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:
water
Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 23:24, 28 January 2007 (CST)
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 check 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 ~~~~
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)
biobooks6.jpg
see Talk:Life, I just added that picture there. What is the problem, I may help. Robert Tito | Talk 23:03, 21 March 2007 (CDT)
restore LIFE
Mr. Sebastian, restoration would be simple, however due to the content I would prefer Gareth doing it. I can however go back to the last saved page before Mr. Quick did editting. Let me know what it is you need. Robert Tito | Talk 17:10, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
- Robert: Thanks. I may ask you to do that but will wait to see if Gareth agrees that Joe Quick's first entry into the Life project was not appropriate or article-improving. BTW: Everyone on CZ calls me Anthony. --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:05, 23 March 2007 (CDT)
And I go by the name Rob :) Robert Tito | Talk
Little boxes
Anthony, There are many other parameters too but these few are a good place to start. Chris Day (Talk) 14:41, 26 March 2007 (CDT) |
Approval
As an editor in biology, I'd support an approval tag with a 1 to 2 week deadline.
My major suggestion is that the synthesis of perspectives should be introduced very early (with a different title), not at the end. My argument is that this is journalism, not a scientific manuscript. Readers need to find their take home message, simple version, quickly, IMHO. Your diagrams are wonderful, and the whole article is well done, I think. David Tribe 18:20, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
- David: I have taken your suggestion to rearrange. I think you are right, and it seems to work well. Please take look, and critique. If you think it okay, I'd appreciate your discussing with the group about the approval tag. I will continue to work on the 'images' issue (see article Talk page). --Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 22:48, 26 March 2007 (CDT)
- I think it works too, and Ive not got a criticism. I tried a slightly different heading too (avoiding linguistics). Change it again of course. Let me know when you found a good image outcome, and I think I'm then allowed to put an approval tag on it (as Ive done so little here). (But Ill have to re-read the rulebook to be sure. These approval decisesion are pretty tricky legal conundrums! David Tribe 23:11, 26 March 2007 (CDT)