User talk:Pedro Silva

Welcome, Pedro! --Larry Sanger 02:33, 1 November 2006 (CST)

chemistry

You deleted the part in the chemistry page that distictively states what differentiates chemical reactions from physical: chemical reactions only involve electrons of atoms/molecules. I would like to put that very basic and important thing back!

Chemistry page

I added a sentence on the problem you requested. I had removed it because I consider that a description of bonding was probably best left to the "Bonding" section. Do you like it now? Pedro Silva 09:10, 10 November 2006 (CST)

adding electrons to the chemistry page

Yes this is better since the interactions of electrons ARE all that chemistry is about, contrary to physical reactions. That is why I also added EM radiation interacting with electrons (excited atoms/molecules) to mark them as chemical not physical. The ambiguity about chemical reactions has lessened now - though not totally. And yes my worry - as with you - was why in an inttroduction - but since it was there (chemical reactions) it needed be set in its own right and not having mixed interpretations about what a chemical reaction is - contrary to any other kind of reaction. [maybe for understanding better who I am I might be inclined to fill in some more details in my editor page - but so far I am not interested in filling out details of telling that I do have a doctorate in physical chemistruy and a masters in biochemistry/bio-physics as these appear to me mundane to tell. Anyway - this is nice to start with but I will try to formulate an even stronger discription of the chemical reaction - because you omitted the removing of an electron from a substance (hydroxyl-radical for instance) such being chemical as well in nature.

Chemistry Workgroup

I set up the preliminary Chemistry workgroup and listed you as an editor there. Fred Salsbury 07:49, 21 November 2006 (CST)

CZ Live

Hi Pedro... Thanks for putting the CZ Live tag back. I had some time to run through "Chemistry" articles and tag them with the Chemistry workgroup tag to get an idea of the articles to be managed by the workgroup.

I mistakenly also included the "CZ Live" with the Chemistry Workgroup tag as I thought we should tag articles that were modified from their original WP forms. After I tagged 200+ articles, Larry correctly pointed out that added category tags does not rise to the condition of a CZ Live tag.

I went back and removed the CZ Live tags I had included, and I'm afraid your article got caught up in the drag net. Thanks for putting the tag back!

Best regards, -Bill =] --William Weaver 11:03, 23 November 2006 (CST)

metabolism template

Great job, that is the most visually pleasing template I have seen on a wiki. Chris Day (Talk) 10:54, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Thanks! I'm almost blushing :) That is only a modified version of the Metabolism template on the Italian WP: I am utterly unable of doing a template from scratch! Pedro Silva 11:56, 7 December 2006 (CST)

I have never browsed the Italian version. Obviously it has more style than the en version ;) No surprise there. Chris Day (Talk) 12:03, 7 December 2006 (CST)

Hey Pedro. I've actually commented out the approval template because I came to approve it - but when I skimmed the article I noticed that none of the images were coming through. I don't know exactly why that is, but i did check that nothing happened in the version change - and the "to approve" link had the same problem. I'm copying this note to both your and Nancy's page, since I suspect it's more likely to be seen there. Thanks! -- Sarah Tuttle 20:14, 28 December 2006 (CST)

Thanks for the image start - I know this is probably a dumb question, but are all the images copyright clear? One of the things we want to check as we start approving articles is that all the content is free and clear. I just wanted to make sure the images (esp. the one brought over from WP) had it's copyright checked out. Thanks. -- Sarah Tuttle 09:22, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Pedro, please look at the metabolism talk page. regards, Nancy Sculerati MD 09:42, 29 December 2006 (CST)

Fixing of the disclaimer in progress :) -- Sarah Tuttle 07:17, 12 January 2007 (CST)

Wheat

Could you take a look at Wheat please Pedro and give an opinion at the discussion page there on whether it should be approved please?

David Tribe 00:47, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Horizontal gene transfer

Pedro, please look at HGT

and give an opinion on its approval worthyness please David Tribe 07:15, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Status

I am currently unable to contribute on a regular basis due to heavy writing tasks....

-( Please do not get mad at me for not replying... I hope to be back by late January Pedro Silva 09:41, 15 January 2007 (CST)

Grandmasters

Pedro, os conteúdos estão sendo portados no Citizendium, vindos da Wikipédia, por mim, contudo, não sei fazer com que aquelas tags apareçam no artigo: o que seria de acordo com o disposto na GFDL. De qualquer modo, e por prevenção, já estou marcando a opção de "Content is from Wikipedia?" Abraço, --Roberto Cruz 14:50, 2 February 2007 (CST)

Please join us for Biology Week!

Hello Pedro, I am giving you this personal invitation to join us this week for Biology Week! Please join us on the wiki and add or edit biology articles. Also, please let your friends and colleagues who are biologists, biology students, or naturalists, know about Biology Week and ask them to join us, too. Any way you can help make it an event would be most welcome. Think of it as a Biology Workgroup open house. Let's see if we can kick up activity a notch! Thanks in advance! --Larry Sanger 12:32, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

The first Biology Week took place here from Sep 22-28, 2008.

Returning to Citizendium: an update on the project and how to get involved

Hello - some time ago you became part of the Citizendium project, but we haven't seen you around for a while. Perhaps you'd like to update your public biography or check on the progress of any pages you've edited so far.

Citizendium now has over 16,000 articles, with more than 150 approved by specialist Editors such as yourself, but our contributor numbers require a boost. We have an initiative called 'Eduzendium' that brings in students enrolled on university courses to write articles for credit, but we still need more Editors across the community to write, discuss and approve material. There are some developed Biology and Chemistry articles that could be improved and approved, and some high-priority Natural Sciences articles that we don't have yet. You can also create new articles via this guide, and contribute to some Biology or Chemistry pages that have been recently edited here and here - or to any others on Citizendium, since you're a general Author as well as a specialist Editor. You may like to contribute to discussions in the forums, and might consider running for an elected position on the Management and Editorial Councils that oversee the project.

If you have any questions, let me know via my Talk page or by leaving a message below this one. Thank you for signing up and reading this update; I hope that you will look in on our community soon. John Stephenson 09:29, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I was involved in the very beginning of the project. At the time Larry Sanger decided that we should not be a WP fork, I feared that CZ would have enormous difficulty in getting off the ground, but I did not voice my concerns then (unlike other people, who wisely decided to leave at the time). And indeed CZ growth is residual at best, and it never did appear on my Google's results. I believe that CZ will never be an alternative to WP unless free flow of text between both Wikis is allowed, so that we can feed off each other's strengths. In spite of my misgivings, I was an active member in the Metabolism sections for a few months, hoping that we might be able to grow and leave our mark. The first CZ approved article on Metabolism was largely my work. I left the project on Feb 2 2007 after witnessing repeated bad-faith edits of the "Jesus" page by User:Bei Dawei going on without any punishment by CZ. That was the last drop for me: this Wiki with a (supposedly) "zero-tolerance" policy re: vandalism allowed someone to keep contributing after showing repeated bad-faith in a high-profile article. I hardly ever came back to check CZ. Thank you for your contact but I will not return to CZ until it becomes (in fact, not only in words) a vandal-intolerant zone with a life-ban penalty for proven bad-faith edits. Pedro Silva 11:03, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It was useful to know about why you left. I agree that if you want CZ to extensively share material, then that is a problem for returning, not just because of the de-fork, but because the Editorial Council has now prohibited the copying of articles from Wikipedia. In the case of vandalism, it remains that this is a fairly rare thing on CZ. I have been here since the beginning, more or less, and I think your experience is very much the sort of thing to expect at times for controversial subjects for which there is no Editor involvement - plus in the early years, it was a bit more of a free-for-all. Certainly, while contacting inactive Editors, I have come across some Talk page comments from back then which would probably not be tolerated now. CZ in 2011 is not the same as CZ in 2007, and the user to whom you refer got a warning back then and would now almost certainly be banned if he returned and broke the rules, since he already has had that warning. Various other characters have also disappeared or been banned - in fact, many of the people on Talk:Jesus are no longer here, so you would have the opportunity for a fresh start. Still, good luck with your other projects. John Stephenson 08:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

If you experienced those problems, CZ is different now - Cold fusion for example was re-written after Rothwell expired along with CZ's decline. Global warming was also rewritten and a host of other articles as well. (Chunbum Park 11:17, 1 November 2011 (UTC))