User talk:David D.

——————————————— TALK: DAVID D. —————————————

Welcome.

(Contributions) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Current Talk

You may

BevNet

I haven't found the quote on their website yet, but I have heard from multiple sources (including in person from an executive at XS) the same quote. I sent a quote request to Bev Net, to verify it with them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Barwick (talk • contribs)

Account

No problem, will get one now

Template:MedalWorldChampionships

Just wanted to let you know that I set this template up to be neutral in the medal sport. If you want to put this in for a specific sport, you can use Template:MedalSport and for the championships and you can use the medal with the respective championship to link to that event. We need to keep this as sport neutral as possible in order to ensure full usage among all sports (athletics, swimming, [[sailing], nordic skiing, luge among many). I will change this template back as such. Chris 18:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oh i see i had not thought about it that way (not seeing big picture here). Sorry for messing it up for you. i should have checked to see which pages were using it. Thanks for being polite. :) David D. (Talk) 18:27, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not responding to you sooner, but there is no need for you to apologize. I was trying to make certain that everyone would be able to use this without having to create their own little template for each championship which would put unecessary work on everyone. I look forward to working with you again in the future if possible. Chris 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject Newsletter!

We have a new newsletter!
As you've no doubt noticed, there's a new Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject newsletter, which will be sent out about once a month to all WP:MCB members. This newsletter is designed to perform two equally important functions. Firstly (and obviously, perhaps) it will serve to inform the members of the MCB project of such things as important discussions, votes, and article improvement drives. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the periodic correspondance will hopefully encourage a greater level of participation from the MCB community by acting as a gentle reminder of many of the the interesting tasks that are awaiting completion. If you prefer to receive this newsletter in the form of a link, or not receive it at all, you can add your name at Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Newsletter/Opt Out List.
New project feature: MCB Article Improvement Drive
Have any pet MCB subjects that you think need attention? Have you been longing to be part of a team of like-minded editors working toward a common goal? If so, the MCB Article Improvement Drive is for you! On the first of every month a new article is selected by the MCB with the goal of promoting it to good article status. Make your nominations and cast your votes now, because the first article will be chosen on September 1!
Discussion: do we need an MCB director?
In an effort to organize and motivate the MCB activities, it has recently been proposed that a member of the MCB project take the role of "director", who would be responsible for the administrative side of the MCB project, including but not limited to coordinating recruiting efforts, spamming the newsletter, and maintaining the Article Improvement Drive and MCB Portal. A special discussion/vote page has been created for this proposal, and the vote will run until 23:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC), unless the community decides otherwise.
Odds and ends: what else you got?
In an effort to raise our profile and possibly attract some new blood, a shiny new MCB project banner template has been created at {{Template:Wikiproject MCB}}. Please add it to the talk pages of all MCB-related articles.
Signed...
Clockwork Soul 06:39, Sunday August 27, 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.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology/Organization

To respond to your edit comment, there's no need to change the statuses in the MCB organization page... those are updated semi-automatically according to the contents of the MCB template in the article talk pages. Only the category of each article on the organization page needs to be manually defined, and all you need to do there is to move the article listing into the appropriate table. Let me know if I don't make any sense. It's 3:30 am, and I can't tell anymore... Cheers! – Clockwork Soul 07:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This makes perfect sense. Thanks David D. (Talk) 14:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sondre

I too have had a lot of problems with User:SndrAndrss. He rarely communicates. See two recent problems. [1] [2] many of his edits are good but all too often there are really bad edits. This means ALL his edits have to be checked. I can give you mnore info if needed. Something should be done since he is such a prolific editor and despite the good he does he sucks a lot of time from other editors. David D. (Talk) 15:41, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have warned him; I nearly messaged you yesterday as I saw you had too. Let me know if he strays again. It's difficult because as you say he is not a clearcut vandal and does do many good edits. We need to balance WP:AGF with protecting the content. --Guinnog 15:44, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Check out [3]. He has only ever made 1 user talk page edit. A remarkable record! --Guinnog 01:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It does not surprise me one bit. I believe that in the whole time I have interacted with him (about a year now) I have had only two messages from him on my talk page. The one you mention and another from an IP. It's actually much worse than you can imagine since most of Sondre's edits are from anon IP's (all IP's of the format 85.165.xxx.xx seem to be Sondre). For some historical context see the begining of the following page: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Sports_Results/Archive1. His earlier IP's include 85.165.200.37 (talk · contribs), 85.165.198.135 (talk · contribs) and 85.165.225.156 (talk · contribs), 85.165.217.156 (talk · contribs), 85.165.229.54 (talk · contribs), and 85.165.212.241 (talk · contribs). More recent IP editing from the following: 85.165.196.126 (talk · contribs), 85.165.236.80 (talk · contribs), 85.166.215.101 (talk · contribs), 85.165.220.176 (talk · contribs), 85.165.233.118 (talk · contribs), 85.165.247.215 (talk · contribs), 85.165.239.7 (talk · contribs), 85.165.214.203 (talk · contribs), 85.165.221.207 (talk · contribs), 85.165.213.22 (talk · contribs), 85.165.245.7 (talk · contribs), 85.165.231.126 (talk · contribs), 85.165.239.127 (talk · contribs), 85.165.220.143 (talk · contribs), 85.165.194.23 (talk · contribs), 85.165.204.199 (talk · contribs), 85.165.205.144 (talk · contribs) and unfortunately this is not an exhautive list. David D. (Talk) 04:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to my userpage. Hut 8.5 17:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ivona onatop

David D., I've reported this user to the admins. He/she should be blocked soon, so I think we can leave the talk page of doom alone for now. --King Bee 17:46, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I guess they decided to take a different course of action. --King Bee 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty normal for a newbie. But that users actions will decide whether it escalates. I suppose this user is a sockpuppet since he knows his way around. But no harm in assuming they just do not understand the type or quality of sources required for material not to be deleted. David D. (Talk) 17:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see we each met an unusual user today

I must admit even I can get tired of being relentlessly polite to people in the end :). Is there anyone who can assist our halloween friend with gaining a perspective on what is and what is not WP:BALLS, do you think? Fiddle Faddle 18:05, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say AfD one of his article so he can get some feed back from the community. Who knows, they may even find his stuff notable? David D. (Talk) 18:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know that makes a lot of sense. The challenege is it just delays their going, probably. I'm tempted to do a bulk AfD on the whole shebang, but he has not removed the PROD. I've already CfD'd his categories. Well, maybe after supper :) Fiddle Faddle 18:18, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd assume good faith and not do a bulk AfD. I'd also give him a week to get them in better shape. Then if they are still a mess, send one to AfD to set the precendent. If successful I'd then go for the bulk AfD. The time frame should be to get them into encyclopedic shape, or deleted, before October 1st. At about that time people will be looking for Halloween links. I think we could do without wikipedia looking like a laugh stock and I do still wonder if they will be used as a marketing tool for someones web site. Links from those pages could generate a lot of traffic as well as get a site a higher google ranking. As yet this has not materialised, but it could. For example, what if this user controls the sites he is linking to? He could easily put up a web store to sell stuff. David D. (Talk) 18:30, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I fear your message was too late, and the bulk AfD is made. But no matter. I always assume good faith. I am hoping that the outcome is win/win, in that the creator of the articles wins and wikipedia wins, one by learning how to create excellent articles and the other by being enhanced with excellence. I view AfD as a Mind Concentrator. It often works miracles. I will withdraw any nomination that I beleive comes up to standard. Fiddle Faddle 18:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind, let's see how the process goes. As you say, there is still a week since the AfD should run its course. It will also bring these articles to the attention of other users who may be interested on bringing them up to standard. Often one line school stubs get transformed into very useful articles during the AfD process. On the other hand, there is a well organised school lobby that coordinates those article improvement drives. Soon we will see how much interest there is in these articles. David D. (Talk) 19:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There remains one page that I have not nominated. Halloween traditions. I have left a comment instead on its talk page. It looks like a couple of decent paragraphs and then listcruft, but I coudl also be wrong. Perhaps you might run an eye over it and make some suggestions on the talk page? Fiddle Faddle 19:06, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That has more potential. It could serve as a merge target for these article in AfD. David D. (Talk) 19:08, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked hard at that page. As it stands I think it is at risk, so I have proposed that it be split, such that the verbiage migrates to Halloween and the list element is retitled in such a manner that the majority of the content is acceptable. Currently the page title impies to me that (eg) bats are "only a Halloween tradition". I've dropped anote onto both major contributors' talk pages drawing their attention to the proposals. Fiddle Faddle 08:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. Clearly that page needs a lot of work. David D. (Talk) 08:06, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In case you are not familiar with this user's background, please see Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-05-16 the remarks of Fnarf999. and User talk:Akidd dublin . He does not take criticism very well. BigE1977 19:43, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the update, i was unaware. At first glance, his English has improved. And so far he has been cordial considering we are criticiing his work. I would hope he takes it constructively. David D. (Talk) 20:09, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User David D wrote: I'd assume good faith and not do a bulk AfD. I'd also give him a week to get them in better shape. Then if they are still a mess, send one to AfD to set the precendent
This is my idea too. I have changed the cyberhaunt link. It is not advert spamming.
I am not user Akidd_dublin. This user account has become inactive. User:Yy-bo 12:17, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I recognize nominating the weakest article (little content) for a group afd. The argumentation OR (original research) does not apply for halloween yard, animated coffin. An animated coffin is an animated property, and can be linked to from Animated property. The link to cyberhaunt is no adver spam. It is a high-quality flash movie. I consider it noteable. I refer to Demented_Cartoon_Movie VS. Cyberhaunt.com in terms of notability. I do not really want to create an article about cyberhaunt.com. However, the demented movie has a low quality level, and is accepted on wikipedia. Cyberhaunt is not good enough? If DEMENTED stays, why my articles must go. I will argue in further discussions by this comparison. User:Yy-bo 13:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

David, I have tried, at User_talk:Yy-bo#Halloween_Articles_-_summary really hard to convince our mutual friend to create valid articles. I think I have exhausted all avenues. It may interest you (or not) to take a look. Fiddle Faddle

RE:Level 12 football

Well, I wish to thank you for your kind advise here. It is no secrect that one of the main reasons why I joined this project in the first place was to contribute on non-league English football club related articles. My initial intention was to have articles for ALL the football clubs within the English football league system. This was what motivated me to create huge amounts of articles relating to this genre. However, recent events have been very discouraging (at least personally) and most of these articles were deleted. I have realized that Wikipedians were not ready yet to have articles for these clubs. Anyway, one must remember that notablility issues are actually not official policies, but other editors have still used this argument to delete these articles. I have now decided to focus on other areas of this project and hopefully, my dream would be realized in the future. --S iva1979^{Talk to me} 20:39, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinion

Hi NATTO, I have invited TimVickers and Peter_morrell to give their opinion on the Barrett page. FYI, I feel that they represent both sides of the spectrum with respect to alternative medicine. David D. (Talk) 17:54, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NATTO"

Hi David. To make sure I understand: You have invited two editors, one at each end of the spectrum for a second opinion, I assume on the ABMS data. So now we have Fyslee, yourself and one of the two invited editors, an myself.... NATTO 22:08, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am staying out for a while since I have said my piece but I am interested to hear their opinions. Tim and Peter are both working on the homeopathy article. Peter is trained in homeopathy, Tim is a scientist. They have both worked together to make the article as NPOV as possible. I thought it would be more productive to ask people who are familiar with the alternative medicine field. David D. (Talk) 22:10, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David. Fair enough. Tim is already at work, we will say what Peter has to say. NATTO 23:01, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, David I do not know very much about this individual, have no interest in such persons and do not intend to become familiar with their backgrounds, views or ideas which are of no interest to me whatsoever; sorry if that disappoints you.Peter morrell 06:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

David. There you go. Tim had a look at the page and make some positive edits and kept the ABMS data and expended positively on it. Peter is not interested and I can understand why. So far all the anti-quackery editors have had a say. Since I am not an anti-quackery advocate like Fyslee and JoKestress, I am simply trying to have both sides of the issue presented. I have also added more info on the medical training of Barrett including his own statement that his medical training is the reason why he thinks he is qualified to do what he does. NATTO 02:39, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Help disambiguating

Hello, you commented on Talk:Athletics regarding the movement of that page, and so I was hoping you could help with the large amount of disambiguation that is now needed because of the move. All the wikilinks to Athletics must now be disambiguating to one of the more specific links. Please see Wikipedia:Disambiguation pages with links. The list of articles linking to Athletics can be found at Special:Whatlinkshere/Athletics. Regards. -- Jeff3000 00:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, I see you're already doing it. Thanks for your help!! :) -- Jeff3000 01:20, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for noticing. And actually, User:Usgnus has done even more than me. David D. (Talk) 01:53, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Keep up the Rv Jeffklib 09:25, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam blacklist

As for the first issue, I believe it was not functioning earlier this week because it had gotten too long; I believe this has been fixed, so it should be working now. As for the second, there may or may not have been a discussion. Often they are simply added to the blacklist by an admin on Meta who catches them spamming or directly reported by someone else who catches them spamming -- if it is obvious enough a case there generally won't be a discussion. If there is any discussion attached, it will be on m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Many of the entires in the blacklist are annotated with who added the link, also, so you may wish to ask the admin who added it. (If it was me: sorry, I don't remember it!) Mindspillage (spill yours?) 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

categories for halloween article

(can i suggest you build this article in your user space without the categories. It will draw attention to this atricle as you preceed and may well result in a speedy delete as categories are cleaned)
do not understand how this relates to WP:SPEEDY User:Yy-bo 15:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It means your user sub-page will appear in the categories you have on the page. Anyone looking to clear the category of non-relevant pages might speedy your page. The categories are really meant for articles, not user sub pages, so it will stand out from the crowd, i.e. get unwanted attention until you have built the article into something notable. David D. (Talk) 15:38, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mass of Hydrogen

Rounding 1.008 to 1.00 reminds me of the shepherd who sent his sheep-dog out to gather and count his flock to make sure none were missing. The dog returns and says that there are 40 sheep. "40? I only started with 38!" "Yeah, but you told me to round them up." DMacks 23:14, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious, i had not heard it before, you got ot love the geek jokes! thanks for the levity! :) David D. (Talk) 23:26, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PPP

David,

You seem very knowledgable about G6Pd. I was wondering whether you might be able to help answer a question of mine. There is evidence that effortful cognition consumes more glucose from the bloodstream than does less effortful cognition. I was wondering whether G6Pd, because of its being downstream of glucose, therefore could influence effortful cognition. There is evidence that people with G6PdD might be, on average, less capable of effortful cognition than people without G6PdD. Could this in any way be a result of effortful cognition consuming a relatively large amount of glucose?

Thanks for any help you can give, Matt

Hi Matt, I am not well versed on why effortful cognition needs glucose. Is it to produce energy? If it is due to the need of ATP then the G6PdD would not make it harder for a cell to utilise the glucose source. If the energy requirement is in the form of the reducing equivalent NADPH then you may be on to something. ribulose is also an important product of the PPP pathway and that is very important for making nucleotides (needed for DNA synthesis. If I had to make a bet, I'd say it was something to do with the NADPH levels being too low in the neurons. David D. (Talk) 03:01, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:WP

It means, please do not talk to me like to one who has no knowledge of WP:WP, no edit experience.
It means, please point out the exact section of the policy, not just: your article is trivial, no one is looking for this information. User:Yy-bo 19:46, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thatcher131's RfA

Excellent work posting the entire context for "that edit" to the talk page. This candidate would make a superior administrator, and it would be nonsensical for his qualifications to be overriden even if he'd made a bad edit, much less a sensible one. Regards, Newyorkbrad 04:03, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

ATP Derived Hydrogen Ions

You know, I would like to know a scientific verifiable source that states this as well. The Delayed_onset_muscle_soreness article also talks about it I believe. When taking notes one time I wrote down Oxidative_phosphorylation and Citric_acid_cycle so I think those may have mentioned it as well. I can't be bothered to look through those articles again and even if they did, I don't think any of those gave a citation for the information either. I have a friend who's a Personal Trainer and he believes in the ATP Derived Hydrogen Ions explanation as well. I am currently studying to be a Personal Trainer. Unfortunately, my course does not go quite that indepth about AMS or DOMS. Anyways, it is late right now where I come from. I did have a legitimate article that could probably qualify as a citation. I'd have to search around for it. I'll try to get around to doing that tomorrow. Jamesters 09:52, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15308499&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum Jamesters 22:10, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reference, that is a start. I think they are partially correct but their abstract appears to confuse the main point. Here is my break down of the relevent section at the end of the abstract.

"Every time ATP is broken down to ADP and P(i), a proton is released. When the ATP demand of muscle contraction is met by mitochondrial respiration, there is no proton accumulation in the cell, as protons are used by the mitochondria for oxidative phosphorylation and to maintain the proton gradient in the intermembranous space. "

This is a good point. My immediate interpretation is that the muscles use up ATP so fast that the ADP and phosphate and proton concentration increase and pH goes down. Lactate would further add to this problem although may not contribute as much acidity as the ATP hydrolysis.

"It is only when the exercise intensity increases beyond steady state that there is a need for greater reliance on ATP regeneration from glycolysis and the phosphagen system. "

The is true but I am not sure why this is relevant. With respect to the acidity is does not really matter if the ATP comes from glycolysis or oxidative phosphorylation as it is the ATP hydrolysis that gives the acidity.

"The ATP that is supplied from these nonmitochondrial sources and is eventually used to fuel muscle contraction increases proton release and causes the acidosis of intense exercise. "

This also does not really fit with their idea. I think what they are really should be saying is that the ATP is used rapidly and the only source is glycolysis (since anaerobic). Lactic acid build up slows down glycolysis (presumably by substrate inhibition), thus glycolysis cannot keep up with the demand for ATP. Consequently the ratio of [ATP]:[ADP] decreases and the cytoplasm becomes more acidic as [ADP] rises.

"Lactate production increases under these cellular conditions to prevent pyruvate accumulation and supply the NAD(+) needed for phase 2 of glycolysis. "

This is also true but not relevant for the argument. Given their hypothesis, the problem of acidty would not be one of where the ATP is made but rather one of where the ATP is hydrolysed.

"Thus increased lactate production coincides with cellular acidosis and remains a good indirect marker for cell metabolic conditions that induce metabolic acidosis."

Here is the problem i have. It is not an indirect marker. it is almost certainly the cause for the drop in the level of [ATP]. It may not be the primary source of the protons but it is still the primary cause of acidosis. Increase in [Lactate], slows down recylcing of NAD+, that causes glycolysis to slow, causing less ATP production. Since the athlete is still burning the ATP like crazy the [ATP] drops fast releasing the protons that cause acidosis.

"If muscle did not produce lactate, acidosis and muscle fatigue would occur more quickly and exercise performance would be severely impaired."

This is true initially, since it is critical to recycle the NAD+. However, once the [lactate] rises too high substrate inhibition of lactate dehydrogenase will cause the NAD+ recycling to slow down, if not stop. This valid point, however, does not preclude the fact that once levels of lactate become too high it is detrimental to exercise. And remember there is a contribution of acidity from the lactate too, although I agree that most of the acidity may be due to ATP hydrolysis.

In summary, they have a good idea but they have expressed it very poorly. I'll read the article and see if the main text is more enlightening than this abstract. David D. (Talk) 22:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are getting close to comprehending the whole complicated process. Yes, I can't find any source that explains it all in an organized and precise manner. I am currently trying to do this myself. However, I'm not there yet. And also, I generally take on many projects at a time and therefore it could be awhile before I have it all nicely solved. Jamesters 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extending these thoughts. A super athlete, one with a high anaerobic threshold will the one whose muscle cells can remove the lactate the fastest. Thus, delaying the onset of subtrate inhibition of the lactate dehydrogenase and maintain the [ATP] at a high enough level to delay acidosis. Is there any research suggesting this may be true? Sounds like a good hypothesis to me. David D. (Talk) 22:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the super athlete in your example sounds like an endurance athlete. A strength and/or power athlete would not necessarily have a high anaerobic threshold. An endurance athlete would since that means this athlete could train at a higher intensity before the anaerobic energy systems become the dominate systems. In which case, lactate removal would not be the main reason this athlete is so good. It may play a role, but probably the 2 biggest factors would be the ability to Environmental Oxygen Extraction Max (the ability to extract oxygen from the environment, which depends mainly on red blood cell and hemoglobin amount), and VO2 Max. VO2 Max includes Oxygen Extraction Max (the ability of the cells of the body to extract oxygen from the blood, which depends mainly on mitochondrial density and the enzyme activity within it as well as capillary density), and Cardiac Output Max (Heart Rate Max multiplied by Stroke Volume Max). Heart Rate Max is how many times the heart beats which is measured in a minute and Sroke Volume Max is the amount of blood pumped each time the heart beats. VO2 Max is a term that may be a bit complicated to define and understand, but once understood it makes a lot of sense.

You see in Aerobic Energy System, the main sources of fuel are fatty acids and glucose. In the Anaerobic Energy System, the main source of fuel are glucose and creatine phosphate. Even though both systems utilize glucose quite a lot, being in the presence of oxygen or absence of oxygen can create different results. The main byproduts of the Aerobic Energy System are water and CO2. The main byproducts of the Anaerobic Energy System are lactic acid and hydrogen ions. Therefore, a super endurance athlete doesn't need to worry too much about lactic acid. For a super strength athlete, it may be a bit different.

I may have misinterpreted you a bit. Maybe you were even suggesting that being able to remove lactate quickly is what can result in a high Anaerobic Threshold. That would not be true though, since being able to obtain and extract oxygen the best will delay excess accumilation of lactate and therefore render it obselite to be able to remove lactate quickly. Um, well I'll stop here. Hopefully I gave you a bit of insight. If you respond, then inform me on my talk page that way I know. I don't subscribe to any articles for my own reasons and I have times when I don't go on wikipedia often. Jamesters 02:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yy-bo account switch

A look at User:Akidd_dublin's last few edits would probably shed some light into what's going on here. Ehheh 23:29, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

déjà vu all over again, as Yogi Berra would probably say. I guess the mass AfD on the halloween stuff precipitated it. Just out of interest do we know how many of his articles have been sent to AfD? i too would be getting frustrated if this was happening. Although the quality issues cannot be ignored. David D. (Talk) 23:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not exactly sure - I first noticed him towards the end of the Akidd Dublin days. I'm guessing at least four or five from that account, plus there was a big flap over some additions to the Red hair article. Ehheh 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FA nomination Enzyme inhibitor

Hi David. I was wondering if you might consider having a look at this nomination. Your expertise would be much appreciated. Thank you. TimVickers 20:33, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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. – Clockwork Soul 03:51, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dyestat

Thanks for cleaning up the Dyestat Wikipedia page. (I post there, but hate to see vadalism here or there.)

I see you want someone to clean up the Chris Solinsky article. I may be able to get some guys to help me out with that sometime. shijeru 00:25, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I made a start on the article. At present it is like a laundry list and is pretty boring to read. We need to make it more succinct and focus on his major achievements. The article has a lot of potential and it might even get some of the vandals to start doing something a little more constructive. Thanks for your support. David D. (Talk) 00:31, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

WikiThanks

Hi David. Thanks for all the comments and suggestions. TimVickers 04:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK...

OK, I'll change my user page. I actually don't care that much about things like soccer and the metric system. But it's no fun arguing about important stuff like abortion and gun control. -- Mwalcoff 03:30, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. I am sure you will find other editors easier to deal with, i'd be surprised if it has not baited many to a point that they could not work with you. Also, remember that some would regard soccer or metric as a more bitter argument than gun control and abortion. David D. (Talk) 03:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request for peer review of Enzyme kinetics

Hi David. Any feedback on this article to help bring it towards FA status would be a great help. Peer Review. Thank you. TimVickers 18:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input on this article, if you have any more comments or suggestions, it is up for FA candidacy and the discussion page is here. Thank you. TimVickers 20:33, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re:My RfA

"I did calm down problems. What McGinnly quoted on his talk page was the first edit I made. I ended up changing that a bit after I had cooled down a bit. I even repeatedly apologized on McGinnly's talk page, and I went as far as re-answering his question. We have resolved our conflict. Apparently, people may not have seen this yet (and I would understand why), but if people had seen it, they would have seen how that I avoided a potentially huge conflict by eventually resolving it in due time. 6 of these oppose votes came as a result of the comment I left on McGinnly's talk page the first time, and people haven't checked to see how I tried to make amends for my behavior."

I just want to tell you that this was an anomaly in my behavior, and that McGinnly took my comment out of context. I had reformed my edit, and I even repeatedly apologized to McGinnly and I have gone as far as making amends for my behavior.

Although you may think negatively of me still, I would appreciate it if you re-consider your vote on my RfA (even though, it looks like it will close later today).

--Nishkid64 20:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I promise i'll look into it in more detail and reconsider based i what i see. Thanks for pointing this out. David D. (Talk) 21:07, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do see you were patching it up. But then you wrote this on your RfA. This does not sound like the right kind of attitude. In an RfA you should be listening and certainly be humble despite negative criticisms that will likely come your way. Moreover, you should let your supporters be your vigorous defenders, it is much more powerful coming from others. Even then it can sometimes be over the top. Based on how you have reacted to some negativity in your RfA makes me worry that it might be worse when dealing with other more volatile situations. Sorry for not changing my vote. I would also encourage you to listen to edit more in the articles to get a feeling for the types of issues that arise when editors disagree. i think your RfA will pass fine but I would hope that you will learn from this experience and use it in a constructive way to mature as a great admin on wikipedia. Good luck. David D. (Talk) 21:34, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nishkid64's RfA thanks

Thank you very much for participating in my RfA, which closed successfully earlier today with a result of (60/9/4). Although, I encountered a few problems in my RfA, I have peacefully resolved my conflicts and made amends with the people involved. If you have any further questions or suggestions, feel free talk to me. I hope I will live up to your expectations. --Nishkid64 22:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Golf Course Infobox

Hiya David, I was wondering if you were able to create an infobox for golf courses for a potential Wikiproject Golf Courses. I don't have the expertise, and I noticed you helped with the Golfer infobox, so I thought you may have some interest in the field. Anyway, its totally up to you, give me a yell on my talk page if you want to try it. Thanks! Grover 00:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:47, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your continued efforts to resolve the Kauffman paper's summary at QW. It was important that we all were to take a breath, had a chance to step back from a point of divergence, and "reset". Looking at your latest edits and format, I would appreciate your candid thoughts here.--I'clast 11:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Re : RfA/Jc37

I've responded to your concerns on the RfA. I hope it will clear things up. If you require further clarifications, please feel free to drop a note on my talkpage. :) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:20, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck out my opposition, after Jc37's clarification. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 08:50, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article

Adenosine triphosphate

The Molecular and Cellular Biology WikiProject's current Collaboration of the Month article is adenosine triphosphate.

Please help to improve this article to featured article status.

– Clockwork Soul 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RNAi

FYI, I just posted to AN/I about the ongoing RNAi problem after more spamming - which would probably look cabalistic from his perspective, but we can't have articles on recent Nobel Prize winners and winning discoveries sitting around full of unverified and potentially defamatory spam. Opabinia regalis 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i had already noticed and posted a reply. David D. (Talk) 04:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops, that's what I get for wandering away from the computer for a minute :) Thanks; I appreciate it. Opabinia regalis 04:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

(copied from Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Jc37) "And while I thought all the comments were interesting, I want to single out one person - User:David D. He not only went through my contributions list (and I have to admit, I really liked hearing from everyone who obviously did so), but he also showed how much of an encyclopedist he is, and cited sources from it. Even though he voted support, I hope that no one will misunderstand when I say that once this RfA is over, I intend to give him a barnstar for his efforts. It's intended as a "nudge" so that he continues this sort of work on RfA and elsewhere in wikipedia."

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		Please continue your the excellent work on RfA and everywhere else on Wikipedia. : ) - jc37 17:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

That was a surprise. :) Sorry your RfA didn't go well. I should add that the sarcastic comment you made after my contribution was probably not a good idea. Even if a joke, and the irony is real, you need to be careful how such comments are perceived. I suspect you already know that now ;) Good luck with your continued editing an future rfa. I'd recommend waiting at least 3 months before running the gauntlet again. David D. (Talk) 19:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're quite welcome, it's well deserved. : )
Honestly, I think the RfA went quite well. Gaining the mop wasn't my only hope/intended goal. I learned quite a bit; about myself, about others, about RfA, and about wikipedia in general. But thank you for the empathy. : )
And as an aside, the comment wasn't intended to show sarcasm, but more a bemused observation. Hence the term "irony". Though I saw/can see how it could be taken that way. And because of that, I decided to not defend it, but rather just "stand by it", since editors will interpret it however they wish, in any case.
Well, from what I've been reading, an absolute minimum of a month is stringly suggested, with a general minimum of 2 months. So who knows, maybe around the feast of St. Nicholas, or Little Christmas : ) - jc37 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you have a look at this?

See User:Friday/Sandbox. Dunno if this is a good idea or not. To me, Cyde's behavior (namely, incivility and improper blocks) is a problem, but then again it'd be easy for me to think so, given some of the things he's said to me. I don't believe that Cyde sees his behavior as a problem at all, so perhaps it'd help him see it, if he saw that sufficient numbers of other editors agreed (assuming they did agree.) Anyway, feel free to have a look, edit, tell me I'm crazy, or whatnot. Friday (talk) 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting my Questions

You reverted my edits in several Talk pages, and made the assumption that I was trying to "bait" people into an argument. However, if you had read closely, you'll find that those controversial theories did not belong to me, but rather, to someone else I know. Because I am not knowledgeable on any of these topics; I figured I would post these theories in several articles from which "experts" on those subjects would often be found looming in the Discussion forums -- I simply wanted ansers and information and/or rebuttals to the controversial theories brought up; I did not want to bait some kind of debate. Most people would find these theories ridiculous and not consider going into a debate.

The reason I post in several articles is obvious; the theories relate to these articles the most (if you feel they don't, can you please tell me some other subjects so that I can post these questions in the appropriate Talk page?) -- and I felt that posting in SEVERAL talk pages would get faster AND more responses -- in other words, more answers and information for me. I do not see the harm in posting in several Talk pages. I did the same thing with a question I had with a certain theory in Philosophy -- I did not understand these philosophical beliefs; and posted my question in numerous Talk pages. No one complained; no one reverted; everyone participated in the discussion, all was well. I got my answers, as well as any other potential reader who happened to be wondering the same thing (or read the questions and began to wonder the same thing).

So... Why revert my edits? 24.23.51.27 08:50, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]