main pages involved, and if it stands up to criticism, then that would be good for the Wikipedia. I am certainly not going to strain myself to make this happen. Well, thanks again. --McDogm 00:38, 20 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I'm fine with following generally accepted Wikipedia practice. I was just a little idealistic about creating interesting sub-pages of various important parasites. The basic premise of doing so was that available research would determine the extent of this building of sub-pages. Since it is apparent that that limit has been basically reached by extant Wiki pages on the subject, I'm just a little disappointed that there isn't more opportunity for industrious sub-page stub and tax box creation. I noticed that you are working with Protista. I spend time reading zh: Protista articles, among others including Entomology, Genetics, Medicine and Biology in general. If I find a way to talk about the interesting ideas the Chinese have about these subjects I will try to add them to the discussion pages in an unobtrusive manner. I hope you don't mind a relatively lay person slowing the discussion down. Tx again. --McDogm 03:49, 19 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I went ahead and wrote a one-page primer on "concepts in transpacific parasitology/entomolgy", the first article at talk:parasitology.

Thanks again

For your work on the protist articles. I just figured that thanking you once and lefthandedly for reverting a couple of my ill-advised edits wasn't really enough. --Eric Forste (Talk) 06:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replying on my talk page, since you kindly copied this there. And thanks for correcting my userspace subpage about the redirect from Pyrrhophyta to Dinoflagellata. Please go ahead and do any more of that you'd like to. I think my regnum protista section is just a copy of your work (as it stood when I was copying it) anyway. --arkuat (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Halobacteria

Ah, the links in Halobacteriales and Halobacteriaceae are not copies of the ones in Halobacteria (which was one reason I made them separate articles) - and what was wrong with the external links in Halobacteria anyway, that they deserved being deleted? Also, the list of genera in Halobacteriaceae is somewhat longer than the list in Halobacteria. Noel (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I don't usually check other User_talk: pages (so that I don't have to monitor a whole long list of User_Talk: pages - one for each person with whom I am having a "conversation"), so please leave any messages for me on my talk page (above); if you leave a message for me here I probably will not see it. I know not everyone uses this style (they would rather keep all the text of a thread in one place), but I simply can't monitor all the User_talk: pages I leave messages on. Thanks!

photosynthesis

Thanks for your input. I think Natalinasmpf is sure I am talking through my ass. It will be interesting to see if he listens to others with a similar opinion. Thanks David D. (Talk) 22:12, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User Categorisation

You were listed on the Wikipedia:Wikipedians/Canada page as living in or being associated with Canada. As part of the Wikipedia:User categorisation project, these lists are being replaced with user categories. If you would like to add yourself to the category that is replacing the page, please visit Category:Wikipedians somewhere undetermined in Canada for instructions.--Rmky87 01:29, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Foraminifera

Josh, thanks for the restructuring of the Foraminifera page. It makes sense and looks great. Through contributing to and watching others contribute to this one page, I have been learning a lot about what it means to be a Wikipedian.

Safay 20:11, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Taxobox

Josh, your work on the optional parameter taxobox was fantastic, and greatly appreciated. Unfortunately it was completely failing at Jarrah and Banksia. I fixed this problem, but my fix resulted in many taxoboxes showing ugly whitespace. Another user fixed the ugly whitespace problem, but their fix once more destroyed the taxoboxes at Jarrah and Banksia. I have reverted to the ugly whitespace version. What we really need is a taxobox genius like yourself to find a way of fixing both problems at once. Any interest? Snottygobble | Talk 06:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Josh. Snottygobble | Talk 05:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not revert the taxbox to the version that abuses meta-templates. I will be happy to assist with any presentation issues, but, per WP:AUM, we cannot continue to support your version. I have noticed that several articles are misusing BR tags and line-breaks. Those articles will need to be fixed over time, but my change is of over-riding importance. Please contact me or document any problems on Template talk:Taxobox. -- Netoholic @ 19:21, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am running a process across all the Taxobox articles to cleanup some/most/all of these line-break problems. -- Netoholic @ 19:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Josh, I made a change to Taxobox using a method developed by User:MrWeeble which I think may resolve the subdivision problems. I left the CSS method in place for everything except subdivisions. You can see the hybrid Weeble-CSS version in operation at Dinosaur. --CBD _☎ ^✉ 20:57, 31 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

What changes are "necessary"? I see no difference except for the bolding of row headers, which I addressed on talk. -- Netoholic @ 23:34, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your objections

I've replied to your objections to the merger at talk:eumetazoa and invite you to reconsider. TheLimbicOne(talk) 02:50, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]