User talk:Rockpocket/Archive 31

Archive 25

←

Archive 29

Archive 30

Archive 31

Archive 32

Out of the closet

And here was me thinking you were a plumber from Edinburgh! ;) Jack forbes (talk) 16:52, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Plumbing and genetics is more or less the same, Jack. Rockpocket 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I had imagined you were from India. Don't ask me why?!--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Why? Jack forbes (talk) 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't know. I think he mentioned India several times and the idea just entered my head that he was originally Indian but grew up in Scotland. I have a mental picture of a lot of editors here, but I'm sure as in this case, they are way off the mark.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 17:10, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Rebirth

Rather than create a new account under my own name, I have decided to identify this account with my identity. So, for those of you who didn't know, my name is Darren Logan and after working in the US for a number of years I've recently joined the faculty of the Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute in Cambridge, England.

Now as part of an effort to encourage scientists to use Wikipedia to disseminate their published research in a manner accessible to the public (see this initiative for example), my colleague Alex Bateman and I are hoping to run some workshops to teach scientists the basics of editing articles. We will have experienced editors on hand, in person, during the workshop to assist. However, I would quite like to have some editors online at the same time who would be willing to assist, answer questions or just interact for an hour or so. I think this would give those learning a better experience of how interactive the editing experience can be (and also how friendly and helpful the community is). So... friends watching this page.... would anyone be willing to volunteer and hour of their time for such a noble cause? Rockpocket 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Knowing little about editing and less about science, I'll just cheer you on from the sidelines. Do these published scientists understand, really understand about COI, ownership (vandals and well-meaning contributors both) and (lack of)copyright status? Would this project be better done on Wikiversity? I've read the linked article and am visualizing those minute (one letter) changes that are the joy of so many vandals, the bane of science and unknown territory to most of those who would ordinarily monitor such things. Would you like us to put a link to here on the pages of some of content editors we know who might not see this? Bielle (talk) 17:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

They don't know about such things yet, but we are hoping to teach them! I think WP is such a great opportunity for us to engage with those people that essentially pay for our research. Scientists today have an - often deserved - reputation of being in intellectual ivory towers, refusing to engage with the general public because "they wouldn't understand". This is a real problem. It results in those people who set out to distort science (from animal rights activists through creationists through global warming deniers) setting the agenda in public discourse. It also permits pseudoscience to flourish. Rightly or wrongly, a large proportion of people will turn to Wikipedia to get their information on scientific subjects. That is not going to change anytime soon. Within a few years individuals are routinely going to have their entire genomes sequenced and they will want to learn about specific genes and what this means for their health. The public desire will be for information that, until now, is confined to academic journals and technical databases. I believe medium to provide the most accurate and accessible information possible is Wikipedia. Moreover, the Sanger Institute is the flagship research institute for the Wellcome Trust, whose mission is to foster biomedical research and promote public understanding of it. What better way to do so than disseminate its own research through the largest, free collection of information the world as ever seen? My hope is we can become a flagship institution for working with projects like Wikipedia to narrow the communication gap between scientists and the layman, that others will emulate. Well, thats the pitch, anyway. Time will tell how many people share that belief.

I think you would be a perfect online advisor, Bielle, are you sure I cannot convince you to volunteer an hour of your time? Either way, I will probably take this to other venues at some point, but I was just floating in here first. We still need to organise details of the training before taking it further. Rockpocket 17:48, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

If you think I will be useful, of course I will volunteer. Just remember that I do not do mornings, except in the sense of after midnight my time (-5 UTC I think). Bielle (talk) 20:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Schedule permitting, I would be happy to help. --Arcadian (talk) 11:17, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ditto. Great idea, Rockpocket. Good luck with this, it sounds really worthwhile. Best, Daicaregos (talk) 13:33, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Rockpocket, if you can get scientists to come edit here, hopefully more historians will come. That way scholars cannot continue to disparage Wikipedia as being edited solely by amateurs.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, all. You are correct, Jeanne, which nicely segues into our next project. We are hoping to recruit a Wikipedian-in-Residence to visit the Institute for a couple of weeks and take advantage of our expertise and resources to improve science-content in Wikipedia. In doing so, we hope the person can inspire our scientists to get involved by holding workshops and talks, and ultimately foster better links between academics and Wikipedia. We have borrowed the idea from the pilot project currently ongoing with Witty lama (talk · contribs) (a historian) and the British Museum. We are still in the planning stage so if anyone has good ideas of how to develop this idea, or knows of an experienced Wikipedian with an interest in bioscience who might like to join us in Cambridge for a few weeks - do get in touch. Rockpocket 14:50, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Hello Darren, how ya doing? GoodDay (talk) 19:59, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm very well, thank you, GoodDay. How are you? Rockpocket 21:46, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Enjoying the Wikipedia experience. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I am overjoyed that the green signature hasn't left for good. I am really not a candidate, but I love the idea, having fretted over phenomena such as Wikipedia:QUIT before. I think the Science desks have a number of possible candidates with a strong sense (or syndrome) of helping out. Perhaps WP:BIOLOGYis a forum where you might like to post this as well. Which- and whatever you do, glad you're sticking around. ---Sluzzelin talk 21:58, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I came to look at your talk after a long time of not crossing paths, because I noticed the edit you made at the ALF page, and I was very glad to see that you had done it. Seeing this thread, I thought I should tell you that I have an interest in this kind of reaching out to scientists, in case you'd like to have anyone from the U.S. (but I absolutely do not want to be outed, for reasons I know you well understand!!). About a year ago, User:WillowW, User:Tim Vickers, User:Looie496, and I led a workshop at the annual meeting of the Society for Neuroscience about just that. It's something I'm always happy to talk about, so long as I remain anonymous online, so feel free to ask me for anything about that. Best, --Tryptofish (talk) 21:53, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Curses, Hexes and Spells

Children's non-fiction?? Kittybrewster ☎ 09:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it does seem a bit odd but it is marketed and catalogued as "juvenile non-fiction". Wouldn't be the first non-fiction book to have no basis in reality whatsoever. Rockpocket 10:24, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

That's one personal POV, Rockpocket. There are indeed many people who do believe in curses, hexes, and spells. I live in Sicily where they still staunchly believe in the malocchio or evil eye.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 10:38, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Indeed it is, Jeanne. There is often no basis in reality for what some folks believe (for example, I happen to believe non-fiction should be factually verifiable, but the generally held perception is that it need only be presented as factual in the opinion of the author to be deemed non-fiction.) Rockpocket 10:47, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

It is far from being the first book catalogued as non-fiction to have no basis in reality whatsoever. Although it would be rather contentious to insist that books about religions are denoted as fiction. Daicaregos (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

"Contentious", yes, but that doesn't mean it isn't accurate. In order to have contention, there must be at least two points of view. I'd be siding with RP on this one. :-) Bielle (talk) 22:29, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

Hi, Darren. You deserve a barnstar. Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much, Axl. That is very kind. Rockpocket 22:38, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

		The Bio-star
		To Rockpocket, for "Major urinary proteins". Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:34, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have mail

Many thanks! Bielle (talk) 22:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome, I hope it was of some assistance. Rockpocket 09:42, 22 June 2010

The decision, supported by the article, was that, absent certain very specific medical conditions (none of which is currently present), the procedure is too drastic for mere prophylaxis. I am much relieved. Thanks again. Bielle (talk) 03:13, 26 June 2010 (UTC)

Mike Stratton biography

I just started a new biography for Mike Stratton in my Sandbox. Feel free to hack it around or make suggestions. Alexbateman (talk) 07:48, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Will do. Rockpocket 09:42, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

DYK for Reference genome

— Rlevse • Talk • 18:02, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Question

Hello, I would like to start by saying this. I am in no way trying to accuse you of anything, you are obviously a trusted and respected editor with many barnstars and sysop status. However, while investigating a listing at SCV, I saw this comment on the talkpage, after you had made this edit. Surely the intention is not to 'shake off' the search bot, but to fix the problem. I did see you offered a rewrite which is brilliant, however the edit you saved kind of looked like you were simply paraphrasing the content? If I am assuming bad faith or adding 2+2 to make 5, please accept my apologies and ignore me. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Poor choice of words perhaps, I'm in the middle of a rewrite as we speak. Rockpocket 18:02, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, good to know. Thanks,Acather96 (talk) 18:04, 25 June 2010 (UTC)

Donald I. Williamson

I don't know enough about the subject matter to be certain of anything here. If you look at the article, the originator User:D I Williamson and the current intense work by User:Heathmoor and find nothing to concern you, then there is nothing to concern me, either. :-) Bielle (talk)`

I'm not convinced he is notable per WP:PROF (but whenever I nominate articles on that basis the consensus is usually otherwise, suggesting my threshold for academic notability is somewhat higher than most others). Its also a little coat-hangerish, with regards to a single, mildly controversial paper he published after retirement. But everything is pretty well cited to multiple independent, reliable sources—including the drama over the paper—so it would probably be deemed acceptable per notability on general terms.

Obviously it was created by the subject, but its been expanded by someone that doesn't have any obvious COI. In short, its hardly Wikipedia's finest, but probably would survive any nomination for deletion (even though that would be my personal inclination). Rockpocket 22:25, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Feminism

Hello, friend! Please accept this invitation to join a discussion on creating a full-fledged WikiProject Feminism. If you support this idea, please register your support here. All feedback is appreciated! Thanks!

- Kittybrewster ☎ 00:51, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Might be of interest to you

Came across this interaction between 2 editors, one being a scientist at University of Nottingham who appears to be having trouble getting to grips with wikipedia rules, I read on your page that you were trying to encourge fellow scientists to use wikipedia and I feel a little biting is going on, so maybe you could drop them a note to help out, if this is of no use to you just disregard best Mo ainm~Talk 21:52, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, Mo ainm, for the heads up. I seemed to have missed most of the action, but I'll drop the bewildered scientist a note and offer some encouragement and advice. Rockpocket 11:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

User:Rockpocket too

Hi Rockpocket - As someone did the same for me when I made an alternate account a while ago, I just wanted to check whether User:Rockpocket too was yourself (as noted here), an admirer of yours, or an unrelated new user. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:12, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

And if it is so, and if you are the one guiding the various students [1][2][3] [4][5][6] [7] on how to create accounts and edit on Wikipedia, it'll be very nice if you can advise your students to leave a note on their usr page (at least for the time being) that they're working with you; lest they be considered sockpuppets... Thanks and best. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 15:19, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I can confirm that User:Rockpocket too is the same person as User:Rockpocket. He is currently too busy teaching to reply at the moment. The users pointed out are some of the students on the course. Alexbateman (talk) 15:29, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Awesome :-) There are templates to link the accounts (I have one on my page; I think there are several variations) when you get the opportunity. --Kateshortforbob _talk 15:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I had not known Rock was so busy and sent him an email on another issue. It doesn't matter; I have emailed somebody else that I trust. Kittybrewster ☎ 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I got your email, Kb, but I was not familiar enough with the case to offer an informed comment immediately. When I get some spare time I will review the incident and let you know what I think. Rockpocket 19:14, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern. I can confirm that User:Rockpocket too is indeed an alternate account I created for training purposes. I'd cross identified the accounts as you suggest. Rockpocket 19:16, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

A request

Hi, is there any chance you could review systemin, an article I've written and nominated at WP:GAN? Realistically a reviewer needs a fair bit of MCB knowledge to be able to check it - judging by today's FA you seem like a good person to ask. There's absolutely no hurry but if you could do it at some point I'd be very grateful and would be happy to return the favour. Thanks Smartse (talk) 17:04, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Sure, I'd be happy to. I'll need to read up a little on the Good article criteria, but I'll get it done this week sometime. Rockpocket 17:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Cheers Smartse (talk) 09:28, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks again for the review (and the barnstar) please let me know if/when you want the favour returned. Smartse (talk) 11:06, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Genomics articles needing citations

User:Magnus Manske/Genomics articles needing citations :-) --Magnus Manske (talk) 15:16, 4 August 2010 (UTC)

Untranslated Wikipedia Articles in X language – UWA tool

Motivated by the workshop ' Wikipedia for scientists' , I designed a tool to help me , and others, to find untranslated articles in our native language against English Wikipedia. You can find an early version of this tool here. Please feel free to post your comments and suggestions. Thanks. Salturki (talk) 22:27, 14 August 2010 (UTC) salturki

Question

Hi, I noticed in the past you objected to an edit to this article. Another user is now arguing that this edit should be included (the same quote funnily enough). I was wondering if you could take a look over it. Thanks for any help. Monkeymanman (talk) 00:08, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Protection

Heya, it's Gabe from earlier, I reckoned this page could do with some level of protection Housefly :) Abergabe (talk) 11:35, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I've semi-protected it for a month. If, after that time it continues to be vandalized (and pending changes is still active) I'll add it to the pending changes list. Rockpocket 17:47, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Page move

Heya, when i tried to move the page Chromogranin to Granin, I found that i wasn't able to because a redirect still existed on the original page. I've added it to requested moves, but I've added to to the wrong list and it's now caught in the 7 day waiting period. I already posted a notice of the intention and the move is entirely non controversial. What would you suggest should be done? :s Ta, Abergabe (talk) 13:25, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

I've moved it over the redirect and closed the request. A bot will remove it from the request page. Rockpocket 14:01, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

You're a star! cheers ^_^ Abergabe (talk) 14:04, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

DYK for DHHC domain

The DYK project (nominate) 06:04, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Merge of F-box protein and F-box motif

The pages F-box motif needs to be merged onto F-box protein. They've been marked with a merge tag for a little while now but no-one's replied. All the information on the Motif page can be found on the protein page so all that remains - i think - is for a redirect to be put in the place of the old page. I've been looking through and I'm thoroughly confused as to what to do, would you mind helping me out? Ta, Abergabe (talk) 14:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

If there is a lot of information in the page history, we would want to do a history merge - which requires some admin tools. However, because it is little more than a stub and the material is duplicated anyway a simple redirect will do. So all you need to do is replace the text in F-box motif with:

#REDIRECT [[F-box protein]]

Then, check what other redirects point to F-box motif here and replace those with redirects to F-box protein. Rockpocket 23:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Ooo, I hadn't realised you could do that, I assumed it would be considered messy. Will get on that then! Ta, Abergabe (talk) 08:37, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

DYK for COSMIC cancer database

— Rlevse • Talk • 12:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

1q21.1 deletion syndrome

Hi, thanks for your additional information. Any special interest on the subject? I saw the specialists section had been removed and some items had been put under further reading. I restored the original situation on that part. This makes it easier for physicians to find the original sources of the reading material. Regards, SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 11:26, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello. No, I have no particular interest in this syndrome - I was just populating the {{DECIPHER}} template when I came across this article. I reworked those sections to bring them into line with our Manual of Style. We do not divide our further reading or reference sections into subsections for lay or specialist readers. If a reader wishes to refer to the source for something specific, it should be cited inline. Mefford et al., was removed because it is already cited inline. For these reasons, I have reverted back and replaced the jounral articles with the correct citation templates. Rockpocket 13:18, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. A lot of wikipedia policies are being used on the English version, which are not easy to understand for a common user. No offense, but it sometimes feels like "some pigs are more equal than other pigs" on the way some users are acting...

Regards,SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 14:03, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

I know what you mean, it can be confusing for relatively new users. You've done a good job with the article, though. If you need any help with formatting or policies just drop me a message and I'll do what I can. Rockpocket 15:28, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello Darren, I saw you nominated the picture that was in this item for removal. This picture was being used in several Dutch and English subjects that were related to several syndromes, like 1q21.1 deletion syndrome, 1q21.1 duplication syndrome and TAR syndrome. The comment in the history said Copyright violation. In my opinion the informationbox with the article stated where the picture originally came from, it stated that the picture had been modified by me. The author of the article has been informed about the fact that the subjects existed and they know that the picture was a part of the subject. In fact, I have contacted all authors doing research on the subject and asked them to help me to make sure that the wikipedia-subject always has the latest information available. Nobody complained at my address about the use of the picture. So, what is the problem? I want to have the picture back on all subjects. Regards,SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 12:15, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello SpelgroepPhoenix. I'm very sorry about that, but unfortunately most published academic work, including figures from papers, have a copyright licence that is not compatible with use on Wikipedia. Nature Publishing Group, not the authors, holds the rights to that image and they do not permit Wikipedia to use their images under a free licence. By hosting it we would be breaking the law, which was why it was deleted. If you wanted a similar image on Wikipedia, could redraw it yourself. Otherwise you could use an image from a paper published in a journal that has a open-access licence, such as those from PLoS. Rockpocket 12:56, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

Files

Hi. As far as I can see File:Dogs6CCcopy.jpg and File:Rodent52copy.jpg have problems with licensing. The source link of each file redirects to [8] and terms of use of this website are clearly imcompatible with free license. I added "no permission" tag to each file. --Blacklake (talk) 16:31, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Mmmmm. It seems another editor has found the web archive of the original T&C they were uploaded on. I seem to recall I sought permission from them to use on WP when I registered on their site to obtain the images. Mind you, these were among my first edits, almost 5 years ago, so I'm not entirely sure I knew what I was doing back then. Rockpocket 17:04, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

Arbitration committee

Have a go, please. Kittybrewster ☎ 14:20, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Hello Kitty. Thanks for the suggestion, but I'm afraid I simply don't have the time (or, really, the inclination) to involve myself in arbitration these days. Besides, now my identity is known I could really do without the real life hassle such a position would inevitably bring. It seems our friend, Giano, is running though. He might even get elected this time, I think. Rockpocket 18:48, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

...for mentioning the GLAMWIKI conference at Wikipedia_talk:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2010/Candidates/GiacomoReturned/Questions. I may not be good at content edits, but I know how to network, and it's nice to see that efforts are going on outside the GLAM sector into other disciplines. Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 17:59, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You are very welcome. I think the GLAM initiative is leading the way forward. While Wikipedia's coverage of popular culture is widely acknowledged and well used, I think we still lack credibility among practitioners of the arts and sciences. We need to convince professionals and experts to engage with us, I think this will be essential to bring our technical, historical and scientific articles to the standard they should be. We are not quite at the GLAM level yet, but we are working towards it. For example in addition to the editorial we recently published, my colleague, User:Alexbateman is at the Biological Wikis conference giving tutorials on The Pros and Cons of Wikipedia for Scientists and Everything you wanted to know about Wikipedia but were too afraid to ask this week. Coming up, we will be publishing a "call to arms", if you will, in Nature and are working on getting academic societies to engage with Wikiprojects specific to their area of expertise. Perhaps next year we should get together with some of the GLAM people and exchange notes.

Anyway, good luck with the ArbCom run. I'd already voted for you based on my observation of your admin work prior to knowing you were involved in GLAM, but now I'm particularly hopeful you are successful. Rockpocket 18:46, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I fear that the Wikipedia adage is true - the reward for a job well done is three more jobs! Chase me ladies, I'm the Cavalry (talk) 10:17, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Mail

Hello, Rockpocket. Please check your email; you've got mail!
It may take a few minutes from the time the email is sent for it to show up in your inbox. You can at any time by removing the {{You've got mail}} or {{ygm}} template.

Thanks. I need to do a little research before responding. But I will respond. Rockpocket 11:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Take a look?

Hi Rock, an anon editor removed some census material from an article on my watchlist, Anglo-Celtic Australian. I reverted. Over the past week or so, we've now done the revert ritual 4 times. No discussion has been entered into on the article Talk page. I flagged the last two as vandalism but now realize that I've managed this all wrong. Could you perhaps "nudge" the anon editor to discuss his changes on the article Talk page before editing again? Or any other suggestion? --HighKing (talk) 11:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I've left a message for him/her. I think his or her reaction to a request to follow proper procedure will inform what happens next. Let me know. Rockpocket 22:12, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Appreciate that, thank you. --HighKing (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Any time (and sorry about the delay). Rockpocket 22:16, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Started up again, and the editing style (and insults) on the talk page continue. Would you take a look? Thanks --Snowded ^TALK 07:04, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Wedding

Hi Rockpocket. I would welcome your opinion here. Kittybrewster ☎ 17:06, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Sorry about the delay. Seems the edit war has subsided, so I've offered my opinion at the RFC. Rockpocket 21:59, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I didn't know how you would opine. Up to you. I just respect your views. Kittybrewster ☎ 08:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Hedd Wyn (film)

Would you mind taking a look at Hedd Wyn (film) please. It has been a slow burn edit war with User:Varlaam, with whom I have some previous (User_talk:Varlaam#Hedd_Wyn, User_talk:Varlaam#List of war films based on books (1898–1926) and Talk:List of films based on arts books#Hedd_Wyn. As usual, Varlaam refuses to engage on the Talk page, preferring to revert using increasingly provocative edit summaries, culminating with this today. May I have your advice as to how this may best be resolved? Many thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 18:13, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

That is unacceptable language, especially considering he has had multiple blocks for similar behaviour over the last few years. It seems you have done the correct thing (asking for advice at the appropriate noticeboard, informing him of that discussion etc) here, to no avail. I'll have a word with him. Rockpocket 18:51, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Really appreciate it. I wasn't sure what else to do. Thanks. Daicaregos (talk) 18:59, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Please see this. Time for some firmer action, I think. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

FYI, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Varlaam's recent edits. Bencherlite^Talk 22:06, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Varlaam, that the movie is either British or British & Welsh. I disagree with his approach of arguing that point, though. GoodDay (talk) 03:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lawrence Holofcener

Do you mind reviewing this article? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm currently traveling, Kb, and will not be back until the New Year. I'll look at then if you like. Rockpocket 14:21, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Nature

Your message jogged my memory, so I went and looked at Nature. Kudos! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:49, 16 December 2010 (UTC)