User talk:Ceyockey/archive1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Wikipedia[edit]

Here are some links I thought useful:

Feel free to contact me personally with any questions you might have. Wikipedia:About, Wikipedia:Help desk, and Wikipedia:Village pump are also a place to go for answers to general questions. You can sign your name by typing 4 tildes, like this: ~~~~.

Be Bold!

Sam Spade (talk · contribs) 17:50, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC) edited Courtland 02:16, 2005 Feb 16 (UTC)

Stub sorting[edit]

I appreciate your help with recategorisation and re-stubbing of articles. However, adding two stubs to articles, especially with the recent concerns regarding the use of templates, is not necessary. I believe the animal stub is for actual animals; otherwise, a good chunk of what's in biology could end up there. In addition, nerve endings (Meissner's corpuscle, Pacinian corpuscle) and osteon are not related to cell biology. It is debatable whether or not virii/viruses are living organisms, so a med stub should be sufficient. --jag123 03:09, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll explain myself a bit and make a couple of comments ...
  • two stubs - in some cases the article could go into either of two categories ultimately; as there are folks who concentrate on one category for their efforts, the addition of a second stub is helpful in 'advertising' the stub's existence. However, I'll refrain from adding two stubs to any future stub-worthy article.
  • ?? what concern over using templates ??
  • animal stub - I took a look at the contents of the animal stub category and determined that it included both specific animals and named groups of animals. If one would like it to be restricted to specific animals, then a change of name might be in order to 'Specific Animals' and keep the stub template name the same.
  • plant stub - should the same 'specific plants only' be the rule of thumb for this stub as well?
  • nerve endings are related to cell biology in being subjects of research into specific cell types. There is a general misconception about 'cell types' in general, that there are X cell types and that's it; in reality, it is quite difficult to enumerate the total cell type complement in an organism due to regional specification that occurs due to juxtacrine and paracrine influences and extracellular matrix cues. I put osteon into cell biology because of the impact on osteocyte function and cellular anatomy the structure has.
  • viruses - you'd be hard pressed to find a virologist who did not think that virology is a subdiscipline of microbiology.
  • last question - should I go back and fix all of the stubs I've touched according to your suggestions here, or simply apply them going forward?
Thanks for the thanks and the advice. Courtland 03:24, 2005 Feb 7 (UTC)

Concerns are here: [[1]], under Meta Templates. I'm not sure what's going to happen with this, if anything, but I'm taking a wait and see approach. Re: Animal stubs, I was specifically referring to oocyte, which is not an animal. I'm aware of the difference in 'cell types', but nevertheless, nerve endings, such as Meissner's are composed of several things, connective tissue cells, a nerve cell, etc. I understand the interrelation of practically everything (a lot of what's in biochem-stub now is related or affects genetics, which affects cell biology, and those cells define the "properties" of a tissue...etc etc) but we still have to be somewhat selective when we categorise, otherwise arguments could be made that everything could be practically anywhere. Meissner's could also be fitted with a psychology stub as well, since it's involved in somatosensory, but it's not really necessary. For instance, someone looking to expand somatosensory articles would (hopefully) not restrict their searches to only psychology stubs. In other words, if it's categorized at all, chances are they will find it. As for viruses, I agree with your point, but many won't. There was a guy not too long ago who didn't understand why animals/plants were under a biology stub, that it was out of place because he wouldn't expect to go under science->biology to find living organisms, and was/is planning on recategorizing everything. Considering that biology is the science of living things, I don't think there's a more appropriate category but anyway, I digress.

Point is, most of the stubs you assigned are technically correct, and if they couldn't fit anywhere else, I wouldn't complain. However, since you're stubbing twice, I think, IMO, it's better to leave it in the best one and leave it at that.

By the way, just in case you weren't aware, there are tons of articles labelled with only a generic "stub" tag (located here Category:Stub), uncategorised pages [2] and short pages [3] that could use any categorisation at all or a more specific stub tags. --jag123 04:08, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Enzymes[edit]

I'd be a bit careful with what "all relevant info" means. You don't want to get into the position of replicating a Swissprot record in the box, I wouldn't think. (example publically available Swissprot record (http://us.expasy.org/cgi-bin/niceprot.pl?IKKA_HUMAN)) Courtland 00:48, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

I know what you mean. Most articles have EC numbers, and many have PDBs, so I figured having that information formatted consistently across all articles might be a good thing. I think size, reaction and active site would be another thing that is interesting/important enough to add to that box. I'm also interested in listing Km and Vmax values (which isn't in swissprot) for some enzymes since they may increase understanding for some metabolic processes. (higher Km for hexokinase in liver vs muscle cell, for instance). There's no point in reproducing swissprot, most people don't/won't even understand it. Anything else you think may be of worth to add? --jag123 03:22, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
membrane bound +/-; conditionally active (i.e. has a self-peptide that blocks the active site until replaced/released; disease association; OMIM linkage; for ligand-activated whether the ligand is known; known inhibitors.  :) not too much, really. Courtland 03:43, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
sorry - those things are hard to come by but they are of great importance for my industry. Seriously, though, one needs to think about the audience of Wikipedia. I was admonished the other day because I used technical terminology in an article and asked to soften it for the general public. I don't want to discourage you from doing anything ... any input we make here is input to good use and ends. Now, the general public isn't going to be much interested in the Vmax of focal adhesion kinase (even if it were known under physiological conditions, which I don't believe it is), but that is not a reason to exclude it. My opinion is that one needs to think of the key information the "interested layman" would find most useful ... Scientific American-level content ... provide that then add on the additional material that would be of benefit to the student. Courtland 04:01, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)
I see your point. I guess time spent in compiling all of that info could be better spent elsewhere. Out of curiosity, in what article where you admonished for using techincal terminology? (You can reply here, I'll watch your your page.) --jag123 05:40, 14 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Genealogy#Webserving_.28available_for_multiple_operating_systems.29 around that section ... I've not changed the material yet Courtland 05:43, 2005 Feb 14 (UTC)

Stub sorting guidelines[edit]

I sincerely believe that we really need to lay down the law in stub sorting, and really provide a guideline. I believe that we should all attempt to reach a general consensus by April 2, 2005 in a set of rules that we can follow. Once we have built a set of guidelines, we can formally create a policy out of those guidelines. We need to define what a specialized topic stub is, how many articles it should cover, when is it appropriate to create it, what defines its need for its creation, what defines its need for deletion, what criteria it should follow, what are the general steps should one take when sorting a stub, whether or not to start using subst: for all templates, whether or not use subst: for all templates created by the meta-templates, and any other matters that may come up in consideration. I thank jag123 for initially creating the subpage for the project at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines. Even though they have been discussed, I feel that we really need to confirm everything. For that, we should discuss each issue with its own sections, and raise a list of issues that we need to nail down before really continuing on. The English Wikipedia is nearly at 500k articles. Either the MediaWiki software needs to handle stubs such that they can be found with a simple union of categories, or the sorting is done manually by Wikipedians. Personally, I think the latter is less taxing on the server load, especially when we use subst:, which I think would help the Wikipedia out, performance wise. Please make your comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Stub sorting/Guidelines. I apologize for making this somewhat of a spam notice, but since the project has more members, the project can finally decide on these important issues at hand. -- AllyUnion (talk) 23:24, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

CA-125[edit]

Ceyockey, I praise your useful additions to the ovarian cancer and endometrial cancer articles about CA-125, but I reverted your redirect from CA-125 to the ovarian cancer article. I did this because CA-125 is simply a tumor marker, which comes with all the liabilities and inaccuracies that tumor markers have. I feel it's an error to associate CA-125 with ovarian cancer so intimately, when in fact not all epithelial ovarian cancers are associated with elevated levels of CA-125 and indeed CA-125 can be elevated in a number of other conditions, even endometrial carcinoma which you pointed out. CA-125 has such an important role in medicine, and an ever-changing one, that I feel it deserves its own article. I rewrote most of the previous text, which was quite stubby. I hope you find the changes acceptable. —Brim 07:09, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Muscle[edit]

Hey Ceyockey! I see you've been a muscle man in a previous life :-). I have just done a major rewrite of muscle. I am, however, poorly informed about embryology and microscopic anatomy of muscle. Could you throw in some of your evident expertise. Would you have any nice pictures, e.g. on the interplay between actic/myosin/troponin/sarcoplasmic reticulum? Thanks! JFW | T@lk 10:18, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Myology? I didn't even know that was a word! Good... The main thing on muscle should be about physiology; I've written up all important muscle diseases (unless you can think of any others). JFW | T@lk 22:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Love Child[edit]

The disambig page at Love child was made at least a week ago. The Love Child page is for the novel. I added the new entries you found to it and formatted them to match the Wikipedia style (you don't have to put the catalog numbers for non-books). Don't take it personal at all; just trying to help out. --b. Touch 06:32, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also, as a general rule, you shouldn't link a song or album that doesn't have an article. There's actually a project that outlines such. It's nice that you're willing to look up the information, but catalog numbers are listed only for books, not for movies or music albums (expecially since you can't catalog the film print versions or vinyl record versions, which are the original and most desireable versions of each). --b. Touch 06:38, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
You do not throw out information just because it doesn't suit your sense of style. Period. Your disambiguation page isn't proper, frankly, because it should capture both states of capitalization, not only one. I do take it personally when what I do is tossed out the window like so much garbage. Courtland 06:35, 2005 Mar 4 (UTC)
It's not my style I'm following, it's the regular Wikipedia style. This site is not the place for personal preference or expression. There is a certain format for certain types of articles, and that format should be uniform for all such articles. As an example, see the entries in the "Disambiguation" category. Again, don't take it personal; this isn't an attack on you or me trying to do whatI want to do; I'm just trying to maintain consistency with the syle of the rest of the disambiguation pages. Again, neither disambiguation pages nor articles for albums or films list catalog numbers of any kind; that is reserved for ISBN numbers for books. --b. Touch 06:44, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Also, the disambiguation page is at Love child and not Love Child because the substub on the book was already at Love Child. If you want to create the article Love Child (book) and port the book info over there, and make Love Child redirect to Love child the disambig page, you're more than welcome to do so. Just be sure to relink all of the pages that link to the book to the proper page.
Again, no one is trying to trash your work; there's just a certain way disambiguation pages are done: see Mercury, Beulah, Next, and Wikipedia:Disambiguation. And as far as red links go, that is a policy in the WikiMusic project. If the article is necessary, someone will create it and do all the linking at some point. Sometimes the article is not neccessary (I was the main editor of The Supremes, and an article on the Love Child album is non-essential). You can't take editing and copyediting personally: "If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly and redistributed at will, do not submit it." I have had plenty of my contributions revised and re-written, but they needed it. --b. Touch 06:56, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Didn't mean to be condescending; it was just intended as a reminder. --b. Touch 07:02, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with listing such information on the actual pages they belong on, but catalog numbers of any kind do not belong on a disambiguation page. Those are supposed to be kept generally as a simple listing of articles that could be confused with one another. Such catalog information belongs only on the actual pages of the item it is referencing. --b. Touch 07:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
"This fact fits the box, it's in; this fact doesn't, it's out". That's what Wikipedia is all about, for better or for worse. That's why there's peer review and vfd. An encyclopedia has to be consistent, and in case like this there's no need or reason to deviate from the norm. Personal preference is a non-issue here; I'm not doing this because it's the way I myself want to see it; it's just that it needs to match everything else. --b. Touch 07:12, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
It should work fine. Out of curiousity, is that Diana Ross & the Supremes catalog number for a two-for-one CD? I was wondering whether the album had been released on its own or not. --b. Touch 07:30, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Based on some experiences I've had here, including having to revise articles to fit certain formats, saving articles on important and notable subjects from being deleted because they aren't well-known to the typical Wikipedian, and not being allowed in The Jackson 5 article to say that Marlon Jackson couldn't dance as well as Michael Jackson because it was not neutral point of view (read here), I'd say Wikipedia is (somewhat unfortunately, yet somewhat neccessarily) about trying to make things fit into a (or a nubmer of boxes). Granted, it's got a wider scope than most other encyclopedias, but it's not all-encompassing by any means. --b. Touch 07:39, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Stub categorising[edit]

Hello! I noticed that you - among others - had attempted to change the general stub message in Genderfuck into a more specific one. So far I have reverted all those attempts, because the categories you assigned it to were completely inappropriate.

  • It is not a "sex-stub", because genderfuck has little to do with sex (the equipment) and less with sex (the action). Whoever uses that one ought to get a grip on the differences between gender, sex (the equipment) and sex (the action).
  • It is not a "psycho-stub" because people who genderfuck hardly belong into the same category as undisputed mental illnesses. And the other articles there were about those.
  • And it is not an "lgb-stub" either, since while lgb people might do genderfuck too (although most do not), it is certainly not a matter limited to lgb people.

So either find a category that fits, or make one, or leave the generic stub message in absence of any usefull specific one. Thank you very much! -- AlexR 08:59, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It was not my intention of starting an edit war or something - but I used comments when I reverted, and those were ignored. Since obviously several people are busy with this stub-categorising, it seemed reasonably to me to speak to as many of them as possible in the hope of getting through to that group. No offence was intended.
As for "sex-stub" - well, one could argue that "sexual characteristics" are used, but most of the time, gender characteristics are used instead, because not everybody has the sexual characteristics so play genderfuck with, or does not want to show them. If those sexual characteristics are in their inderwear, showing them might actually cause problems, too. Besides, have a look at all the other articles that have "sex-stub" in them - genderfuck certainly does not fit in there.
BTW, if you feel that this debate should take place elsewhere, I'm happy to move it. -- AlexR 11:26, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


Alternative med stubs - civility response[edit]

I actually don't know which part of my response to your delete was sarcastic, as I wasn't thinking of slighting you in any way. If you're referring to the "Welcome to Wikipedia," I did mean it sincerely, because you joined recently in Jan. 2005.

I created the {{CAM-stub}} because John Gohde did not have a stub template for the CAM stubs category. I did not think this was right on his part, so I created {{CAM-stub}} with the acronym "CAM" as an easy way to write "alternative medicine," and then {{CAM-stub}} was categorized in the "Alternative medicine stubs" category. I didn't realize this would spark such a controversy (you saw John Gohde's comment on my talk page). I always seem to run into trouble when I deal with the alternative medicine community...

--CDN99 01:46, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why I'm adding my two cents to this, but here goes anyway. CDN99, I can see where Ceyockey was coming from on his response. I think I read it much like he must have: "Welcome, newbie, no, you didn't fix it, in fact, you made it worse. But thanks for playing." I have no doubt that your intentions were sincere, but being a newbie myself, I would have taken it the wrong way also. Not saying I condone the response, just that I understand it.

Now that I've stuck my nose in where it clearly doesn't belong, I'll go away. Pleasant evening. Kbdank71 03:52, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ok, Kbdank71, you did clear it up. I'm still relatively new here too; even though I've been editing for about 7 months, I spend all my time as a hermit in the Cleanup section of Wikipedia:Nooks and corners of Wikipedia that should be frequented. I don't know the stub procedure by heart yet (CAM-stub was my first attempt).

To sum things up, I apologize for phrasing my delete response in that way, and welcome again Courtland.

--CDN99 12:35, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Template:Ceyockeytestertransclusion[edit]

Do you still need Template:Ceyockeytestertransclusion or can this be deleted. It seems to be unused. -- Chris 73 Talk 07:46, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC) | Thanks for the response, deleted. -- Chris 73 Talk 22:55, Mar 8, 2005 (UTC)

TFD[edit]

I appreciate your efforts, but you're handling of closed votes on that page leaves a lot to be desired. Why are you changing the way old votes are closed out? Simply log them on the appropriate log pages, and delete the entries. Don't create subpages of the logs, like Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/Deleted/not child safe. Your approach is novel, but not very helpful. -- Netoholic @ 03:15, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

The only problem witht hat page is the lack of admins to handle the deletions. By moving the votes around, an admin has to go to further trouble of re-locating the "closed" votes to verify. Feel free to simply archive -clear- keep votes, but leave deletes in place on the page. If the decision is clearly to delete, use your time removing the templates from any pages they are used on. -- Netoholic @ 03:27, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

TFD is far less traffic than CFD. The procedure is given at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log. -- Netoholic @ 03:32, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Go back to the above page and read the last sentence. -- Netoholic @ 03:38, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

Dude, if you can't read where it says to add a new section to the existing log, then just walk away then. Take it from me that we do not use subpages for each, it just isn't high-traffic enough and it's a waste of resources. Our monthly archives are sufficient. Thanks for your help, but I'll fix this all. -- Netoholic @ 03:44, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

I will have more time to talk when I have returned the page to proper working order, and ensured all of the votes are properly logged. Please don't help any more until that is done. When I have finished, and calmed down, I will address your hurt feelings. -- Netoholic @ 04:02, 2005 Mar 11 (UTC)

You may be aware that Netoholic is in arbitration; among other reasons, for this kind of attack. In any case, do not submit to his bullying. — Xiong熊talk 15:31, 2005 Apr 13 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention. After reading through a good part of the substantial material present, and drafting a contribution, I feel that the case is past the point where my contribution would help matters; I think the mentoring solution proposed is a good and progressive one. Courtland 14:49, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)

Thought you'd like to know[edit]

I just thought that you'd like to know that Canonical sequence has gone through the transwiki process to Wiktionary. I saw that you had commented on the article's talk page. Since I don't know anything about the topic I don't know if it should be redirected or deleted or what. Kevin Rector 21:29, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Stub hierarchy[edit]

Hi Courtland - I'm not entirely convinced by tv-bio-stub going under actor stub 9though I could easily be swayed). Remember it can include people like news anchors, documentary makers and (presumably) TV executives as well. Grutness|hello? 00:50, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

B-actor stub[edit]

I agree that anything that reduces the actor category size is a good idea, if you do it then make it well known as i suspect many will just carry on using the same stub for all otherwise. thanks Bluemoose 10:36, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Citing OMIM[edit]

When it comes to OMIM, the reference is fairly complicated. I think we do the right thing by simply providing a Wikilink to the OMIM article, because this is akin to a proper citation. If you think this is not sufficient, we need to edit Template:OMIM to this effect. On some pages, however, the template is invoked several times (e.g. on hereditary hemorrhagic telangiectasia). JFW | T@lk 06:41, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Zazie {{stub}}s moved[edit]

I'm not sure I really understand why you moved the {{stub}}s for Zazie in the Metro to the middle of the article. It looks very weird. Was that a mistake? --Valmi ✒ 03:47, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Biweekly special article[edit]

Dear Fact and Reference Check member,

After many months, the biweekly special article has been brought back! The article we will be referencing is Titan (moon). Please do your best to help out!

I'm asking all members to verify at least three facts in the article, and I'd really appreciate it if you could try and help with this. We have about 19 members, so if even 3/4 of us try and fulfil this 'dream', that'll be 45 references!

If you need some information on how to use footnotes, take a look at Wikipedia:Footnote3, which has a method of autonumbering footnotes. Unfortunately, they produce brackets around the footnotes, but it seems to be our best alternative until they integrate the footnote feature request code into MediaWiki. You may be interested in voting for the aforementioned feature request.

Cheers,

Frazzydee|✍ 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

note/ref rather than an/anb[edit]

Howdy. Thanks for your suggestion for the biweekly special article...it's going really well! I made a comment on Titan's talk page about this, but I wanted to know your opinion on this.

Wikipedia:Footnote3 seems to have changed their guidelines on referencing, and they want us to use {{note}} and {{ref}} rather than {{an}} and {{anb}}. I personally like an and anb a lot better, since they're so much easier to type and they don't produce those really small arrows that are so hard to click (see Titan (moon) for what the new reference style looks like). What's your take on this? Am I being too picky, or is it really a problem?

Thanks, see you around!

Frazzydee|✍ 01:21, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Jonathan Routh[edit]

Hello, I see you've pulled the stub thingie from Jonathan Routh. I've just now readded it. I explain this in the article's talk page. Briefly, though, the article is a stub because it says virtually nothing about well over 90% of Routh's work, though a fair amount about a tiny minority.

If you'd like to reply, please do so on Talk:Jonathan Routh. Thanks. -- Hoary 06:52, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

Template:Mockup[edit]

I have no strong feeling about this template; I created it to serve a single purpose, because I thought that purpose might once again arise. I don't really care if it's gone. But I wanted to talk with you about mockups in mainspace and talkspace.

Mainspace is surely the wrong place for mockups, but so is talkspace. Talkspace is where you talk about something, and every namespace except talkspaces has its own talkspace. Who knows, somebody might want to talk about a mockup.

If you check, you'll see that the only page I stuck that tag on was created in my userspace; I never expected it to see the light of day -- BUT -- on the offchance that Somebody, Somewhere, Somewhen, got a look at it and just possibly might be confused into thinking he was looking at an article on circumcision, instead of a conceptual mockup of a new MediaWiki feature -- just in case -- I thought I should tag it clearly. I never dreamed of putting that page into anything resembling mainspace. — Xiongtalk 13:31, 2005 Apr 4 (UTC)

HIV (not epidemic?)[edit]

Hi, i'm not being picky, just thought you should know this litte fact since you've mentioned it when editing Africa article. HIV is not an epidemic because it's global, and as such qualifies to be a pandemic. Beta m (talk)

Thanks for the terminology check ... we should get the terms right. Would HIV/AIDS then be considered epidemic in a geographical region (such as Africa) but pandemic overall?
Courtland 18:40, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)
I don't know everything about the issue, but from what i understand, HIV1 is pandemic, while HIV2 is epidemic (since there's been no cases outside of Africa so far. Beta m (talk)

Tfd & TTfd debate[edit]

You are absolutely correct and I don't hold your remarks against you, nor do I wish anyone to come away with a misconception. We all know who the instigator is, but I understand your concern that Someone might stumble across the debate and get confused. The trouble is that I am taking a great deal of heat right now and am not in a position to edit my own comments in any way that might Somehow get stretched out of shape to imply Orwellian intent on my part, when I am imputing Orwellian intent to the gentleman.

The gentleman is of course playing by the rules; that's what he does best. So he has clearly announced his action in removing my comment -- my comparision -- from the stream of debate. In a more rational community, that would get him banned instanter, but so would a lot of things he's done. I'm not sure why you think Somebody could confuse you as a target of my remarks, but as I say, I do understand and I don't want anybody caught in the crossfire who is not clearly allied with dark intent.

I offer you permission to move my most recent comment to whatever position in the stream of debate you feel best makes its intent entirely clear. Please make an appropriate remark in the edit summary, and all will be well. Thank you. — Xiongtalk 07:02, 2005 Apr 6 (UTC)

number categories[edit]

Hi there! Regarding your vote on CfD, I should point out that the lists you recommend all already exist. Yours, Radiant_* 14:44, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

below this line ... material from main page - moved for archiving[edit]

Project membership[edit]

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Fact_and_Reference_Check

  • added myself 2005-02-23
  • addition of references to stubs as one way to lower the activation energy to expansion

Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting

Working style[edit]

I find myself falling into a couple of patterns of activity:

  • straight grinding sorting of dozens of stubs from an overweight category to wherever they would be more focused
  • stub sorting with categorization, such as adding a stub to both Category:American actor stubs and Category:American actors
  • stub referencing, where I take the time to add references for the information that currently exists in a stub and perhaps expand it slightly, take a look at it's relationship to other articles, disambiguation pages, categories; maybe even draw a chemical structure if it is needed. The aim is to fertilize the stub rather than expand it much myself, provide more working material for the next author.
  • Wiktionary additions, essentially putting a definition-like stub into Wiktionary and adding cross-references in order to support another's nomination for deletion or to prod an author to expand in order to avoid same.
  • I don't do much straight article writing at present, though I've been asked to contribute to muscle-related articles in cell biology and physiology and should get off my mental butt and do so.

Things of particular interest to me[edit]

I am active in the Rootsweb community and can be reached there through the RootsWeb Email Registry.

Could you disambiguate your UML reference? Mjchonoles 01:54, 6 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Things that should be worked on...[edit]

This is all secondary to my activities in the Fact & Reference Checking WikiProject and continuing low-level stub sorting.

First[edit]

finished redirecting all (?) related terms to the main article and making 2ndary wikilinks direct

Later[edit]

Millenium Pharmaceuticals, ADMET Technologies, Ricerca Biosciences, Pharmidex, VM Discovery, Maxim Pharmaceuticals, Cambrex Biosciences, Novasite Pharmaceuticals, NascaCell IP, Direvo Biotech, Q-RNA, Zygogen, Wyeth, Bio-Rad, Ariana Pharma

...and things I worked on anyway[edit]

  • Nature Boy
  • Random-page survey (curiosity)
    • 03-06-2005: 16 retrieved ~ 6 categorized stubs, 2 articles short enough to be stubbed, 6 regular articles, 2 disambiguation pages; surprisingly, no general stubs. None had both references & external links and 5 had neither; 7 had external links alone and 2 had references alone.

Who is this guy?[edit]

I am male, married, 40 years of age, a native of the United States, and of Swiss-German descent (on one side of my family at least). I only speak English, own a home, and care for two playful Golden Retrievers. I am a member of the Libertarian Party. I am a scientist, formerly at the bench, now in silico; I've a B.S. in Microbiology, an M.S. in Biochemistry, and a number of peer-reviewed manuscripts. I am currently an informatics scientist (my title) working in a multi-national pharmaceutical company and previously worked for about a decade in academia on the molecular genetics of vertebrate muscle development.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Ceyockey/archive1&oldid=1142922706"