User talk:Anthony.Sebastian: Difference between revisions

Where Anthony lives it is approximately: 18:43

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

Anthony.Sebastian

Current talk page

Archive 1, Archive 2, Archive 3

Dog/Draft

Hi Anthony. I am continuing to work on the Dog/Draft, but I would like to see the current draft become Approved Version No. 2 notwithstanding. It is expanded, it corrects some factual errors and tightens the slightly-too-informal writing in some paragraphs.

I believe David Tribe was the original approving editor, and I have dropped a note onto his page. I'm writing to you because I don't know how active David is at the mo and whether or not he will see the note timely, so I wanted to make someone else in Bio aware of it. Thanks. Aleta Curry 15:17, 18 February 2008 (CST)

Okay, I can't place an exact date on the cave paintings, but I tightened up the section a bit.

That's a nice dog site you mentioned. Got some gaps in breeds, but it's pretty good. The problem with the proliferation of all these dog sites is the diffusion of talent. There's just too much information for any one person or even two or three to make a comprehensive site quickly.

Aleta Curry 18:09, 19 February 2008 (CST)

Just FYI, I've been doing some work as you suggested. Do have a look if/when you have a spare moment.

Re the fictional dogs you mentioned, yes, they all belong in related articles/lists/catalogues/whatever. I don't remember where we were in terms of developing articles for fictional dogs--oh, dear--one more thing for my 'to do' list, but at least that's a fun one!

Aleta Curry 18:07, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Aleta, hard to beat Dogs From Fiction. Includes movie, TV, cartoon, literature dogs. --Anthony.Sebastian 18:47, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Not bad, but not the top either. There are more comprehensive lists at Wikipedia, thanks to many dedicated dog lovers. (I should know.)

Of course, for the BEST ever, I'd have to nominate Citizen Lunchbox dot com. Outrageous.

Aleta Curry 00:10, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

Wiki conversion

I'm proficient with LaTeX and have MSWord running on my PC. I'm willing to convert math and physics equations from Word to Wiki LaTeX. --Paul Wormer 07:42, 21 February 2008 (CST)

Volunteer to convert articles emailed in

Anthony:

I would like to volunteer to convert and upload Chemical Engineering articles that are sent in via email by contributors. Is this the right place for that? If not, can you tell me where to volunteer? I will watch for your response here on your Talk page. Thanks, Milton Beychok 12:03, 21 February 2008 (CST)

Milton, thank you for volunteering to convert word processor articles to MediaWiki mark-up. I hope you will feel comfortable acepting articles with a broad definition of chemical engineering.

Milton, you need next to subscribe to the mailing list where authors will submit their articles as email attachments: http://mail.citizendium.org/mailman/listinfo/cz-wikiformat.

I have added your name to the page where we will keep track of which volunteers have accepted which articles for conversion: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Wiki-converting. Review that page for information.

Also, review the page we developed for submitters, which will indicate what to expect: CZ:Email us an article in word processor format.

Again, welcome aboard. As a subscriber to cz-wikiformat mailing list, you can communicate with the other wiki-converter volunteers, and you can use the discussion (talk) page for communication: http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/CZ:Wiki-converting.

--Anthony.Sebastian 14:48, 21 February 2008 (CST)

Dog Approval

Hi Anthony,

Thanks for your request on the CZ:Approval Process page. I think Noel has addressed some major problems there. You were very close on the ToApprove section of Template:Dog/Metadata. I made these changes. Basically, you don't need to use the four tildes when placing the 'ToA editor=' and you need the current version of the 'Draft' page rather than the 'metadata' page. Otherwise, you did well. D. Matt Innis 20:00, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Anthony, when they added the boxes to the left, they gave us a better way to find the 'article url'. Would you do me a favor and see if I explained it adequately? Thanks, D. Matt Innis 21:11, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Excellent, that was just what it needed. Now all we have to do is wait until the next editor comes along! Thanks, D. Matt Innis 21:54, 25 February 2008 (CST)

Archiving

Anthony, I think all you have to do is put this template at the top of that page - {{archive box|auto=long}}. I'll watch and see what happens when you do it in case it blows up ;-) --D. Matt Innis 19:31, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Well, at least it didn't blow up! Your sandbox-2 solution looks just as good. Chris Day might have a solution for the archive box for when using the /sandbox. I'll keep looking, too. D. Matt Innis 20:29, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Thanks, Matt. Perhaps archiving only available for Talk pages?? --Anthony.Sebastian 20:31, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Yes, Anthony, I think you're correct [1]. So if you put your sandbox under User Talk:Anthony.Sebastian/Sandbox it should work. Then your archive page would be User Talk:Anthony.Sebastian/Sandbox/Archive 1 and Archive 2, etc.. --D. Matt Innis 20:59, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Nope, the box worked, but the Archive 1 went to your other archive page, so it only works on talk pages and there cannot be any /pagename attached to it. D. Matt Innis 21:07, 26 February 2008 (CST)

Interesting idea. Sad it did not work. I admire your perseverance. --Anthony.Sebastian 21:37, 26 February 2008 (CST)

That's Life!

Anthony, I justed wanted to take a moment to thank you for incorporating many of my suggestions in the Life/Draft article. It is a real pleasure to work with someone who takes constructive criticism as it is meant, as an aid. Cheers. David E. Volk 08:55, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Thank you, David, for the thorough reading and thoughtful, constructive criticisms. I greatly appreciate the feedback and suggestions. I have not finished working on all your comments, and will look forward to your thoughts as I continue editing. --Anthony.Sebastian 14:40, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Dog is Approved!

Anthony, congratulations on another approval/re-approval! --D. Matt Innis 19:22, 29 February 2008 (CST)

Life ver 1.2 Approved!

Good work once again Anthony! Persistence pays off ;-) --D. Matt Innis 22:15, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, Matt. I call it perseverance, and learned it from my mentor, Curtis Morris, who never gives up.

You have been most helpful throughout. CZ is lucky to have your talents. --Anthony.Sebastian 23:29, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

idea for food chains / food webs / subpages / etc

Hello,

I wondered if you could give any input or insight on this idea. I started a forum post in the chat section: http://forum.citizendium.org/index.php/topic,1643.0.html

I really like your pictures in your life article, and wondered if you had any insight to the feasibility of mapping food chains in figures. Thanks in advance! Tom Kelly 17:42, 22 March 2008 (CDT)

Hominid to hominin

Thanks, I was trying to figure out why the warning message did not pop up and you had already been in and corrected the metadata pagename. :) Chris Day 22:43, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Just trying to help student, as you are. --Anthony.Sebastian 22:46, 31 March 2008 (CDT)

Olympics

Hi Anthony,

Just want to double-check about the issues you raised at CZ:monthly write-a-thon#Future Theme Schedule. Are you strenously objecting to The Olympics being a theme, or just raising issues to keep us honest? Aleta Curry 17:05, 4 April 2008 (CDT)

Aleta,

I do have serious objections about supporting the Olympic games in China, but no "strenuous" objections to the theme for a CZ Wrytathon. Depending on how the theme begins to develop -- the sentiments of the participants -- I may choose to pass on the party. --Anthony.Sebastian 13:43, 5 April 2008 (CDT)

Hi again, Anthony. I respect that. More at: user talk:Aleta Curry#Olympic objections

Aleta Curry 20:08, 7 April 2008 (CDT)

Breast Cancer Fund report

I guess I should have said the following earlier: yes.

I wrote a letter to the editor; I believe that she will like your idea. Sorry for the delay. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 23:38, 17 April 2008 (CDT)

Janet Gray contacted me yesterday. She had good news, which are unfortunately not as good for CZ: the report will be published in a non-open access international journal, the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health (this large document will be split two halves, two issues, if you wonder how this can be possible). It will be impossible for her and the BCF to "share" the rights for this work, now that this contract has been sealed.

Pr Gray will stay in touch in case she has some content to share in CZ, and she also forwarded my invitation to Nancy Evans, a breast cancer fund hero and an exceptional advocate for environmental health research in the field of breast cancer.

I learned several things while translating this work, and it will be possible for me to do my part, if I manage my time wisely; also see other message below.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 10:38, 29 April 2008 (CDT)

Userplan

i think I'm the wrong person to ask here. i have not got mine up and running so have no experience setting it up. For that reason when I look at yours I'm not sure where to start trouble shooting. Sorry not much help. Chris Day 16:54, 22 April 2008 (CDT)

A new colleague for you

Professor Sebastian: Hitting the recent changes button, I witnessed the birth of a new article that should interest you: Salt and health. David Cooper, another intellectual refugee from Wikipedia (like myself), started it when he arrived to CZ. I think it's great news. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 09:01, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

Just Anthony, Pierre-Alain. Thanks for calling my attention to David Cooper's nice article. I will put my two cents in when time has a stop. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:52, 5 May 2008 (CDT)

History of Medicine articles

Hey Anthony-- In addition to the articles we've been discussing on early Greek medicine, it might be nice to have a few broad articles on the history of medicine before we get to Harvey-- something along the lines of medicine in the medieval West and medicine in the Renaissance or European medicine in the Early Modern period. Now that I think of it, titling all of them 'European medicine...' makes sense, because then it would be possible to have companion articles on 'Islamic medicine in the Middle Ages', or something similar. We still need to get to Galen at some point, of course. I'll give a shout when I start working on the medieval medicine article. Brian P. Long 05:22, 6 May 2008 (CDT)

"Putative contributors to the secular increase in obesity: exploring the roads less traveled"

Hi Anthony, I found this text quite refreshing. You can read my attempt to summarize it on the Obesity page, etiology section. I even found a full text link! Yey! It's interesting that one of those 10 factors are endocrine disruptors (cf my work (still just a plan...) on Breast Cancer page will require much work about EDs). I even found somewhere else (nb: in a major jounal) that the association between diabetes and obesity was only relevant if certain fat-soluble contaminants were present. So many things to do, so little time. I wish my Internationalisation proposal (initial proposer: Aleta) could work and help bring new contributors!

Anyways, when you have the time, please have a visit! I plan to stay on this page there for a while. Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 02:31, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

A quick message just to avoid a misunderstanding: the only section I wrote was the part in the etiology section that follows the discuss on genes, hunger and the arcuate nucleus (which was written by Gareth Leng). My contribution is based on IJO review article. I think that the detailed work in the Treatment section is by Robert Badgett.

I'll now get back to your message and to your work on the topic in the evolutionary medicine page.

Pierre-Alain Gouanvic 19:34, 15 May 2008 (CDT)

Hippocrates

Dr. Sebastian,

May I have the original Greek text of the aphorism? All I can find is the Adams and a French translation. You may call on me for whatever need arises in my area of expertise. Erik M. Baker 20:40, 29 May 2008 (CDT)

Biology's next microscope

Hi Tony, I am delighted to see this article transplanted here, since I have myself exchanged microscopes for algorithms recently, and I had enjoyed the paper very much when it came out. I definitely plan to join working on it, though there are a few points to consider (detailed here) on which I would like to invite your feedback. -- Daniel Mietchen 04:53, 5 June 2008 (CDT)

Non-technical intros

I think I like what you did to Epilepsy's introduction. I was hoping nobody would not hammer me too much for starting health articles with a technical perspective for a technical audience. I very much like your anchoring your definition to an existing canonical description such as MedlinePlus. Now the article reaches both audiences (or at least its introduction does).

Thanks, Bob. It always seems best for me at least to try to reach a broad audience (without dumbing down) in the first paragraph, then start advancing from that foundation.

Questions:

1. Do you think a medlineplus introduction followed by MeSH introduction is a good pattern to continue with? I am thinking through whether the MeSH definition contributes now. I still find that MeSH helps me much in naming articles (and will be essential when the day arrives that web resources map to each other).

Yes, if the MeSH definition doesn't get so technical the reader will get little out of it. Epilepsy might be a case in point. We can always 'officialize' after giving nthe reader enoug background for it to make sense.

2. Is it ok to insert a section head labeled "History" prior to "The ancient Greeks recognized epilepsy..."? This would avoid the contents menu being pushed down so far.

Good idea. I went ahead an made the change as you suggested.

--Anthony.Sebastian 12:34, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

Bob - Robert Badgett 12:01, 23 June 2008 (CDT)

If you have a few moments

Anthony, if you have a few moments, please take a look at Ammonia production and let me have any comments you may have on that article's Talk page. Thanks, Milton Beychok 12:15, 23 July 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for your comments on the introduction and I have responded on the article's Talk page. - Milton Beychok 18:38, 23 July 2008 (CDT)

About CZ:Email us an article in word processor format#Nota Bene

The above article section tells newcomers that non-existent articles are in a red font ... which is no longer the case and will lead to confusion. Since you were a major contributor to that article, I thought I would make you aware that it needs to be revised. Regards, Milton Beychok 14:59, 30 July 2008 (CDT)

The color I am currently seeing for blank links is what I would call "light bluish gray" or "light grayish blue". What would you call it? Milton Beychok 20:25, 31 July 2008 (CDT)

About changing the default color for blank articles

Anthony, I believe that you have to contact either Larry Sanger or Greg Sabino Mullane‎ who is one of the technical staff. When I asked Greg to alphabetize the watchlist edit page, he did so very promptly. However, for the changing the default color of the blank links, he may have to get approval from Larry. Milton Beychok 18:51, 3 August 2008 (CDT)

Endorsement Letter

Hey--

I just read over the academic Endorsement Letter. It looks good!

Do you need help putting together a list of biologists to mail the letter to? What's the procedure for mailing these out? (for the academic letter, as well as my letter to bloggers) Should we be mailing these from our personal email addresses, or are we going to send these from some official Citizendium address?

I think we should try to get these letters out as soon as possible. Let me know if there's any way I can help.

Thanks, Brian P. Long 18:53, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for your offer to help. I'll ask Supten and Daniel to respond, as they know more than I do. --Anthony.Sebastian 19:00, 12 September 2008 (CDT)

Thanks, Brian. What we need with respect to the letter is getting CZ:Biology_Workgroup/Biology_Week/Academic_recruitment off the ground (it's currently Cornell only) by scanning the web for publicly available email addresses of biologists. The best way perhaps is to do so via listings of editorial boards of major biology journals. For PLoS Biology, the list is here, for PLoS ONE here (xls sheet). The email addresses can then be found via a quick search in Google, Google Scholar or PubMed. As for the sender of the emails, I would prefer to use a Citizendium address but we will have to inquire with Larry about that. -- Daniel Mietchen 03:26, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

Small addendum: The editorial board of Biology Direct is here. -- Daniel Mietchen 03:45, 13 September 2008 (CDT)

user plan

User:Anthony.Sebastian/Userplan What is wrong with it? It looks fine to my eyes. Chris Day 15:02, 14 September 2008 (CDT)

You should probably update this one for biology week. :) Chris Day 10:29, 22 September 2008 (CDT)

Right note, wrong person?

Please see User_talk:Aleta_Curry#cz-wikiformat - I don't think this was meant for me. Aleta Curry 23:02, 26 September 2008 (CDT)

ATP pools

Hi Tony, the recent picture you uploaded is not that accurate. There is no common pool of ATP. A more accurate drawing would look like the following diagram (excuse the rough draft). All the chloroplast ATP is used to fix carbon dioxide using the Calvin cycle (it also uses the NADPH from photosynthesis too). The ATP for plant cellular function is indirectly generated via the export of the carbohydrate from the chloroplasts, via TCA cycle (orange; and all the NADH from here too), via the electron transport chain. Carbohydrate is made in excess and then exported to non photosynthetic cells. Was your figure from a book? I'm not sure we want to give the false impression of a common pool of ATP. Chris Day 16:38, 2 October 2008 (CDT)

Hi Chris. Thanks for keeping an eye on me as I try to understand photosynthesis by writing about it.

I see from your discussion that the figure I drew gives the impression of a common cellular pool of ATP, and therefore misleads. Your figure much better, and could replace mine and with a clearer caption.

Would you mind if I worked with your figure, make some emendations, let you review before uploading? If okay, will you send me the jpeg, at Anthony_Sebastian@msn.com.

Thanks again for helping with this. --Anthony.Sebastian 17:11, 2 October 2008 (CDT)

Sure you can work with that if you like although it is a very rough draft that only took ten minutes to pile together. I'm not sure how you do your original, which is beautiful, but I thought you might be able to use the concepts in mine to modify your own. Chris Day 17:33, 2 October 2008 (CDT)

After I made my drawing, I regretted not making it more schematic, rather than trying to represent the leaf, the chloroplast and the mitochondrion semi-realistically. I had resolved to draw subsequent figures more cartoony, like yours. I like your figure and would like to elaborate on it somewhat, and let it set the theme for the figures to come in the article. I could start over, but I really like yours. --Anthony.Sebastian 18:27, 2 October 2008 (CDT)

Are you still thinking of drawing a schematic diagram along these lines? I could draw a better version if you'd like something like this. Let me know if there are other additions you'd like to add. Chris Day 03:27, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

images

I'm not sure I have a solution to your request. The best is one of two options.

You can search by key word:

http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Special:NewImages

Or browse by images that indivduals have uploaded:

Example here for Paul Wormer for last 50. Or even the last 500. This latter one might be MORE useful since you can then do a key word search on that search page.

Hope one of these is useful. Chris Day 21:19, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Anthony, my user page at User:Milton Beychok has links to my "Image Gallery1" and "Image Gallery2" which have about 116 image that I've uploaded. I don't know if any of them are what you seek ... but you are welcome to use any of them. Milton Beychok 00:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotations

None of your proposed code results in right indentation as viewed on my platform and browsers (both of which are CSS compliant browsers).

The reason is because you are adding styling to the P tag within the blockquote tag. The blockquote tag produces a box (which is not right indented on my platform/browser combination) and when a paragraph is placed inside the blockquote box, it fills up the outer box. If the outer box is not indented, the inner box (by itself) won't be. There is no reason to use the P tag anyway. The mediawiki software automatically creates new paragraphs.

We shouldn't even be talking about the code. Any proposal should be made in descriptive terms only ("indented 5 to 10 percent on both right and left", for example).

Actual coding should take place at the global style sheet level. In-line styling should be completely avoided so as to not lock ourselves into a particular style. The only thing the authors would add is:

<BLOCKQUOTE> . . . insert text here . . . </BLOCKQUOTE>

Nothing could be simpler than to add the unadorned HTML tag (except to use the ":" of course). Do you understand why this should be handled at the global style sheet level? This is not a trivial point. It gets to the whole purpose of style sheets (and wikis, by the way).

Jim Perry

I agree with you, Jim. On the forum, I stressed that I wanted to experiment with different 'appearances' of a blockquote. I think we cannot provide the descriptive terms for that appearance without looking at examples, which necessarily require local coding. Once we reach consensus on an 'appearance', the coders can implement it on the global style sheet.

I'll trying taking out the 'p' tag.

I get left-and-right indents on IE7, FF3, Opera, Safari, and Chrome. OS: Vista Ultimate.

Try Theoretical biology --Anthony.Sebastian 01:00, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks

Anthony, thanks for fleshing out the History section of the Meteorology article. Milton Beychok 00:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Milton, happy to contribute in a minor way. Didn't want my Italian countrymen (Torricelli, Galileo) to miss their credit — my family name originally 'Sebastiano', and I'm FBI (full-blooded Italian) — and felt John Dalton's pioneering work also creditable. Admire your work and good-humored forum posts. --Anthony.Sebastian 01:30, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Hippocrates and Paracelsus

Hi Anthony, could I bother you to take a look at this discussion on the Homeopathy article. Your guidance would be greatly appreciated. The article is close to approval (in the next two day hopefully), but this needs some attention. Thanks in advance. D. Matt Innis 23:57, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Signed Article

I just moved the addendum. As for the table, your idea works well. I did it the long hand way. I wonder if there is a converter for HTML to wiki out there somewhere. I'd be surprised if some young gun at wikipedia has not attacked that problem already. Chris Day 22:13, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

With regard to preventing further edits beyond formatting there is currently no mechanism in place other than courtesy to the original author. I would hope that would be enough but if necessary we could protect all signed articles. Chris Day 15:36, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Good thinking. Doesn't it just seem reasonable that if someone signs an article, it needs to stay in the version that he/she signed it? D. Matt Innis 16:56, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you and Matt, to protect all signed articles from editing. However, if I, or another editor, sees a need for formating changes, how does one open a protected article temporarily? Ask a constable? And who would see to it that no content changes crept in? And how re-protect after fixing formats?

Can anyone protect or unprotect an article?

Do signed articles has Talk pages, so that users can discuss as aspects of it? --Anthony.Sebastian 18:30, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Life wordle...

...I just caught a typo, "Inteactions"...thought you'd want to know. --Larry Sanger 19:38, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, if Anthony wrote it, it probably is a real word, or it is now! D. Matt Innis 19:45, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to let you know-

I finally got around to Allan Ramsay (1686–1758)....

Sorry I'm an erratic correspondent, life is about splicing time.Gareth Leng 13:01, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Terrific. Your productivity astounds. Keep on splicing. --Anthony.Sebastian 22:25, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Approval process for Animal

Mr. Sebastian, I've been working on the Animal article, and I've just finished up its draft. Could read it over and see if you could initiate the approval process for it? I'm pretty proud of it, and I'd love to see it garner approved status. Sincerely, Joshua Choi 02:41, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Re paper submitted by Stanne-ken C.F.M. Buckens via CZ:Wiki-converting

The paper submitted by Stanne-ken about "Human nitric oxide synthesaase" is not in my field of expertise at all. However, I did scan it and it appears to be a very well-written article. It has a problem which will be very difficult to overcome. It has numerous drawings that are an integral part of the paper and are needed to understand the article ... all of which were taken from various published papers by various other people. According to our current rules about images, we are limited in uploading images to those where we contact the original authors and get their written (or emailed) permission to use them. It is going to be very hard and time-consuming to do that ... and the article really needs them.

It might be a good idea if somehow there were a way to make prospective submitters to CZ:Wiki-converting aware that we need either original self-made drawings/photos or they must furnish permission to use drawings/photos copied from sources published by other people. I just wanted to alert you to this problem. Milton Beychok 02:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

an approval

Milton Beychok has nominated the article about drugs banned from the Olympics for approval. He's a chemistry editor, but the article is also in the Sports and Biology Workgroups. The limit for the number of workgroups an article can be listed in is three, but I think Health Sciences would also be appropriate for that article. If you're comfortable with the article, I'd like to ask you to be a co-approver as an editor in the Biology Workgroup who just happens to be an editor in Health Sciences as well. What do you think? --Joe (Approvals Manager) 02:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Approval nomination of Drugs banned from the Olympics

Hi, Anthony. Please let me know if you are satisfied with David Volk's revisions of the article in response to your comments/questions so that I may then change the version to be approved (in the MetaData template). Thanks, Milton Beychok 19:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Now that you've decided to co-approve: All you have to do is go to the article's Metadata template, scroll down to where you see my name at "TA editor = Milton Beychok" and just beneath that enter your name at "ToA editor 2 = ". That's all that is needed. I will change the Metadata page so that the latest version becomes the version to be approved. Thanks and regards, Milton Beychok 00:26, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help, Anthony! --Joe (Approvals Manager) 02:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

steroid

Anthony, I would appreciate any comments about steroid. I think is it very close to approvable, but it may need more medical use coverage. David E. Volk 19:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I have been using a freeware program WinDrawChem to draw chemical structures since I no longer have ChemDraw. It crashes sometimes, but I don't want to fork over good money for chemdraw since I rarely need it at work. David E. Volk 14:10, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

We need feedback

Anthony, please look at This thread in the forums. We need some feedback in that thread. Milton Beychok 06:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Scientific method

We need three editors there anyway, so please sign up if you feel it's ready, and check back shortly before approval to see whether you can OK any of the changes made till then. I will do so too. --Daniel Mietchen 11:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Will do. Anthony.Sebastian 19:05, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Please check back again to approve the latest changes (mainly formatting). Thanks! --Daniel Mietchen 08:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Chemical elements

Anthony, as far as I'm concerned you can put your sandbox version into main space. --Paul Wormer 12:20, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, Paul. I hope as time permits, you will continue to collaborate on the article. Anthony.Sebastian 19:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, Anthony, that I did not answer at once - I have been away and offline. The introduction looks quite good to me. (I have not yet read all of the article.) Of course, you do not need my permission to put it on the main article - I have just joined the discussion (and I am no chemist). (And I also think that Milton did not "prohibit" changes of the article -- he was just angry that frequent changes made following the discussion difficult.)

If you allow me, I want to write down a few minor remarks on the new version:

I may be wrong, but I think that it is too strong to have one sense against a second sense (I already said this) because these two senses are closely related. If "narrow" and "wide" is not a good choice, maybe there is another way to express this.

Peter, I used the word 'sense' in its strict lexicographic meaning, viz., "one of the meanings of a word or phrase" (American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, 4th ed.). The phrase 'chemical element' has two meanings, as stated by the IUPAC, i.e., two 'senses'. So I believe the explication of one 'sense' in the first paragraph and that of the second 'sense' in the second paragraph in keeping with strict linguistic standards. Actually the two senses refer to two different ways of 'conceptualizing' chemical element, the first as a species of atoms, the second as a substance composed solely of a single species of atoms. Related, certainly, but conceptually different. Indeed, we ought to use 'elementary substance' instead of 'chemical element' in a second sense, but chemists usually go with 'chemical element'. Anthony.Sebastian 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I am not a native speaker, but to me "conceptualized" sounds a little artificial in this sentence.

"always appear in nature bound most commonly to oxygen atoms" Would "in nature always are bound to other elements, most commonly to oxygen atoms." be better?

I'll rewrite the sentence along those lines. Anthony.Sebastian 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

In the section title on history, quotes around "chemical element" would be natural for me.

is "definitional consensus" a good formulation?

I'll go back and re-look at both. Anthony.Sebastian 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

"one cannot know whether future technology will provide a chemical method to further simplify a presumed 'pure' substance" Is this really a possibility? I am not sure, but - as I said - I am not a chemist.

Who knows what the future will bring in that regard? Anthony.Sebastian 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But all this should not stop you from moving the page to the article. Peter Schmitt 23:33, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your challenging thoughts. I hope you will keep them coming. Anthony.Sebastian 02:46, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Archived Talk:Chemical elements

Since Caesar had not yet done it, I did the archiving. Regards, Milton Beychok 17:56, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Archiving Talk:Chemical elements

Use search box in left-hand panel to search for: Talk:Chemical elements/Archive X
That takes you to a page that says: There is no page titled "Talk:chemical elements/Archive X". You can create this page.
- Click on create this page
That takes you to the edit page of the new archive page entitled: Talk:Chemical elements/Archive X
- At the very top of that edit page, enter this template: {{Archive box|auto=long}}
- Then save this page (but remember the name!).
Go to the edit page of: Talk:Chemical elements
- Select and copy all of the contents that you want to archive
Go back to the new archive page: Talk:Chemical elements/Archive X
- Paste in the contents that you copied from Talk:Chemical elements and then save the new archive page
Go back to edit page of: Talk:Chemical elements
- Delete all of the contents that you copied to the new archive page
- At the very top of the edit page, enter this template: {{Archive box|auto=long}} and save the page. Your are now finished.

The X in the first line above can be 1, 2, 3, ..... etc.

To archive your own user talk page, start by searching for: User talk:Anthony.Sebastian/Archive X

I hope this is clear. Regards, Milton Beychok 20:23, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Milton, thank you for taking your time to explain the archiving process. Your algorithm seems quite clear to me. I will let you know the results of my trying it out. I would have never figured out the procedure on my own, and I could not find help in the usual places to look. Much obliged. Anthony.Sebastian 21:30, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The first time I did it, it took me about 2 hours before I finally figured it out. Milton Beychok 21:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

RE: Reference 1 of Chemical elements

Anthony, since you just corrected reference 2, would you also take a look a look at reference 1? As it now stands, the IUPAC link in reference 1 sends us to an IUPAC home page that has nothing about the definition of chemical elements ... nor does it have any pointers or links on where to find such information. I can only assume that at one time it was a pertinent reference ... perhaps the IUPAC website has been re-arranged since then ... but, as of now, reference 1 is not a pertinent reference. Thanks in advance, Milton Beychok 05:32, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Milton, thanks for keeping me honest. Will fix.

BTW: Okay to include not excessively long annotations to the citations, for convenience and/or edification of reader, even though you believe the references speak for themselves? You can always tell me which ones to delete/amend, so you won't have to do the work. Anthony.Sebastian 22:33, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think that annotations of no more than about 2-3 lines of text would usually be sufficient ... but I don't think we should set a hard and fast limit. If I see one that I think needs to be shortened, I will let it be known. Milton Beychok 00:31, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 00:43, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Removed ref #1 & modified ref #2 to accommodate. Anthony.Sebastian 00:54, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Approval, R.E.M. page

Hi, Anthony, I saw a note from May that you were working on the R.E.M. entry I created in the Summer 0f '08. I'd like to check in on the progress of this--I'd love to see it marked as "approved" as soon as possible. Thanks Jeff

Re Talk:Photosynthesis

Hi, Anthony:

Please see my responses to your comments on the subject Talk page. Also, it would be most useful if you read the discussion about excessive annotations on the forums here. It would appear that there is a consensus about excessive annotations. Regards, Milton Beychok 04:03, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Photosynthesis image

Anthony, that image you just added to the Photosynthesis article is excellent! And it would be even better if the white space around the image were reduced ... especially the white space around on the left-hand side. If you wish, I could easily do that for you. Milton Beychok 05:52, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Milton, thanks for calling the 'whitespace' issue to my attention in the Photosynthesis image, and thanks for offering to fix. I needed to learn for myself how to fix, plus I wanted to make a few minor changes to the image itself, so I decided to give it a try myself. See what you think. Anthony.Sebastian 00:10, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Anthony, filling in the white space at the top with color adds a nice touch. However, when I suggested reducing the white space, I meant removing it (rather than simply coloring it) so as to reduce the overall size of the drawing. If you will look here on my Sandbox page, I have uploaded a test revised version of your drawing that is exactly the same as yours except that I reduced the size of the uploaded file from your 960x720 to 689x573. That permits the image in the article itself to be reduced from a width of 550px to 450px and still be quite legible.

If you like the test revised version, let me know. I will then speedy delete the one in my sandbox and simply use it to upload a new version of your image retaining your name and your credit line as the originator. It would only take me a few minutes to do that.

Regards, Milton Beychok 03:14, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Milton, I do like your test revised version, but if I let you do the edit for me, I will not learn how to fix it for the next illustration. Still, I appreciate your effort to help, and you are helping. So I tried another version, this time cropping to eliminate ALL the colored-whitespace in the original, using my image editor. See for yourself here. I resisted resizing the image to ensure good readability. Neverthless, when inserting the image in the text, a narrow rim of whitespace appears in the final. It seems CZ puts it there. I tried it with your test.jpg, same thing, a narrow rim of whitespace. Check it out here, let me know what you think. Anthony.Sebastian

Anthony, what really helped me to reduce the image width from 960px down to 689px was that I shortened the line of text ending in "glyceraldehyde" by moving the word "glyceraldehyde" to the beginning of the next line of text. That then allowed me to move the 4 colored tabs at the top closer together and reduce the width considerably. Take another look at my test image and perhaps you might consider doing the same thing yourself. Meanwhile, I will wait awhile before speedy deleting my test image ... just in case you night want to try emulating it. Milton Beychok 04:42, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Milton, good idea, playing with the line length. I'll try it as soon as I can get back to work. Thanks for your your patient guidance. Anthony.Sebastian 05:04, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

Tony, I just checked the two images and i have two minor points. In the Image Enhanced_overview_ps_01.jpg you call the dark reactions light non-dependent. It's usually referred to as light independent. In the image Overview_ps_09.jpg I think I would say that "excess oxygen is released to the atmosphere". Remember that the oxygen is also used for respiration, hence the carbon and light compensation points where the transition from oxygen consumption to oxygen release is observed. Chris Day 04:30, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

photosynthesis

I hope you have found my edits useful. Glad to see you're still plugging away at getting this article going. I assume your major goal here is a review of photosynthesis in all organisms. Are you planning to compare and contrast? Chris Day 03:23, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Chris, very useful, as was Peter's retake on the lede. All types of photosynthesis will need covering, and organism-specific mechanisms, too -- as soon as I fill my knowledge base. Anthony.Sebastian 03:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Wot? Wat!

Sending a quick ‘hello’ out to all of you who wanted a weekend write-a-thon. Also, a nudge, push, and a shove to all those who haven’t made it out in a while. This Sunday, 10th January, is your Big Chance. Party theme is ‘stubs’. Now, what could be easier? Write about anything you want! (At least come on over and say ‘hi’—we’ve all been much too quiet lately and I rather miss everybody.) Aleta Curry 21:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Good catch, Anthony

Good catch of the freezing point discussion in the main text of the Water article ... after all of the fuss about including it in the properties table. Milton Beychok 02:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. And your note good about unmeaureability of water's freezing point. A section on 'supercooled water' would be cool. Anthony.Sebastian 03:39, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

As indicated on the Talk page, Daniel Mietchen is an expert on that subject. Why not approach him about writing a section on supercooled water? Milton Beychok 04:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Thanks. Anthony.Sebastian 04:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for starting Oxidation

Anthony, thanks and see my response to you on my Talk page. Milton Beychok 00:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

About the first two references in Oxidation

Anthony, from what I can see, reference 2 is simply an English translation of a later edition of reference 1. In essence they are both the same book, one in French and one in English. Please consider combining them both in one reference or choosing the English version only. Milton Beychok 03:33, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. I'll do that. Anthony.Sebastian 03:41, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Biological production of Ammonia