User talk:Anthony.Sebastian

Creating my User Talk Page. --Anthony.Sebastian
Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 13:48, 19 December 2006 (CST)

---

test

Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 16:08, 14 February 2007 (CST)

That looks good. You got that from four tildes? if so you're in business. :) Chris Day (Talk) 16:19, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Topic sig:

Anthony Sebastian | Talk

water

Anthony Sebastian

Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 23:24, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Anthony.Sebastian (Talk)

doi:10.1016/S0968-0004(00)88952-5

http://base.google.com/base/a/1525701/D4341995594414253957

Horizontal gene transfer

Anthony, please look at HGT

and give an opinion on its approval worthiness please in the talk page David Tribe 07:15, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Copyright data?

Hi Dr. Sebastian, may I ask you please to add some copyright information (is this your image?) here: http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Image:Sysbiolpubsyear.jpg&action=edit

Thanks!

--Larry Sanger 12:30, 22 January 2007 (CST)

Larry--

• I created the file from a public database. See Talk page for Image:sysbiolpubsyear3.jpg for details.

dead link and question about your forum comment on recruiting

Hello, your systems biology link is a dead link on your user page. It might need a redirect. Also, I remember a while ago on the forums, you suggested a recruitment email template for recruiting professors - has anything come of this? Disregard if I have mistaken you for someone else with this suggestion. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:29, 28 January 2007 (CST)

Re consciousness.

I'm very amateurish on this and only read Steve Pinker and a few others as a pastime. But i think its an important content opportunity and you should lead the way.Thanks for the note. It seems us biologists have quite catholick private reading lives David Tribe 22:26, 29 January 2007 (CST)

montage

Hey, Anthony, is this the sort of thing you had in mind? Chris Day (Talk) 01:23, 31 January 2007 (CST)

• Chris, yes. Cool. Very nice. Do you make the montage's in PhotoShop?
• I know we can upload jpegs. Can we download uploaded ones for editing? Not that I want to edit your neat one, but for future reference.

--Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 10:30, 31 January 2007 (CST)

recruitment letter

could you help me with this? http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/Citizendium_Pilot:Recruitment_Letter#Version_2_for_Biological_.2F_Health_Sciences -Tom Kelly (Talk) 23:45, 31 January 2007 (CST)

Life

I will be glad to check in . Good to see progress there David Tribe 15:56, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Users with Same name, without the dot Anthony(.)Sebastain

Noted another user and assume this is a stolen identity or mistake or similar. I will delete the files for security Constable David Tribe 15:56, 13 February 2007 (CST)

There still some user name confusions around user name Sebastian. We need to work more to finish this , Probably involving me moveing this page back to an initial location account. Continue discussion on this at my talk page as that hasn't been moved around like yours Ill repeat this note at your second talk page Constable David Tribe 17:30, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Perhaps mre accurately there are no other users active but ther is another Talk user page active

This is where your (Talk button) on your 4 ~ signature leads http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony_Sebastian [1]David Tribe 17:55, 13 February 2007 (CST)

BUT Not here http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki/User_talk:Anthony.Sebastian

[2] David Tribe 17:56, 13 February 2007 (CST)

To reiterate, there is no hurry to fix this but we should try an d remove the glitch David Tribe 18:00, 13 February 2007 (CST)

Anthony, did you get your signature fixed? It should be simople to solve by going to preferences and cut n' paste the following into your Nickname box and remember to check the raw signatures box:

[[User:Anthony.Sebastian|Anthony.Sebastian]] [[User talk:Anthony.Sebastian|(Talk)]]

that should look like the following after signing with ~~~~

Anthony.Sebastian (Talk)

I think this will work. My guess is that there is currently a typo in there. Chris Day (Talk) 15:32, 14 February 2007 (CST)

Biology/Draft

There are some recent changes suggested at Biology/Draft about Anatomy versus Morphology (favouring Morphology). As far as I'm concerned its a minor issue either way, but the proponent is insistent, and I don't see why they cannot be included, unless they make confusion elsewhere. Have you any advice before another Approved version of Biology goes through? The is extensive discussion at the non-draft talk page. David Tribe 01:03, 20 February 2007 (CST)

Life

The opening works much better I think, now. cheers d David Tribe 17:36, 1 March 2007 (CST)

Scientific Method

Many thanks Anthony. Indeed last night I was thinking that the human genome project and systems biology have not been accomodated as afar as I know into any revision of philosophical accounts of the scientific method. Thanks for expressing that so eruditely.Gareth Leng 03:08, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth, I should have said how much I admired your way of putting the Scientific method article together. Scholarly, and written with coherence, grace and style. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 21:49, 7 March 2007 (CST)

Many thanks Anthony. Thanks for explaining so carefully your style preferences, and I will do my best to respect them when I edit on your articles. Obviously some of my own preferences are different _ like you I prefer generally to avoid the passive voice, but sometimes I think it is more natural to use that than constructions that seem (to my ears) contrived to avoid it - so I avoid using "one" as a subject for example. However, I think it is valuable for articles each to have its own distinctive literary style, and please never hesitate to revert any stylistic (or other) changes that I make, please treat my edits simply as suggestions to be considered and discarded and don't feel you need to explain that to me; I will take it for granted that you have treated my suggestions with all due respect. Warmest regardsGareth Leng 04:50, 10 March 2007 (CST)

Gareth: Collaboration, a many wondrous thing. In saying that, I speak of two separate experiences, the experience of 'collaborating'--with you, a fruitful and enjoyable one--and the experience of 'wondrousness'. When I say 'collaboration is a many wondrous thing' I feel as if I speak not for myself but simply repeat what a reality says. That may make no sense to you, but technically the two locutions distinguish two major language groups, the apodictic languages and the dispositional languages. Indo-European and certain Asian languages. With the dispositional approach I feel I speak for myself, the author.

Thank you for the generous editorial license, which I intend to avail myself of 'with all due respect'. As I said in my earlier comments to you, I eschew the purist's fanaticism.

I agree with you about the passive voice having its place. In fact, if the reader doesn't definitely need to know who/what does the action of the verb, if the passive moves the reader more smoothly from the previous sentence, and if it gives the reader a more consistent point of view (e.g., the scientist's vs. the biological system's)--then I'd go for the passive. No law against it. But those provisos all requirement judgment, and for that two heads often do better than one.

I too find that, in trying to avoid use of the passive as a non-reflective automatic, the results sometime seem contrived. I take that as a challenge, to exploit the power of the active voice without rendering it seemingly contrived. I consider myself in the 'practice' stage, with dictionary online at hand, hunting for those arresting active verbs.

And warmest regards in return --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 15:22, 10 March 2007 (CST)

biobooks6.jpg

see Talk:Life, I just added that picture there. What is the problem, I may help. Robert Tito |  Talk  23:03, 21 March 2007 (CDT)

restore LIFE

Mr. Sebastian, restoration would be simple, however due to the content I would prefer Gareth doing it. I can however go back to the last saved page before Mr. Quick did editting. Let me know what it is you need. Robert Tito |  Talk  17:10, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

Robert: Thanks. I may ask you to do that but will wait to see if Gareth agrees that Joe Quick's first entry into the Life project was not appropriate or article-improving. BTW: Everyone on CZ calls me Anthony. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:05, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

And I go by the name Rob :) Robert Tito |  Talk 

Little boxes

left edge use align="left" can also use center or right. light blue change to background-color:lightblue selected width can use either percent (with respect to screen width) or pixels. Either width="80%" (as this example, note it adjusts size as browser window changes) or width=600 for fixed size of 600 pixels in all broswers (regardless of the window size). Anthony, There are many other parameters too but these few are a good place to start. Chris Day (Talk) 14:41, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Approval

As an editor in biology, I'd support an approval tag with a 1 to 2 week deadline.

My major suggestion is that the synthesis of perspectives should be introduced very early (with a different title), not at the end. My argument is that this is journalism, not a scientific manuscript. Readers need to find their take home message, simple version, quickly, IMHO. Your diagrams are wonderful, and the whole article is well done, I think. David Tribe 18:20, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

David: I have taken your suggestion to rearrange. I think you are right, and it seems to work well. Please take look, and critique. If you think it okay, I'd appreciate your discussing with the group about the approval tag. I will continue to work on the 'images' issue (see article Talk page). --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

I think it works too, and Ive not got a criticism. I tried a slightly different heading too (avoiding linguistics). Change it again of course. Let me know when you found a good image outcome, and I think I'm then allowed to put an approval tag on it (as Ive done so little here). (But Ill have to re-read the rulebook to be sure. These approval decisesion are pretty tricky legal conundrums! David Tribe 23:11, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

David, I'm okay with your heading change. I'd like to stick with the current image on top until something better comes along. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 23:14, 26 March 2007 (CDT)

Sage advice on writing CZ articles

Hi Anthony. I thought you might like to know: CZ:Sage advice on writing CZ articles. :-) -- Stephen Ewen 01:09, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Stephen, Thanks. I'd originally posted the quotes to myself at http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/User:Anthony.Sebastian/Advice_on_writing_CZ_articles

I will add the additional quote. And will use CZ:Sage advice on writing CZ articles Assume you created page.

I hope I did not miss any subtle message. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 12:55, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

The only message was this: thanks for creating that, and feel proud it will now serve the whole community! Stephen Ewen 16:57, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Thanks. I share my of collection of favorite quotes on my blog, but nobody reads it so I've lost enthusiasm. CZ get more. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:54, 31 March 2007 (CDT)

Congrats and thanks

Three editors are supporting approval the Life article that you put so much into AS. Thanks so much for the great start and your huge patience with the process. Warm regards David Tribe 06:17, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

David, thank you so much for that feedback, for all your collaborative efforts on the article, and for teaching me many things. I do see the article as a start, and have high hopes for its evolution. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 13:01, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Exactly right

Just saw your new figure Image:DNA_to_living_system.jpg and it is exactly what i was thinking of and much better resolution wise. Chris Day (Talk) 22:34, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Thanks, Chris. Lucky find while not looking. Used 'medium' resolution after converting to jpeg and saving in PhotoShop. Should I increase resolution? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:40, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

My philosophy is always go with the highest available (within reason of course). In general the size shouldn't be a limiting factor and a higher resolution makes it more usable for future editors and readers. Chris Day (Talk) 22:48, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

I browsed through your resource at DOE and found a much better version of the DNA with the books and sperm. I upgraded your picture at Image:Spermeggdnabooks.jpg, I hope this is OK with you. Chris Day (Talk) 01:46, 6 April 2007 (CDT)

Looks great, Chris. How did you remix it? --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:23, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Photoshop. It is an attempt to connect the egg with the books in light of the legend. Chris Day (talk) 17:16, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Life

Anthony, I saw some changes you made in Life and must condlude they do not reflect the actuality, see for the changes I will make - they are minor but chemical relevant. One is a funny typo by you (I guess) I stated physical chemistry shows carbon to have a certain chemical behavior. You turned it into allow. Chemistry only tries to describe and explain behavior it is not the reason for behavior of atoms :). There are a few more so I will use the dust comb a little. Hear your comments after I am done, cheers Robert Tito |  Talk  20:18, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Rob, thanks for keeping things straight. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 20:21, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Anthony, could you please return to life (what a thing to say on Easter Sunday!). The section that , I believe you wrote, on Information is good- but it was written when the concept of informatio was being introduced there de novo, and now the concept of information has been introduced in "The stuff of Life", could I ask you to leave the stuff of life alone- David Tribe will tweak it tonight- but read what it says about information there, and modify the beginning of the information section appropriately? see talk page Life. Nancy Sculerati 14:28, 8 April 2007 (CDT)

Nancy, did it. Will re-review and re-edit as needed to keep the flow. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 16:08, 9 April 2007 (CDT)

Poetry month

You managed

                     Anyway

Nancy Sculerati 21:26, 7 April 2007 (CDT)

Darwin

Dear Anthony, Thats neat. Did you see that I started chopping into Organism. It that needs a lot of work to give it life.

BTW I never did get to express my personal appreciation for your effort in Life. It was a tough task, and very ambitious of you (and us all), and my view always, was that it had to be done really well. And it was I think, even though there are still minor blemishes. I saw my role as to try and mediate a completion - as a go-between almost - that had multiple-editor support. I realise now that there is value in having at least one editor not feeling strong ownership/authoriship and to be well, an editor. It was wonderful to see different inputs, like Gareth and Chris, beavering away in different capacities. I think it worked because all the participants mutually respected the different other participants and their different strengths and good intentions, all useful. That's what I think.

Cheers David

David: I can't tll you how grateful I feel for your comments. I emphasize as I have done before that my contibution to the Life article found its strongest motivation in a desire to learn as much as I could in a reasonable period of time about the nature of living systems — basically a selfish aim. But, as I have no doubt you too have discovered, sharing what one thinks one has learned serves the learning aim because of the inevitable feedback one gets in critiques, offerings of facts and views, and questions. So one has to try at least to teach in order to learn. I cannot remember a time when I did not intensely wonder how my body worked, or for that matter how the world works. So the rewarding aspects of the experience of collaborating on the subject with the biology workgroup far outweighed ego-related frustrations such as having one's darling sentences and paragraphs rephrased in someone's style.

I agree with your thought about articles having at least one editor taking a pragmatic stance, in part arbitrator, in part pacemaker. That understates your contribution. I also agree that courtesy derived from mutual respect, especially for the qualities of different strengths and good intentions you mentioned. No one had horns on for more than the time it took to give the bruise a rub.

Though very pleased with article, and proud of our accomplishment, personally I feel the article still needs development if we want shoot for the goal of the best among the articles on the subject, meaning we achieved an explanatory excellence that suggests we learned what we set out learn, achieving our selfish goal. The spirit of the wiki can make that level of article excellence happen. I'd like to see the reader of Life feel as if they've eaten a gourmet meal with fine wine, and now realize what fine 'living' means, but also have them see a path, through citations and other directed readings, to pursue their own learning goals in any area of biology. Surely all areas of biology weave into explaining life. I see Life as a hub, one that must excel in order to give coherence to the sum of CZ's articles in biology, and to serve them by centering them, reminding them about the meaning and value of orchestrating. In my semi-delirious moods, I see a biology book, perhaps multi-volumed, coming out of the groups' articles — a printed book that might survive nuclear winter or global warming, when the net shuts down.

I will check out Oganism. Speaking of 'organism', I appreciated your solomonic decision in Life to move most of the molecules into its own header, and your well-chosen title "Organic chemistry as informatics". I also appreciated the reference to Carl Woese's PNAS article in Evolution of cells. Loved it. As Thomas Huxley said when he read Darwin's natural selection mechanism, so simple I feel stupid not to have thought of it. Figure I'll begin to understand after a few dozen more readings. But I appreciate the importance of horizontal gene transfer as a main player in evolution from cells to organisms to species. I sent Gareth an article interpreting evidence as indicating horizontal gene transfers in the hominine and pongine lineages, bipeds mating with arboreal knuckle walkers.

Cheers to you.

Anthony

Great to hear that your attitude to bruises is similar to mine. One extra addendum. In reading for evolution of cells I found some really interesting papers of co-evolution of RNA and protein (after being annoyed by lack of citations). Yes I suspect the RNA world is a name that a disservice to clear thinking. The Protein world is worth developing in the articles. I've dumped my lit search in the talk page (of evolution of cells or Origin of life, cant remember which). Came across papers you'd been citing too. I havn't read the Arthur Koch and Simon Silver paper. Just the abstract, but I have the paper copy at work. They are both real microbe pros, and Ive met Simon years back. Your idea for a book is interesting as a carrot. Don't worry about climate chance. Extinction is natural and healthy for a young planet. Oxygen was actually good for us. Kills Clostridia too. Cheers again David