User talk:Antony-22/Archive 6

DYK for American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Welcome to the 2013 WikiCup!

Hello, Antony-22, and welcome to the 2013 WikiCup! Your submissions' page is here. The competition begins at midnight UTC. The first round will last until the end of February, at which point the top 64 scorers will advance to the second round. We will be in touch at the end of every month, and signups are going to remain open until the end of January; if you know of anyone else who may like to take part, please let them know! A few reminders:

• The rules can be found here. There have been a few changes from last year, which are listed on that page.
• Anything you submit must have been nominated and promoted in 2013, and you need to have completed significant work upon it in 2013. (The articles you review at good article reviews does not need to have been nominated in 2013, but you do need to have started the review in 2013.) We will be checking.
• If you feel that another competitor is breaking the rules or abusing the competition in some way, please let a judge know. Please do not remove entries from the submissions' pages of others yourself.
• Don't worry about calculating precisely how many points everything is worth. The bot will do that. The bot may occasionally get something wrong- let a judge know, or post on the WikiCup talk page if that happens.
• Please try to be prompt in updating submissions' pages so that they can be double-checked.

Overall, however, don't worry, and have fun. It doesn't matter if you make the odd mistake; these things happen. Questions can be asked on the WikiCup talk page. Good luck! J Milburn and The ed17 22:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia Ambassadors update

Hi! You're getting this message because you are or have been a Wikipedia Ambassador. A new term is beginning for the United States and Canada Education Programs, and I wanted to give you an update on some important new information if you're interested in continuing your work this term as a Wikipedia Ambassador.

You may have heard a reference to a transition the education program is going through. This is the last term that the Wikimedia Foundation will directly run the U.S. and Canada programs; beginning in June, a proposed thematic organization is likely to take over organizing the program. You can read more about the proposal here.

Another major change in the program will take effect immediately. Beginning this term, a new MediaWiki education extension will replace all course pages and Ambassador lists. (See Wikipedia:Course pages and Help:Education Program extension for more details.) Included in the extension are online volunteer and campus volunteer user rights, which let you create and edit course pages and sign up as an ambassador for a particular course.

If you would like to continue serving as a Wikipedia Ambassador — even if you do not support a class this term — you must create an ambassador profile. If you're no longer interested in being a Wikipedia Ambassador, you don't need to do anything.

Please do these steps as soon as possible

First, you need the relevant user rights for Online and/or Campus Ambassadors. (If you are an admin, you can grant the rights yourself, for you as well as other ambassadors.) Just post your rights request here, and we'll get you set up as quickly as possible.

Once you've got the ambassador rights, please set up at a Campus and/or Online Ambassador profile. You can do so at:

• Special:CampusAmbassadorProfile
• Special:OnlineAmbassadorProfile

Going forward, the lists of Ambassadors at Special:CampusAmbassadors and Special:OnlineAmbassadors will be the official roster of who is an active Ambassador. If you would like to be an Ambassador but not ready to serve this term, you can un-check the option in your profile to publicly list it (which will remove your profile from the list).

After that, you can sign on to support courses. The list of courses will be at Special:Courses. (By default, this lists "Current" courses, but you can change the Status filter to "Planned" to see courses for this term that haven't reached their listed start date yet.)

As this is the first term we have used the extension, we know there will be some bugs, and we know the feature set is not as rich as it could be. (A big wave of improvements is already in the pipeline. And if you know MediaWiki and could help with code review, we'd love to have your help!) Please reach out to me (Sage Ross) with any complaints, bug reports, and feature suggestions. The basic features of the extension are documented at Wikipedia:Course pages, and you can see a tutorial for setting up and using them here.

Communication and keeping up to date

In the past, the Education Program has had a pretty fragmented set of communication channels. We're trying to fix that. These are the recommended places to discuss and stay up-to-date on the education program:

1. The education noticeboard has become the main on-wiki location for discussion of the Education Program. You can post there about broad education program issues as well as issues with individual courses.
2. The Ambassadors Announce email list is a very low-traffic announcements list of important information all Ambassadors need to be aware of. We encourage all Ambassadors (and other interested Wikipedians) to subscribe to the list; follow the instructions on the link to add your email address.
3. If you use IRC regularly, or need to try to reach someone immediately, the #wikipedia-en-ambassadors ^connect IRC channel is the place to find me and fellow Ambassadors.

Ambassador training and resources

We now have an online training for Ambassadors, which is intended to be both an orientation about the Wikipedia Ambassador role for newcomers and the manual for how to do the role. (There are parallel trainings for students and for educators as well.)

Please go through the training if you feel like you need a refresher on how a typical class is supposed to go and where the Ambassadors fit in, or if you want to review and help improve it. If there's something you'd like to see added, or other suggestions you have for it, feel free to edit the training and/or leave feedback. A primer on setting up and using course pages is included in the educators' training.

The Resources page of the training is the main place for Ambassador-related resources. If there's something you think is important as a resource that's not on there, please add it.

Finally, whether or not you work with any classes this term, I encourage you to post entries to the Trophy Case whenever you see excellent work from students or if you have great examples from past semesters. And, as always, let students (and other editors!) know when they do things well; a little WikiLove goes a long way!

--Sage Ross (WMF) (talk) 20:51, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Biophysics wiki-edit contest

The contest page is up now for the Biophysical Society's contest starting at the Feb meeting: linked from the WikiProject Biophysics page or direct at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Biophysics/Biophysics_wiki-edit_contest. It would be really great if you felt willing and able to help judge the entries (after the contest ends in July) - I've very much appreciated your contributions on various biophysics topics. If you are willing, please go there and add yourself to the list of judges. Also, let me know if you have any suggestions for improvement on how we have the contest set up. Dcrjsr (talk) 17:56, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Actually, the thought had already crossed my mind! I'll add myself as a judge and make some suggestions on the contest talk page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:59, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!!

Thanks very much for agreeing to help judge the biophysics wiki-edit contest - you're input will help a lot in balancing our available expertise. Dcrjsr (talk) 03:49, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

DNA digital data storage

I appreciate your editing-help on the DNA digital data storage article. I just added a new section, and I am wondering if you be interested in having a look at it and help out with this section as well. Thanks in advance. Feel free to add more, of course. It's good to have someone who knows the subject matter, helping out. ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 17:33, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

• Antony, thanks for your deft copy editing once again on this article. To me it certainly seems a better job than I anticipated. Keep up the good work! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

You've welcome! This type of research tends to get over-hyped, with popular media sources having a hard time covering it accurately and neutrally, making it difficult to write Wikipedia articles about them unless you have some savvy about the specific topic. Thanks for starting the article; I'm going to nominate it for DYK now. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:58, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Another barnstar for you

		The Copyeditor's Barnstar
		Thanks to your efforts, the article DNA digital data storage, though a small article, is now a much improved article. This also improves the overall quality of Wikipedia. Much appreciated! Steve Quinn (talk) 03:09, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

DYK nomination of DNA digital data storage

Hello! Your submission of DNA digital data storage at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! The Interior (Talk) 03:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

DYK for DNA digital data storage

Casliber (talk · contribs) 00:04, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Almost 3000

"DNA digital data storage" got almost 3000 hits, see the traffic stats here. (It actually got 2978 hits.) Whoa! ---- Steve Quinn (talk) 07:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Isn't DYK fun!? That's actually one of the more popular DYK's I've nominated. Thanks for writing the article! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup

Hey, I'd love to do a GA review for you - it was lovely to make your real-life acquaintance! I can probably get to it this weekend, is that alright? If you're interested in a GA review, Casliber and I have Circinus (constellation) up. If astronomy's not your thing, it's totally fine, no worries! Good luck in the cup! :) Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:43, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Awesome! I'll try to get around to it this week, unless you want to save it for the next round... Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:35, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

2013 United States debt-ceiling debate

Deleted. — xaosflux ^Talk 21:50, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Biophysics in the Signpost

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Biophysics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:17, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Antony-22. You have new messages at Hzh's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting

You are invited to the 2nd Annual Wikimedia New England General Meeting, on 20 July 2013 in Boston! We will be talking about the future of the chapter, including GLAM, Wiki Loves Monuments, and where we want to take our chapter in the future! EdwardsBot (talk) 09:24, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Wiki-edit contest

The Biophysics wiki-edit contest was over yesterday, and I think we're in pretty good shape, even in geographical and subject-matter diversity. Of the 16 people who signed up, 7 have made very respectable entries, 2 did a trivial amount, and the rest did nothing at all. So our task now is to decide which 6 of the 7 should win, give all of them feedback on their articles, help them fix minor issues, and see if there are any that could be worked up to Good status, have a DYK, etc.

I'll send a short message to the 7 entrants in the running, who are:

• pablo.gainza - Protein design
• danielkeedy - Protein dynamics
• Mgrosasco - Voltage sensitive phosphatase
• Jkriege2 - Light sheet fluorescence microscopy
• Jajava - Membrane fluidity (also edits to Membrane lipids, Physics of skiing)
• Shanata - Single-molecule experiment; Model lipid bilayer
• LeDucdAuge - Photoactivated localization microscopy

How about each of us pick a couple of entries we'd like to judge in detail, then correlate (hopefully in the next few days) to make sure all are covered by 1 or 2 judges? My preferred 2 would be Protein dynamics and Protein design. If it suits them, I'd suggest that Keilana and RockMagnetist do only one entry in detail, but go thru all the articles for style, format, policies, & possible upgrades. (Anyone else is of course also encouraged to make such comments.)

For confidentiality, I'd suggest that you send evaluative comments, and we work out the initial entry assignments, thru email - I'm at jsr@kinemage.biochem.duke.edu. We need to work out who's doing what as soon as feasible, so we can proceed asynchronously thru vacation schedules. (Thus a warning - if you don't reply with your preferences soon, you may get stuck with what others didn't want!) But we don't need to settle on the 6 winners until early Sept, so we can take into account how the entrants respond to our feedback, as well as correlating all our overall impressions. - Dcrjsr (talk) 17:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Precious again

comprehensive scientific concepts
Thank you for the courage to let us understand scientific concepts comprehensively, for example DNA nanotechnology, - you are an awesome Wikipedian!

--Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:48, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

A year ago, you were the 213th recipient of my PumpkinSky Prize, repeated in br'erly style, --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:47, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Cool, thanks again! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:21, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Bipartisan Budget Appropriations Section edit - summary of request at bottom of talk message

Hello; I am the one for whom whom you "undid/reverted" the edit of the 2014 United States Budget Shutdown section on October 5, 2013. Your explanation as to why was reverted was "unreferenced, non-neutral."

As far as unreferenced, that is not imprecise. I did not provide sources/links in that post due to (laziness, honestly) lack of time yet to integrate that in after writing in that expansion of the opposing 'arguments', as well as this having been my first (attempt, even) edit of any wiki/wikia. Mostly, though I did so, due to the fact that this Health Care law is largely credited with having the unintended resultant effect of a drag on this country's (and - however marginal, by subsequent associated influence, on other global) economy as a result of incentivizing employers to moving away from an American norm of offering a strong quantity of decent-or-better-paying jobs on the payroll which allows more American private workers more funds to save for/spend on their their individual dreams, desires, charities, and needs. That being said, on a macro-economic level, that effect is but one component of it's controversially profound influence (note: I'm don't mean to dispute - I doubt many on either side of the issue would - that the law is profound. I'm implying that it is certainly profound one way or the other, but that it is a subject of much passion on both sides) on the American environment.

Another, disputably more concerning element to the legislation is in how much it is advocated for/against to the escalating divide amongst (many times otherwise politically uninvolved/ambivalent) population as though it is a fundamental issue of our time that has no considerate common ground, accelerating an already problematic partisan divide. Besides the troubling rift that overemphasizes the philosophical differences which results from this, there is another glaring consequence to this effect. It seems increasingly unlikely for the foreseeable future for lawmakers to come to agreement on even mutually beneficial legislation while the law stands as written, without bipartisan concessions.

The most fundamental aspect, though, in my personal opinion as well as much of our nation's is that even though there are a healthy number of supporters of the law as is (I'll gladly concede that), that there are a number of persons such as myself who were raised, standardized educated in, and convinced of the virtues of the core of our American pride, that being in our personal liberty from unjust governmental subjugation. That being said, I don't see considerable flaws with the premise of a pure communist concept system of society inherently, but in the society we have today, it is opposed to how we have been conditioned - by this own government, no less - to accept forced compliance of individuals to surrender their freedom of choice (even poor, bad and/or unhealthy decisions) away simply to appease the guilty consciences of some of their concurrent lawmakers. To that end, as an individual who has not been covered by insurance for the past 3-5 years, has not had a physical exam in about 9 years, in apparent fair/decent physical health who would prefer not to sacrifice pay with which I may responsibly: repay loans, credit cards, afford needed auto & computer repairs and upgrades, paying other regulated costs, reactivating a mobile phone, bills and saving up in order for being able to afford to move out and rent my first home - all for "insurance" that I have zero interest in having a need to apply for a use until much later next year.

This goes addressing to your reason for reverting my edit of "non-neutral". The reason I felt the need to post so unrefined was that all week, throughout various media outlets (including unedited C-SPAN coverage), including the normally 'balanced' FoxNews & FoxNews Business - and then finally on Wikipedia - I'd been seeing and hearing coverage - almost exclusively of Left-based individuals (strategists, pundits, congressional speakers, constituents, and the POTUS/White House) repeatedly regurgitating public accusations that the Republicans are attempting to are "closing/not funding" the government, refusing to compromise, "holding the government/country hostage", being on a "jihad", or "deny" health care to children/elderly/poor/sick people, even though there has been a Continuing Appropriations Resolution since before the government closed that provides funds not only all government services, but also all of this health care law, just with a delay for those whom should choose not to enroll yet. This bill has already passed the House, and needs only to be approved by the Senate & signed into law by the POTUS in order to: not only "re-open" the government -as all of these left-leaning persons claim they desire, but also continue availability of "Obamacare" for all those who want it. Providing everything the Democrats claim to want.

If this wiki page is to educate the public of the critiques of the House not putting the Senate's bill to the floor, then it is only balanced and "neutral" as you put it to retain the information I posted about the individual mandate provision and the Republican House's call to conference that they are the only things presently keeping Democrats from reopening the government as many interested parties want. After all, it's only fair to give the curious public unbiased context. In the spirit of that, if the verbiage or the construction of the sentences need improvement, as well as referencing links/sources I am fine with that. I just feel that the article should include those critical arguments (I was even considering the C.R. with the medical device tax provision as well, just due to it's economic/health care implications) of the right-leaning sides to Afford the independents/centrists/moderates the more academic/intellectual perspective.

Bottom line, please keep at least those arguments of that philosophy up - even if composing a better way of stating it, until the revision is ready.

Thank you.

-24.0.114.107 (talk) 18:18, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions. I know our content policies are quite unlike those of most other venues, so I would encourage you to visit Wikipedia:Welcome and look at our three core content policies, which are Verifiability, Neutral point of view, and No original research.

Basically, the idea is that Wikipedia is meant to reflect what is said in published, reliable sources, rather than reflecting the views of individual editors. Also, we must present those views in a balanced manner. Discussions of Wikipedia content revolve around making sure the cited sources for any statement are sufficient, rather than trying to convince other editors of a specific position.

As you said, the potential effects of the ACA are the subject of passionate debate, so any discussion in the article must mention specific sources that put forward each viewpoint, and must present all notable viewpoints. I think it would be easy to find popular media articles that express the opinions that you express above, and if you attribute them properly in the text as opinions or viewpoints (by starting the statement with "According to X," or something similar), it is more likely that your contributions will stay. Keep in mind that opposing viewpoints will also be reflected alongside.

Also, though strictly speaking it is not required, I would encourage you to register and create a username so that it is easier to discuss your contributions. Many IP addresses are shared and change periodically, and it is sometimes unclear who is making what edit. Registering also hides your IP address so it is actually more anonymous. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:07, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll add that the article about the FY 2014 U.S. federal budget is not the place to include material about the FY 2014 appropriations process. It disinforms the public to let them think that the budget and appropriations are the same. They are related but distinct, and the lack of a federal budget has no bearing on whether or not appropriations bills pass or what issues are raised in the appropriations debates. JimHarperDC (talk) 14:09, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Jim is right that United States federal government shutdown of 2013#Attempts to restore funding might be a better place to write about this particular issue. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:25, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Article Titles

Hi. I noticed you changed several article titles because you personally believe that they did not to be "disambiguated." You might want to consider actually bothering to look up to see if they need to be disambiguated before arbitrarily doing this. Several of the appropriation bills have identical titles in both the House and the Senate DESPITE BEING VERY DIFFERENT BILLS. Congress sucks at inventing new names for things - they often introduce the same bill over and over again, Congress after Congress, without changing the name, which is why the disambiguation is needed in many cases. They also introduce bills in both chambers with the same name, but the committees change the contents to distinguish them. If you are going to change a title, you should at least consider looking it up on [beta.congress.gov Congress' legislation site] to make sure that there aren't several bills by that title. Thanks. HistoricMN44 (talk) 18:38, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that resource, I will use it before making any further changes. Keep in mind that the content policy WP:PRECISE says that article titles should be disambiguated only to the extent needed to distinguish it from other potential articles; I believe that the Congress number is not needed because the 113th Congress is almost certainly the only Congress that will consider any FY2014 appropriations legislation. Of course, this will not be the case for all legislation (for example, versions of the Disaster Relief Appropriations Act, 2013 were considered by both the 112th and 113th Congress); the amount of disambiguation needed will vary from bill to bill. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:26, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Marburger

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article John Marburger you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PocklingtonDan -- PocklingtonDan (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of John Marburger

The article John Marburger you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:John Marburger for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of PocklingtonDan -- PocklingtonDan (talk) 13:42, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

DYK for Continuing Appropriations Act, 2014

The DYK project (nominate) 09:35, 9 November 2013 (UTC)

WikiCup award

In recognition of your participation in the 2013 Wikipedia:WikiCup. J Milburn (talk · contribs) and The ed17 (talk · contribs) 15:29, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
	Thanks for doing the merge on the Continuing Resolutions. That was a lot of work to do! HistoricMN44 (talk) 15:04, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, no problem! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:05, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology

The article Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Drexler–Smalley debate on molecular nanotechnology for comments about the article. Well done! Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of North8000 -- North8000 (talk) 00:22, 23 December 2013 (UTC)