User talk:David Tribe

Hello. Just so you know, the right way to add yourself to a workgroup is to add the Category:WG Authors to your user page (as you did with CZ_Authors and CZ_Editors). I fixed it for you on the Biology authors page. Also, based on your résumé, it looks like you may want to be a Biology editor instead of an author. Have a nice day, and thanks for your edits so far --ZachPruckowski 08:45, 21 November 2006 (CST)

I'm still trying to figure out the hierarchy too. As I understand it so far, if you're an editor you're also an author. So at present you should have six categories. The CZ author and editor, and similar for biology and agriculture. As far as being more specific, then you did the right thing by adding your initials to the topics that represent your expertise. I added you back to the areas in biology with this edit. Let me know if you still need some pointers with regard to the code. It is a little frustrating if you are not familiar with it, however, it is quite intuitive once you get started. Chris Day (Talk) 18:15, 22 November 2006 (CST)

Images...

David,

No problem about the images. Please feel free to browse the net for any images that you would liked added and just let me know so I can direct you on how to do it. Don't forget to sign your comments with four tide marks ~ This will automatically turn into your signature and time of posting so other users can tell who is talking!

Some further reading is here:

http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Help:How_to_use_talk_pages&action=edit&section=7

Eric Pokorny 16:34, 8 December 2006 (CST)

B McClintock article

David, I re-wrote the first paragraph. It struck me that the emphasis on maize was a bit out of hand, after all it's not that her work was important because it elucidated corn for the world. Would you please read it and make sure that I didn't get things wrong. I think it's fair to say that her work initiated genomics, but maybe it's not. If not, could you explain it to me? thanks, Nancy Sculerati MD 20:43, 8 December 2006 (CST)

Nancy, I agree with you except I feel genomics generally has a different meaning to your use here. hence a small further edit David Tribe 22:27, 8 December 2006 (CST)

Thanks, and you are right about genomics. Take a look at legacy also.Nancy Sculerati MD 00:15, 9 December 2006 (CST)

David, please look at the biology talk page. Thanks for that article on Morgan, it taught me a lot and it's a great tribute. Of course, Eric Kandel is a political creature, as well as a great scientist, and he is at Columbia :). As an aside, it's wonderful to be learning and thanks for all you write. Nancy Sculerati MD 12:23, 12 December 2006 (CST)

Hi David, i noticed you didn't give the McClintock article the same treatment as the the biology article with respect to all the non-reference sources and links. Any particular reason for this? I thought it seemed like a good approach having such material on a separate holding page. Chris Day (Talk) 02:57, 13 December 2006 (CST)

Hi Chris, no reason really ; I agree with you in general and Still see advantages of routinely doing this on "main portal" type pages. I will try and explain the several advantages of this through workgroups forums. On looking at McClintock agan I think there no pressure save more space and feel that we can forgo this on that article David Tribe 04:38, 13 December 2006 (CST)

microbiology

I noticed you were working on the microbiology page. I added the subgroup on the biology draft page (don't know how to link this) since it was absent in the list of types of biology. maybe someone with your editing power can get a microbiology link added to the real biology page. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 20:56, 20 December 2006 (CST)

There are several links to microbiology in the real biology page. About Pasteur:

"His life's work in bacteriology",

where bacteriology is a redirect to microbiology. Also, when Leeuwenhoek work is mentioned:

"It was realised that tissues were composed of cells, the field of microbiology was born, and the ground was prepared for the germ theory of disease"

as well as in the "General subfields within biology" template. I agree it should also be in the section Biology today, a survey of the science of life, although that section has not really been discused in detail and is clearly not exhaustive in its present form. I'm not sure we want it to be exhaustive either. Chris Day (Talk) 21:20, 20 December 2006 (CST)

I only was referring to the list of advanced biology fields at the bottom of the biology page. I added the microbiology link on the biology/drafts page but I wanted some editors to see if it should go to the approved article. http://pilot.citizendium.org/wiki?title=Biology/Draft&diff=prev&oldid=100013668

I understand that there are links scattered through out the biology page directing to microbiology, but I just figured it should be listed at the bottom of the page as well, with the other biology fields. I guess I need to read up on how the drafts actually get taken up in to the real page. Because it feels like the turn over time will be a long time for such a minor thing like adding a link. -Tom Kelly (Talk) 00:40, 21 December 2006 (CST)

metabolism

David, please look at metabolism when you have a chance. thanks, Nancy Sculerati MD 09:44, 29 December 2006 (CST) sorry, David! I'll stop conflicting with you on metabolism! Nancy Sculerati MD 18:13, 30 December 2006 (CST)

Hi David - Pedro has put a newer version for approval (down at the bottom of the talk page). If I have two more editors on board, I'd be happy to approve it this evening. -- Sarah Tuttle 14:50, 4 January 2007 (CST)

Cereals template

Hi David, see if the cereal navigation box works with images now. i tried to recode the navitgation box template to fix the problem. Chris Day (Talk) 22:22, 2 January 2007 (CST)

Wheat

I think the article is really excellent in scope. Well written. Great illustrations. Problem seems to be that you are our only knowledeable editor in agriculture. I just e-mailed 2 chapters on wheat that may help as references. sent to the g-mail URL, listed forums. Reagrds, Nancy Sculerati MD 10:40, 3 January 2007 (CST)

thanks Nancy. Ive already drawn it to the attention of the listed Ag editors but cannot determinine from their sparse CV details if they are specially suited to comment or even active on CZ. I wanted to make sure the article wasnt only seen by biologists. David Tribe 17:55, 3 January 2007 (CST)

Impressive work

Just wanted to express appreciation for your outstanding article in progress. Exemplary writing. Anthony.Sebastian (Talk) 19:57, 9 January 2007 (CST)