I'm doing an assignment for science on cells. There is only two
questions that is bothering me and i can't find any infomation on the net or
books or anywhere. The questions are:-
1) is acidophilous the same as acidophilus and y?
2) Where would you find organisms called Acidophilous?
3) Are they harmful?
thankyou for taking time to read this message because i know you must be
The only problem is that i will need an answer by Sunday 28th of august
thankyou very much
REALESTATE: biggest buy/rent/share listings
I have been involved in a dispute over [[Bob Jones University]] with a few
editors for the past few days. I've made the argument that the rules posted
in a list are not encyclopedic and are POV when placed in context only with
criticism. Additionally, cutting the rules from the BJU.EDU page and
pasting them into the page is a copyright violation. After trying several
times to edit the offending section in various ways and trying to find a
compromise, I decided I had no choice but to remove the offending content
and place a copyvio notice in its place. I initially only did this in the
"Rules For Students" subpage. The administrator that was involved in a
dispute over the article reverted the page and removed the copyvio notice.
This is avoidant vandalism. I then re-read the entire policy which states
that I should blank the page and add the copyvio notice, which I did, citing
each copyright violation and the page it was copied from. This was again
reverted. I continued to ask Ambi (the administrator) to please just remove
the offending content and we could work on a compromise. He continued to
revert the page. After reverting the avoidant vandalism many times, he had
me blocked for a 3RR violation. As I read 3RR it states that there is an
exception made for vandalism. However, I was blocked for violation of a 3RR
rule, and *I* was attributed with the avoidant vandalism as well when it was
Ambi that continued to remove the copyvio notice. I believe ambi was acting
in good faith, but this is over the top and a violation of the rules, IMHO.
I realize I'm fairly new to Wikipedia and may be wrong, but what else can I
do but follow the policy as it is written on Wikipedia's site? I'm also
confused why I was attributed with the copyvio removal when it was Ambi that
continued to remove the notice. Any help would be appreciated. Thanks in
advance for your help.
It's easy enough to point to --and stray in-- inward-looking
abstractions and generalities when there is nothing concrete to fall
back on but conjecture. Let us humble ourselves before this truism.
>I think the Arbcom should accomodate a separate "case-review"
facility, and that the Arbcom should grow to accomodate the growing
need for clear and documented review.
What would that entail, slightly more concretely? I think an
intermidatory process may work more efficiently. If there is a need
for immediate review of administrative action, there is, in addition
to the normal channels of DR, [[WP:AN]], [[WP:AN/I]] ([[WP:3RR]] when
applicable), and [[WP:PE]]. Is there a great need for, not simply more
arbitrators, but a specific admin review mechanism? (an open question)
What benefits are there from a separate format, according to this (at
this juncture, very vague) proposal? I remain very much open to
persuasion (either way) on that front.
A cursory reading of
, to use a totally non-random example, reveals excelent editorial
skills but very poor admin descision-making, in any fair venue, I
would argue. So, platform-wise, I think it's important to keep in mind
that admin actions and editorial preferences are or are alleged to be
almost always the decisive factor behind administrative abuse, that it
dosen't take place in a vaccum. As a rogue admin who has for long
escaped sanctions (but my time will come again, sooner than I may
expect, too). For example, I have purposfully chose not to rollback
vandalism off of (legitimate) Wikipedia accounts held by Nazis, and I
have rollbacked vandlism off of a Nazi account without knowing it was
one at the time, and regretted having done so. Lacking the moral
highground is, indeed, a harsh mistress.
But I digress. Again, there needs to be policy proposals of far more
concrete (or at least, illustrative as per specific examples) nature
in order for us to much more safely speculate and guage on what is
likely to translate into a worthwhile advance.
I offered Skyring to have my blocking notice deleted in its entrirety,
so I fail to see the merit of the characterization:
I didn't mean sanguine, so I don't see why should I become signatory
to having said that. Further, Skyring knows I am especially weary of
him modifying my comments on Wikipedia to begin with.
I guess you could say somebody burned down their
Skyring skyring at gmail.com:
Without wanting to offer the least scintilla of
support for Nazis or
their hateful views, they have seen their project
to a far greater extent than anything they ever wanted
to do to
Wikipedia. They have been handed an incentive and
moral imperative to
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page
For the reasons Haukur pointed out this is something that concerns us
all. Taking it to the level of one-to-one conversations won't be
helpful in reaching a consensus. There has to be OPEN discussion on
I think we are getting bored of talking about it on this mailing list
but it has to be discussed because no resolution has been reached.
Sarah, I have already indicated my concerns with the blocking of
Amalekite, so please take this as an email personally directed to you
as the blocking admin. Thanks!
> I probably won't respond again to this topic, though I'd be happy to
> hear from anyone offlist. I just wanted to link to the relevant part
> of the blocking policy for those of you who still have concerns.
--- Rob <gamaliel8(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> It's either block him now or block him later. He's
> not interested in NPOV or building an encyclopedia or
> anything else we value. He's a Nazi and all he wants
> to do is fight the Jews. Perhaps his edits look fine
> now, but there's always the chance he is engaging in
> or will engage in a less obvious form of racist
> vandalism by subtly skewing articles. Whatever it is,
> it will happen and it will escalate. On SF they are
> quite openly talking about ways to infiltrate
> Wikipedia so they can skew the content the way they
> want it skewed. That should be enough to ban them on
> sight here.
We should ban people based on what they do on Wikipedia, not for what they do
elsewhere, and *certainly* not for what they think.
I've decided to unblock this user as I see nothing in his edit history that
merits an immediate ban.
I'm quite shocked that people would take this approach.
To help you stay safe and secure online, we've developed the all new Yahoo! Security Centre. http://uk.security.yahoo.com
I've turned a spellcheck bot loose on Pseudodoxia. I figure it's
politer to do that than to replace user pages with goatse, or move
articles around at random.
Page title: Chordate
Corrected taxon to tax-on
Corrected Subphylum to Sublet
Corrected Tunicates to Tunics
Corrected Lancelets to Lancets
Corrected Hagfishes to Garfishes
Corrected Coelacanths to Volcanoes
Corrected Urochordate to Crochet
Corrected notochord to blotched
Corrected Cephalochordates to Schoolchild's
Your friendly neighborhood spellbot
> From: Mark Pellegrini <mapellegrini(a)comcast.net>
> "Wikipedia's steadily increasing popularity means that within the next
> year or two, we will begin to see organized corporate astroturfing
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astroturfing> campaigns."
> Prediction confirmed - August 28, 2005 -
> "However, the concern continues. One anonymous reader contacted
> Boingboing telling them he worked at a marketing company that uses
> Wikipedia for its online marketing strategies.."That includes planting
> of viral information in entries, modification of entries to point
> to new
> promotional sites or 'leaks' embedded in entries to test diffusion of
> information. Wikipedia is just a more transparent version of [online
> meeting place] Myspace as far as some companies are concerned. We
> love it."
Without challenging your prediction, I do wish to repeat that there
is a big difference between talking about something and actually
There are all sorts of _apparent_ opportunities to get away with
dishonest behavior. For example, newspaper vending machines allow you
to pay for one newspaper and take two. I am sure there is some sleaze
somewhere who is bragging about how he does this regularly. You might
even be able to figure out a way to make money on this for a while--
say, by systematically looting vending boxes and bringing the papers
That does not mean that any newspaper company needs to pay hundreds
of thousands of dollars to redesign and retrofit their vending machines.
That does not mean that there is no danger. I'm just saying that it
is a big step from saying you _could_ do something from actually
doing it on a big enough scale to be a problem.
A good example of this is airline hijackings. From the beginnings of
air passenger travel until the late 1960s, airliners were totally
unprotected against hijacking. I am _sure_ that people said "Look how
easy it would be to..." I was going to say "and nothing happened for
thirty years but Wikipedia's article on "aircraft hijacking" mentions
some isolated events, the first in 1931. Nevertheless, it did not
become a systemic _problem_ until the late 1960s and early 1970s.
Daniel P. B. Smith, dpbsmith(a)verizon.net
"Elinor Goulding Smith's Great Big Messy Book" is now back in print!
Sample chapter at http://world.std.com/~dpbsmith/messy.html
Buy it at http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1403314063/
We're pathological because we wish to demonize Nazis?
Seriously, what the hell?
Skyring skyring at gmail.com:
I'm far more interest in the pathology shown in this
some editors want to eliminate any input by other
editors who don't
share their views, and demonise them into the bargain.
Yahoo! Mail for Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.