User talk:TimVickers/archive 2

Welcome!

Hello, TimVickers/archive 2, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Ed (Edgar181) 03:17, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme

Hi Tim! Thanks for your great edits to enzyme, the article is much clearer and neater now. Please also remember to sign your name on talk pages using the wikicode ~~~~. Once again, great work! -- Serephine ♠ talk - 03:43, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I too have been watching your progress on enzyme. Nice work. David D. (Talk) 02:16, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RE: Thanks

Absolutely no problem. -- Steel 14:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which Scottish Uni?

I was a graduate from Edinburgh biochemisty department. David D. (Talk) 21:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I went to Dundee. My old boss did his PhD in Edinburgh, many moons ago!--TimVickers 21:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme kinetics

Thanks for all your work at Enzyme kinetics! --JWSchmidt 02:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

--Peter Z.^Talk 02:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cool! But I'm sure the article can get better, it still seems a little over-technical. What kind of level of detail should we aim for in these pages? --TimVickers 02:54, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think an expanded lead, summarising the field in general terms would do the job. I doubt this is really a "general audience" article. Students (late school and undergraduate) are the readers here. Enzyme kinetics are tricky, especially for the mathematics-fobic types. The maths IS what they are all about, and there is no way around it. Your layout and presentation are great. A section you could certainly expand is Enzyme assays with examples of how they are actually set up. As a matter of curiousity, have you ever heard of a machine called the "enzymometre" (I'm not sure about the spelling) that uses change in conductivity to follow a reaction? --Peter Z.^Talk 03:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The technique does exist. I was just wondering if anyone outside of my university (Glasgow) ever heard of it. It is, to my surprise, still used - Template:Entrez Pubmed. --Peter Z.^Talk 04:53, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"I'm not sure if it is really written at the right level" <-- It is easy for Wikipedia policy to say that each article is clearly expressed for both experts and non-experts in appropriate detail, but what does "appropriate detail" mean? According to the Wikipedia Guide, not all articles are to be written for the same audience. The enzyme article should have a general introduction to the topic, but anyone who goes to Enzyme kinetics is going to be looking for some technical details. --JWSchmidt 03:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Tim, great article. I think it could use a very thorough peer-review. SO... I have nominated the article to be a 'Science collaboration of the week.' The beuracracy takes a while but I hope it helps. I'll keep reading now..... Adenosine | Talk 08:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment

Talk:Enzyme_inhibitor#Merge --Steven Fruitsmaak 18:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy

Did you mess up here? My assumption is that you are referring to effects on the activity of the drug. David D. (Talk) 00:00, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, I was referring to the effects the drugs have on the cells, but I see it can be read both ways.--TimVickers 00:28, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, i saw your change. it makes much more sense now. David D. (Talk) 00:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

homeopathy

i am out all day so cannot help with finding a reference re increasing popularity but there are a few good ones around. I will try and check for one later. best! Peter morrell 06:39, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Peter, we need to either reference the current two articles and say alternative medicine in general is growing in popularity, or find some survey data to show that homeopathy in particular is growing in popularity. I'm sure it is, but since people are objecting we need the right reference to back this up--TimVickers 15:21, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tim, this is the quote from one of the article cited in the introduction. You think this is not specific enough? Although they kick it off with alternative medicine they do specifically mention homeopathy.

"Alternative therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy are growing in popularity and are increasingly being endorsed by doctors."

I'm playing devils advocate here since I'm not sure this is a great source, nevertheless it does seem to address more than just alternaive medicines in general. David D. (Talk) 15:49, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. It is ambiguous. Does it mean that alt. med. is growing in popularity and some examples of alt. med. are homeopathy and acupuncture, or does it mean that acupuncture and homeopathy are examples of alt. med. that are growing in popularity? You can read it either way. We need a better source. I found one that said overall alt. med. usage has not increased in the USA since 1997 but I can't get full text to find the specific homeopathy figures.--TimVickers 16:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That link goes to nowhere. i may be able to download it here. Can you give me the link to the abstract page? David D. (Talk) 16:54, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tindle HA, Davis RB, Phillips RS, Eisenberg DM Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9. PMID: 15712765 --TimVickers 17:05, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, can't get that one. David D. (Talk) 17:23, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Peter will find something.--TimVickers 17:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]