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 chick 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)