This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 15 | ← | Archive 17 | Archive 18 | Archive 19 | Archive 20 | Archive 21 | → | Archive 25 |
hi, first of all thank you so much for reviewing my article and giving suggestions. I have already started working on them.
please keep giving suggestions, its really very helpful. i will try to work upon whatever you said and get back :) Devanshi tripathi ( talk) 19:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
These are so useful, I keep them on my user page! :) Kiefer. Wolfowitz 19:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)
Yet once more, O ye Laurels, and once more |
So Lycidas sunk low, but mounted high, |
Hey K-Wolf--
I'm sure your page will meet muster, judging by the GAs I've seen, but I need to beg off. I pretty much avoid the whole GA/DYK shenanigans; I just try and get the stuff I work on up to "really-really-good-B-article" status and skip the bureaucratic silliness. You might try asking Trust Is All You Need, I think he's a believer in the GA system and should be sympatico.
best, as always,
tim
Carrite ( talk) 02:09, 23 September 2011 (UTC)
Yeasts are eukaryotic micro-organisms classified in the kingdom Fungi, with 1,500 species currently described [1] estimated to be only 1% of all fungal species. [2] Most reproduce asexually by mitosis, and many do so via an asymmetric division process called budding. Yeasts are unicellular, although some species with yeast forms may become multicellular through the formation of a string of connected budding cells known as pseudohyphae, or false hyphae, as seen in most molds. [3]
Yeasts, like all fungi, may have asexual and sexual reproductive cycles. The most common mode of vegetative growth in yeast is asexual reproduction by budding. [4] Here a small bud (also known as a bleb), or daughter cell, is formed on the parent cell. The nucleus of the parent cell splits into a daughter nucleus and migrates into the daughter cell. The bud continues to grow until it separates from the parent cell, forming a new cell. [5]
Some species of yeast, such as Candida albicans, are opportunistic pathogens and can cause infections in humans, particularly those with compromised immune systems.
Cryptococcus neoformans is a significant pathogen of immunocompromised people causing the disease termed cryptococcosis. This disease occurs in about 7–9% of AIDS patients in the USA, and a slightly smaller percentage (3–6%) in western Europe. [6] The cells of the yeast are surrounded by a rigid polysaccharide capsule, which helps to prevent them from being recognised and engulfed by white blood cells in the human body.
Yeasts of the Candida genus are another group of opportunistic pathogens which causes oral and vaginal infections in humans, known as candidiasis. Candida is commonly found as a commensal yeast in the mucus membranes of humans and other warm-blooded animals. However, sometimes these same strains can become pathogenic. Here the yeast cells sprout a hyphal outgrowth, which locally penetrates the mucosal membrane, causing irritation and shedding of the tissues. [6] The pathogenic yeasts of candidiasis in probable descending order of virulence for humans are: C. albicans, C. tropicalis, C. stellatoidea, C. glabrata, C. krusei, C. parapsilosis, C. guilliermondii, C. viswanathii, C. lusitaniae and Rhodotorula mucilaginosa. [7] Candida glabrata is the second most common Candida pathogen after C. albicans, causing infections of the urogenital tract, and of the bloodstream ( candidemia). [8]
George Orwell praised the civility of English life, for example, the tradition of military personnel wearing civilian clothes, in his essay" England, My England". This essay was written to strengthen England's resolve in World War II and to suggest the principles that should guide the reconstruction to follow that terrible destruction.
Today, Englishmen should still be proud of English civility. Can we imagine Robert Fripp having blossomed in any other country?
Although civility is often discussed in the Wikipedia community, we may still benefit from considering the Frippian spirit of the Orchestra of Crafty Guitarists, e.g. the Guitar Craft House Rules
- Some people here you will like, others not.
- Some people will irritate you.
- No blame! You will also be irritating them.
- Please act towards others with goodwill and with courtesy;
- otherwise, be polite.
- Honour the role, respect the person.
- You are not asked to accept any direction that violates conscience.
And sit with your back straight and relax! Kiefer. Wolfowitz 11:22, 25 September 2011 (UTC)
I copy-edited the Signpost article about Wikipedia Foundation's vetoing of a trial.
In a bugzilla thread, English Wikipedia editors disagreed with MediaWiki sysadmins over a proposed trial for barring non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles. The proposal to require autoconfirmed status had gained many supporters in a widely publicised Request for Comment. However, the proposal was blocked by Wikimedia Foundation staffers and developers.
The proposed trial would changed the mechanics of article-creation, in which currently a large portion of articles created by new editors were swiftly deleted and their authors reprimanded. The proposal was to barr new editors from creating articles and rather to funnel them through the Articles for Creation and Article Creation Wizard processes. The proposal aimed to reduce pressure on new page patrollers, to irritate fewer new editors, and to improve the quality of new articles.
The proposal was vetoed by Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller, who said, "Creating a restriction of this type is a strong a statement of exclusion, not inclusion." "It will confuse and deter good-faith editors." Möller agreed that Wikipedia needed to improve the atmosphere for new editors and to provide a "friendly, welcoming and understandable experience". He suggested three steps:
Möller and the developers suggested that English Wikipedia address the problems facing new editors by working with ArticleCreationWorkflow project at MediaWiki.
Their suggestion was criticized by English Wikipedia editors. The initiator of the bug report Snottywong wrote that "ArticleCreationWorkflow doesn't discuss any real solutions to the problem, so I will not be contributing there". The Foundation staff were criticized for unilateralism, incivility and a patronising tone, by some editors.
Volunteer developer and long-standing English Wikipedian Happy-melon wrote,
There *is* a separation of *cultures* here, and it's something that an awful lot of members of the wiki communities do not appreciate. The developers and (separately) the sysadmins/WMF form their own separate communities with their own goals and practices; and those goals and practices, while closely matching those of enwiki or whereverwiki, do not necessarily precisely align. There is nothing unrealistic, or wrong, with enwiki having goals which are very slightly different from those of the WMF as a whole, or for their requests to not be ones that the Foundation feels bests fits with their own strategies.
After the veto by the Wikimedia Foundaton, English Wikipedian and developer MZMcBride made a list of incidents where Wikimedia systems administrators had rejected configuration changes.
If it is reverted, then somebody should remove the word "English" from this Wikipedia! ;)
Where was George W. Bush when he is needed to copy edit?!!!!?!!! ;) Kiefer. Wolfowitz 00:02, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
In a heated altercation between English Wikipedia community members and MediaWiki sysadmins in the course of a bugzilla thread, a proposed trial for barring non-autoconfirmed editors from creating articles, which had garnered significant local consensus in a widely publicised Request for Comment, was thwarted by Wikimedia Foundation staffers and developers. The trial had been motivated by the perceived ineffectiveness of prevailing article creation mechanics, whereby a large portion of articles created by new editors were swiftly deleted and their authors reprimanded. By barring new editors from creating articles and funnelling them through the Articles for Creation and Article Creation Wizard processes, it was hoped to ease pressure on new page patrollers, alienate fewer new contributors and ensure a higher quality of new articles. After reticence to implement the trial from sysadmins and an intemperate reaction, Wikimedia Foundation Deputy Director Erik Möller after acknowledging the stated intentions of the initiative, put the boot down firmly on the petitioners' hopes:
However, we believe that creating a restriction of this type is a strong a statement of exclusion, not inclusion, and that it will confuse and deter good faith editors. Instead of trying to address many different issues by means of a simple but potentially highly problematic permission change, we believe that in order to create a friendly, welcoming and understandable experience for new editors, we need to apply an iterative, multi-prong approach, including but not limited to:
- simplifying the actual workflow of new article creation and reducing instruction creep
- experimenting with alternative models to provide new users with safe spaces for new article development
- connecting new users with experienced mentors faster.
Möller and the developers attempted to redirect efforts to the ArticleCreationWorkflow project at MediaWiki in the face of strong resistance from the English Wikipedia community members, with the initiator of the bug report Snottywong commenting "ArticleCreationWorkflow doesn't discuss any real solutions to the problem, so I will not be contributing there". Charges of unilateralism, incivility and a patronising tone were levelled at Foundation staff as it became evident the report would not result in implementation. Volunteer developer and long-standing English Wikipedian Happy-melon attempted to bridge the growing divide with an entreaty for perspective:
On the other hand, there *is* a separation of *cultures* here, and it's something that an awful lot of members of the wiki communities do not appreciate. The developers and (separately) the sysadmins/WMF form their own separate communities with their own goals and practices; and those goals and practices, while closely matching those of enwiki or whereverwiki, do not necessarily precisely align. There is nothing unrealistic, or wrong, with enwiki having goals which are very slightly different from those of the WMF as a whole, or for their requests to not be ones that the Foundation feels bests fits with their own strategies.
In response to the incident, English Wikipedian and developer MZMcBride assembled at Meta a list of instances of Wikimedia systems administrators rejection of configuration changes. The firm insistence of the Wikimedia Foundation to pursue its own vision of sustaining and developing the Wikimedia projects in defiance if necessary of the wishes of the core community of its flagship project – and the chief source of its funding – is an indicator of how far the organisation has grown in its brief history, and is sure to raise the hackles of those who conceived of it playing a primarily supportive role to the local communities.
I would be hiding under the guise of age if I did that, Kiefer. I don't want to make my fellow contributors think I am someone I am not. I am forthright and honest about my age, and I feel it would be a lie for me not to be. I think being open and honesty about it is the right thing to do. :)
Thanks... by the way, that comment section on lib. socialism has been dead for about a year. :P Toa Nidhiki 05 22:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)
Hey K-Wolf, I'm not understanding the "Self-Pubished Sources" flag on DSOC. Did you run that up or did somebody else? Is it in reference to using Harrington's memoir? Carrite ( talk) 01:23, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
Don't miss the action at Gertrude Himmelfarb. Rjensen ( talk) 20:24, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
YeastRef1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kurtzman2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Kurtzman1
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Balasubramanian
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Yeong2005
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).YeastRef9
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hurley1987
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).YeastRef10
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).