User talk:Ande B.

From Ande's front page: Ande B. is on sick leave.

Sorry everyone, especially Joema, I was hit by a sudden and rather nasty relapse of a degenerative nerve disease and have not been able to do much at all for nearly a month. I'm back to physical therapy, though, and hope to be back to Wikipedia with greater regularity by the end of the month.

You can reach me by wiki email: A friend is monitoring my mail and alerts me to urgent messages.

Thank you for your patient understanding,

Ande B 01:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, Ande B., to Wikipedia!

Enjoy editing here on Wikipedia and I hope you will stay! Be sure to post your name on the Wikipedia new user log. Below are some useful tutorials and places of interest:

Editing tutorial — learn how to edit articles
Five pillars of Wikipedia — learn about Wikipedia's basic guidelines and policies
How to write a great article— learn how to creat feature article-status articles
Picture tutorial — learn how to upload pictures
Manual of Style — learn how articles should be written
Sandbox — practice writing articles
RC Patrol — help to prevent vandalism
Wikiprojects — join a group that suits your interest

You can sign your comments on talk pages with four tildes: ~~~~; this adds your name and current time to your comments. If you need any more help, come to Bootcamp, add {{helpme}} to your talk page, or contact me on my talk page. Have fun!

Additional Wikipedia edititng and administration pages:

Unsigned comments

If someone forgot to sign a message they posted on a talk page, you can do it for them by using the {{unsigned}} template. Simply place the template at the end of the comments, and include the user's name. For example: {{subst:unsigned|MyNameisForgetful}} would look like this:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by MyNameisForgetful (talk • contribs)

Sappho translation & copyright

Hi Ande B., thanks for the comment. It would be fine for Wikipedia to use an original translation as long as the copyright holder grants permission for use under the GFDL. If I do the translation, I'm the copyright holder, and I would grant permission. See WP:Copyrights for details.

It's also possible that copyrighted translations could be included in the article under the fair use provisions of copyright law, but Wikipedia discourages this.

Now, I'm not claiming that my translation would have much poetic quality to it--I tend to generate very clunky-sounding prosy translations. But at least I don't use "thee" and "thy," nor do I use odd rhyme schemes.

--Akhilleus 05:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the copyright policy link. I would like to see better or more literal translation myself. Perhaps you or another capable Wikipedian will supply one. Ande B. 03:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Myth

Ande,

Thank you for your polite response to my changes. Myth is a link to a disambiguation page and there is an effort to consolidate links so that they point to direct pages. If you search for myth on Wikipeidia, this page has several derivations. If you feel any of these specific links within "myth" would work better for the pages you reference, please feel free to change them. However, please refrain from linking towards simply myth in line with Disambiguation_pages. Thx. Netkinetic 18:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm going to experiment here with a piped link for this. Myth Hey, it looks like it works! Ande B 21:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I was able to assist, thanks much. :) Netkinetic 00:55, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bohemian Waxwing

Thanks for adding the description, should have done it myself, but lacked motivation this am, jimfbleak 06:10, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know about a team as such, but if you look at my talk page, you'll see several regular bird articles editors, jimfbleak 18:36, 6 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CIA and September 11 (book)

I hate pestering people's talk pages about AFD votes (or votes at all... it's very bad form really) but I've just done a huge amount of work on this article, and it is probably 80% different from when you voted. I have found a large number of English language references, and I have used <cite> so any reader or editor can identify where each individual statement in the article came from. That ought to deal with WP:V and WP:RS. As for notability, you can make your own decision: the relevant guideline says "Usually, books with an ISBN-number and/or availability in a couple dozen of libraries and/or a Project Gutenberg type website, and with a notability above that of an average cookbook or programmers manual would qualify". Which doesn't help really, since it's entirely subjective how you are going to compare notability of a best-selling paranoid gutter-press fantasy to a cookbook! If you rank this as below an average cookbook, I'm not going to argue with you :) TheGrappler 04:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers! I was about to vote delete myself, but the name rang a bell - then I realised I'd actually seen this book causing a fuss in the press, which was a sign it was probably pretty notable. German language books don't tend to get a huge amount of press coverage unless they have caused a fairly notable row! Of course, once WP's conspiracy theorists smell out this page it will probably degrade in quality pretty soon, but I've tried to make it all cited at the moment, which ought to help it last (at least there'd be something to revert back to, if needs be...) TheGrappler 05:36, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please read this

Ande, I greatly appreciate your feedback and help on Biological psychiatry. I agree with your suggestions for improvments. However I'm afraid you've misread the conflict on that article. Please take time to examine these, as it's a classic example of what is damaging Wikipedia quality and credibity today. Compare the two below versions, and I think you'll see what's going on. The 2nd version is what Cesar Tort calls NPOV. Joema 13:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article before re-write by me and Fuzzform: [1] Article after re-write by me and Fuzzform: [2]

Joema, I've put a reply on the BioPsy talk page and a more detailed one on your user page. Ande B 15:01, 14 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mourning dove picture

You are welcome to move the picture to a new name, or else capture the image and re-upload it to a MourningDoveWithBabies.jpg or similar name, if that is acceptable to you. --Ancheta Wis 00:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category: Articles with unsourced statements

An article is automatically categorized under Category: Articles with unsourced statements if one or more lines in the article has a "citation need" tag. In this particular case, its the first line under the Laomedon/Tros section --TBC^{??? ??? ???} 02:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration on Biological psychiatry

Ande, I asked Cesar Tort and Ombudsman for mediation or arbitration. They didn't respond so regretfully we must proceed. Without mediation, we go straight to arbitration. If you're willing to support this, please read the below. I'll file the request later today, unless you suggest otherwise. Joema 19:35, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitration policy
Arbitration template
Arbitration evidence
Wikipedia:Arbitration policy/Past decisions
User:Snowspinner/Arbcom - Recommended reading: A guide to presenting effective Arbitration cases.

Joema, how unfortunate that we must resort to this. But I see no alternative to the constant tagging of the article. I will give what support I can. (I'll also put a copy of my consent on your talk page.) Ande B 20:04, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ande, since you've been extensively involved in this issue, could you please add a statement here: WP:RFAR. Ideally briefly summarize your assessment, esp. re Ombudsman, as Cesar Tort has already been covered. Just create another "Statement by Party x" heading beneath where Rockpocket made his. Thanks. Joema 13:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on my Page

If you notice about my page, it one of a kind. Have you encountered an user page that transgress wikiplatforms as seamlessly and conviently as mine? Also you may see that they (other user) put thier comment on the wrong page that I devote for comments, so normally I copy and paste them in thier appropriate page. And I put the disclaimer in the beginning, I do not want unnessary comments or frivalous comments either. However I will keep your comment, since it of interest, however I still stand on this ground, If this was a wikipage on an article I would understand, however this is an Userpage, thus in my opinion I see myself as the administrator to my user page. Also how many user comment page have you seen with a disclaimer on it, if this is the first then leave me alone. You might want to reread that page again in specific etiquette and tell me where it say it not prohibited; remember those are just suggestions, not rules. FYI you are the first to ever mention this since I have been on wikipedia for about a year now, and I think it unwarranted. Paul.Paquette

Have you ever heard of the Comparative advantage even though this theory applies to nation, it is also relevant to individual people also. Read it and then consider that each wikipedian is doing what they are good at, and rely on the social group as a whole to achieve perfection in it accomplishment. Paul.Paquette

Yes, I'm familiar with this notion but have not read about it much in a very long time. I try to use my own experience and skills to make useful contributions to the Wikipedia. I don't know how well I succeed. I try to limit my substantive contributions to areas in which I have some expertise. Those would include molecular biology, intellectual property law, ancient civilizations and editing / journalism. Since my time and physical abilities are limited, I try to stick to the things I know I can handle. Usually that means making small but useful edits for grammar, spelling, NPOV, article organization, and sentence structure. Writing an article from scratch is a different (and more strenuous) business altogether, but we all benefit by having a team of proof-readers and copy editors. I write enough original stuff for my real-life work to satisfy my professional interests in writing. So far, I haven't seen a gap in the Wikipedia that would inspire me to write a new article. Still, I appreciate the amount of effort it takes to produce a single page of fresh text. Writing well takes effort. Finding useful information and organizing it also takes a lot of effort. Some people search for and remove spam all day long. This is an esential activity, even though most readers will never even know that those efforts were taken. Everyone's efforts are important. (Except for those who vandalize the pages!) I apologize if you believe I have insulted you or singled you out for some malign purpose. That was not my intent. Ande B 07:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi!

"Try doing a Google search of melanin and Polygenic Inheritance. Skin color is controlled by more than one gene. Melanin itself comes in different forms and colors. Some melanin tends to be distributed in the cytoplasm and some tends to prefer to be nearer or within the nucleus. This affects its apparent intensity. All of this can add up to unexpected results. It's been a few years since my last genetics calss, though, so pick up a genetics text for an accurate and complete answer. Ande B 03:45, 31 March 2006 (UTC)"

You seem to really know your stuff. Any reccomendations on books and stuff about this "polygenic inheritance"? I find genetics extremely interesting and am studying for a related degree, so anything on it strikes my interest, along with music.--Manboobies 15:55, 29 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:33, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ande please read this section closely and make any comments you think appropriate under the "comment by parties" headings: RFA Cesar Tort, Ombudsman proposed findings of fact. Joema 17:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1942 mod

Stargate: Battle for Mankind is up for AFD again. List of Battlefield 1942 mods AFD may also be of interest. Bfelite 02:43, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Trauma articles

Thanks for your comment in the talk page, Ande B. Perhaps you may find interesting to take a look at the article I created today? Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. —Cesar Tort 00:57, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution texts

I am not sure what you are looking for exactly, but the first thing that came to mind was the book of Douglas Futuyma "Evolution" (2005. Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland, Massachusettes), which is often used teatching and offers a healthy and solid introduction to the topic. If you are more looking for shorter article, I have to look for those. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is the slimed down version of his book evolutionary biology, which is somewhat older and more extensive. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 21:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If i may be so rude to impose and offer my own suggestion? If you would be interested in a reductionist view of evolution, less of a text book and more of an ideology, i would strongly recommend The Selfish Gene and/or The Extended Phenotype. The first is approaching its 30th anniversary and when i first read it many moons ago it was like someone switched the lights on (a Darwinian epiphany, if you like). I re-read it again recently and it remains an astonishing work. Rockpocket (talk) 04:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biopsych

Hello Ande. Sorry to read about your relapse, i hope you are now feeling better. You are very welcome for my comments of support. They were not inspired by partisan loyalties, however. I am genuinely affronted by the apparent lack of logic and perspective displayed the arbitrator who has been proposing these 'findings of fact'. Its mindboggling.

It really makes me doubt the integrity of the project when an individual who has been selected for their ability to interpret policy, appears more interested balancing the outcome than challenging the real cause of the dispute. The '25% conceded to critics' comment is, frankly, laughable. Sometimes it makes you question the point of contributing. Anyway, i've said more than enough about the subject now. I guess i'll just wait to see what the other arbitrators say. Rockpocket (talk) 06:16, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anacreon

It seems that someone had manually moved the article from Anacreon (poet) to Anacreon instead of using the move button, which is generally discouraged on Wikipedia. I suggest looking at Wikipedia:How to fix cut and paste moves to find out what you should do next. --☆TBC☆ 09:33, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Other side of the pillow deletion.

I absolutely agree with your assertion regarding the unencyclopedic nature of this article. I see what you mean now by nonsense. I just find that often times (even on Wikipedia), users quickly deems things nonsense/incorrect without truly looking into the facts behind it. I see that is not what you have done. Good work! Zepheus 04:31, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comment on my page. It's nice to have some interesting, civil, intelligent debate online. Mostly all I see on message boards is hate, racism, sexism, intolerance, and ignorance. Wikipedia feels so much different. Keep up the awesome work. Zepheus 05:19, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Get well soon Andy B.! Somebody deleted the article about The other side of the pillow. Cheers --Starionwolf 23:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I hope...

Hi Ande. I’ve just noted that another editor has tagged the Biopsych article. I hope this doesn’t poison the well in our discussion in Talk:Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. —Cesar Tort 23:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hello Ande. I wonder if i could impose on you a request? I've set myself a challenge to drag an honest little stub all the way up to good, if not featured article status. I chose a subject that was dear to my heart in the early days of my career. Enough of an interest to make it fun, enough distance to be objective (i hope).

So far so good, but i'm now at the point where i've made the current article as comprehensive as i can, technically speaking, but need some opinion on how to improve accessability, context and language for the intelligent layperson, or any general comments on how to improve it. I requested a peer review to this end, but there appear to be no takers. So i have directly asked a few scientist/editors for their opinion instead. With your interest in biomedical subjects, and your background in technical writing, i'd really value any criticism you could give me. If you are unable to, i of course understand. Should you be up to it, please feel free to edit the article yourself, of course. Alternatively, i would be happy to implement anything you think would be an improvement. Thanks if advance. Rockpocket 06:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for agreeing to take a look at it for me. There is no deadline, so please don't make me your excuse for avoiding work ;). I'm still toying with it so whenever your schedule eases up will be fine. My PhD studies addressed the evolutionary genetics of adaptive behaviour, specifically background adaptation, so it was nice for me to revisit some old research and update my knowledge with the current literature. Rockpocket 06:57, 29 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ande. I just wanted to thank you again for your very helpful review and extensive copyediting of the chromatophore article. It was promoted to featured article status today without opposition. So congratulations on helping to make a featured article and thanks again for helping me achieve my goal. Rockpocket 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deep Breath

Rockpocket has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Hi Ande. I just thought i'd drop a short note in support, and to counsel wiki-calmness. I know exactly how you feel as i have gone extactly the same cycle of support, exasperation, frustration, irritation and with regards to Cesar. I had already spent a fair amount of time interacting with him on Anti-psychiatry, so you may now appreciate why i was keen to get a guidance from ArbCom on him as well as Ombudsman. Anyway, i really think the more he says on ArbCom the more likely it is that they will move to restrict his editing, he really is digging his own grave here. Rockpocket 18:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Loob afD

Thank you for taking the time to comment on this. I would be grateful if you could read the Note on Speedy Deletion in Loob discussion. Winstonwolfe 02:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jerome

Thanks for the kind words! I might get to work on creating an article for Huntsman, too. Anyways, hope you recover soon and fully. --Alex S 06:30, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lesbian history

Hi Ande, Funny you should bring that up, I recently added a section to the article on Lesbianism which included a short discussion of the Greeks and the Arabs. You probably noticed it, and that whole section could be brought over and expanded. At the present time I do not have much else on file, but now that I know you are working on that article I will bring in any tidbits I come across. Regards, and I hope you continue to have strength and energy to be part of the project. Haiduc 02:43, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Email

Hello Ande. Thanks for your email reply, i thought i'd reply on-Wiki as my email is so disorganised that, humiliating as it is to admit, i can keep track of my communications better here. I completely agree with your sentiments. I too am making a concerted effort to leave the pointless debate behind, and focus on the reason i joined the community in the first place - to edit.

I'm also very grateful for your contributions to the chromatophore article and am glad you enjoyed it, i finally took the plunge and nominated it for Featured Article status. So far, so good - it has generated some support and no objections yet - but it still has some way to go before it gets promoted. I would recommend you tackle kinesin, i found it both tremendously satisfying and informative to revist past interests. I'd be more than happy to pitch in with any help i could provide. Rockpocket 01:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway

Flowers

	Hope you feel better
	I am sorry that you are feeling unwell and hope for your speedy recovery. Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:31, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Also sorry that we have confused and frustrated you with VisualEditor. :) I hope that as it (rapidly! I'm trusting) improves, it will serve you better. --Maggie Dennis (WMF) (talk) 19:32, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]