User talk:P99am#top

To me the size remains exactly the same. I suppose it has to do with our preferences settings. You might want to check out WP:MOS#Images to see why specific image sizes are not recommended. --BorgQueen (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi P99am - You have a problem with the software STR3DI32? Xebvor (talk) 14:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

: Hi Xebvor. The biggest problem is that this self promotion. P99am (talk) 15:13, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Hi P99am - Since when is it a problem to draw the attention of scientists to good software? Why do you think that the other software packages displayed in the list are there? Is it that you are a competitor to the STR3DI32 software package and are doing something unethical by trying to censor the available information, or do you have some other more lofty professional reason? Xebvor (talk) 18:33, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

:Dear Xebvor, Wikipedia is created not to "to draw the attention of scientists to good software". Programs I have described, I know as a famous and useful ones. Many of them I have used in my own research. On the other hand, I have never heard about your product. Judging from the fact that you insert the links to it everywhere, you do not improve Wikipedia, but promote your product. If you believe that your product has a common value, you can create a special article about it. If the Wikipedia community adopt it, I can consider the possibility to give a link to it from my articles. But since you are not only place your links, but also erase my job, the likelihood that I will do it is minimal. P99am (talk) 19:12, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Dear P99am - I wonder what kind of research you do, and how much impact you have made in your chosen area of science. However, since this webpage is **YOURS** and **you** decide what will appear on it, then I am obviously fighting a losing battle. You should try to pay some attention to your grammar! Famous scientists ought to learn, or should have learned, to write properly. Xebvor (talk) 14:19, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

see my message at User talk:Thorwald#external links in the body of articles --Enric Naval (talk) 00:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Re: the solution is fixing those blue links, not restoring a lot of external links that should have never been there in the first place. --Enric Naval (talk) 00:35, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

: Dear Enric, You have not solved the problem, but have entered incorrect links. In order to do well, we need to write 6 articles. Therefore, my version seems to me a good compromise today. Such things as WP:NOTLINK are tips to improve the quality of articles, rather than immutable rules. In this case the references are needed to improve the quality of the article. Perhaps it is better to do it in some other way. But in this case, sections without links at all, are unacceptable. (P99am (talk) 01:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC)).

::Eh, 5 actually, I just went back and fixed my incorrect blue links, that leaves five red links and four blue ones. And there is no deadline, so we are not in a hurry to make it all look pretty. A red link can stay as much time as necessary.

::WP:REDLINK is a guideline, but that doesn't mean that you can go and ignore all that it says (not to mention that having red links for people to write articles is one of the defining characteristics of a wiki, and the way that wikis use to grow). (and WP:NOTLINK not only is a policy, but it's one of the five pillars of wikipedia!) --Enric Naval (talk) 01:57, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Give 5 minutes to try one thing in the article. --Enric Naval (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Ok, I put both the red link and the external link so people can still find the website. Please take a look. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:01, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:::: Thank you. But I do not understand why this better than the original version. It seems that this is just a complication. (P99am (talk) 02:07, 3 April 2009 (UTC))

:::::It's an evil scheme to get people to write more articles on wikipedia. People will arrive to the page, they will see the red links, and they will go all like "Oh my goodness, the name of my favorite modelling program is a red link! It's so ugly it hurts my eyes! I must inmediately write a complete informative article that will make my favourite program look good!". And this way wikipedia earns both a brand new article and a new editor. And this new editor might decide to keep editing wikipedia and keep editing articles on specialized topics like modelling software. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:19, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::: In principle, I can agree with you. But I see that many people hate the red links. I am afraid that we can start revert battle.

:::::::In that case, how about adopting the format at List of software for molecular mechanics modeling? with the links in a separate column --Enric Naval (talk) 02:27, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

:::::::: Not bad. But I am afraid that someone does not like many red links. And they will be deleted. This depreciate both articles. Why not consider the external links on their own as an invitation to write an article?

:::::::::Eh, because they are not red? And clicking on them doesn't bring you to a page asking you to create a new article that allows you to create a new article by simply writing some stuff? (geeez, this was easier way back in time, when a pair of well phrased sentences could pass for an article) --Enric Naval (talk) 03:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:GLO1 Homo sapiens small fast.gifThank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Tim Vickers (talk) 20:17, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

{{clear|left}}

That's very gracious of you.

As you may see from a little farther down the history (four or five steps down), I declare an interest as I work for a molecular modelling software company. I simply wanted to add a link to another Wiki page which already described the product. Nobody objected so I added it. Nobody has objected since, either. BUT I don't edit that article saying how wonderful it is. Not suggesting you do either, but it is where the line is drawn. It is important to give people information about different products, but we can't do WP:AD.

I undid because I thought making a new section singled it out unfairly from the other products (not that they all do the same thing, of course, but some will overlap). Actually I didn't know the "group" attribute existed and that's good to know. So I do not object to the reference as such, just its undue prominence. I don't like simply to undo but having checked MOE etc there was nothing I could reasonably substitute. Perhaps an inline ref, I guess, but I thought best to just make it plain text and leave it to another (probably you) to decide what is best.

Best wishes and thankyou for keeping good faith. SimonTrew (talk) 09:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:Hi SimonTrew,

:Do you agree with the last version? P99am (talk) 10:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::Hey,

::That's looking really nice actually. I like the multi-column format rather than a list trailing off the page.

::I don't know about calling it "Home page". This is a bit unusual, but hey you might start a trend, it seems to me quite good to have both internal links and references to the external sites. Thanks for not making MOE more prominent than the rest, that was my main worry. I know I have COI here (and declared it) but I would say the same on any other article. If I was that mad about it I would demand that it was in alpha order of company so that Accelrys came (nearly) first!

::If you would, perhaps you could add http://accelrys.com/products/materials-studio/ as the Homepage for Materials Studio. I better not do this myself, though it is linked on the Materials Studio page. I don't think it is sockpuppetry to ask this, as I say that article has been around a while and so has its link, but for the avoidance of any doubt— and because you have done the good work making this look really nice and looking up the external links— I think you should do it. If you're not comfortable with that I will do it. SimonTrew (talk) 20:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::Actually I am going to Be Bold and just do it. SimonTrew (talk) 20:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

::Ah, coming to edit it, I see what you have done now-- put external links for redlinks or otherwise pages that haven't wikilinks. So I let it stand and don't add the link for MatStudio. SimonTrew (talk) 20:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

:::Just wanted to say the molecular modeling page is looking really nice now! Thanks! SimonTrew (talk) 23:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. Although, in my view, this page looks better before the start of all these changes. P99am (talk) 08:10, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Image:Ambox warning yellow.svg

A proposed deletion template has been added to the article SklogWiki, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:

:Clearly non-notable website

All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{tl|dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TimothyRias (talk) 14:26, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi.. I was doing some new page patrol and saw the article. It's written in a style that's somewhat impenetrable to non-experts. When you have time, could you rewrite it to make it accessible to the average reader? I'll also tag the article in case anyone else with expertise in the area comes by. Cheers. //roux   23:31, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

: Thank you. The subject is not easy to popularize. I should think.--P99am (talk) 09:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi there!

Just saw you changed the list of atoms which can partake in hydrogen bonding on the Intermolecular Forces page. I was always taught that it could only be between H and N, F and O, but you have added S and Cl? found a link http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/bond.html which might help, but please prove me wrong if i am!

Thecurran91 (talk) 12:38, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

:It was not me.--P99am (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

really? oops sorry. Im kinda new to this! Thecurran91 (talk) 18:55, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

• [http://ambermd.org/ AMBER]
• [http://www.agilemolecule.com/Products.html Ascalaph]
• [http://zarbi.chem.yale.edu/software.html#boss BOSS]
• [http://dasher.wustl.edu/tinker/ TINKER]
• [http://towhee.sourceforge.net/ Towhee]

Who else?

I am just curious and have no interest in the entry you keep removing, but in what sense is this any more commercial advertising then other pieces of commercial software that do not have a WP article and have a direct link from their page? --Bduke (Discussion) 20:59, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

: The problem is not in commercial software, but in the fact that the activity of the editor is only the advertising of this software. Please note that he sometimes inserts two the same direct links into one article, for example in the headers. P99am (talk) 13:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

:: Ignoring the activities of this editor, should this software be listed? --Bduke (Discussion) 21:40, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

::: I do not know this software. Perhaps it makes sense to give a link, but not in all articles; in the article style; not more than one direct link per article. P99am (talk) 11:18, 18 November 2010 (UTC)

{{talkback|Polyamorph}}

Hi there! VMD was incorrectly categorized in a free software category. To answer your two questions, it would probably be best if you read the free software article. The answer to 1. is no, it's not free and 2. I didn't find a price and it is not relevant. The English word free is ambiguous as it refers to freedom and price. Free software is only about freedom. Palosirkka (talk) 12:25, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

: 1. Here is desirable not a statement, but an explanation. The article you cited, does not contain the meaning of the English word "freedom" but a personal position of Richard Stallman. It is very strange position. And this position is not commonly accepted. 2. If this is not relevant, why you brought this as a justification?

File:Copyright-problem.svg

Thank you for uploading :File:Nanotube(10,10)Armchair.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. Please add this information by editing the image description page.

If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a [{{fullurl:Special:Log|type=upload&user=P99am}} list of your uploads]. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the Folding@home article? Thought you might be interested. Just curious. • Jesse V.^(talk) 18:11, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

• Thank you. I really do protein folding, but I'm not a member of Folding@home. Do you want to draw attention to something specific? P99am (talk) 15:27, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

::Well I ran across your user page and it seemed to me that Folding@home fell under all of your interests, so I thought I'd share it. You're welcome to run the software if you like of course, but I just thought it was cool that the project encapsulated all of the things that you listed as being interested in. • Jesse V.^(talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hi,

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

{{Ivmbox|Hello, P99am. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}

{{Ivmbox|Hello, P99am. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

|Scale of justice 2.svg|imagesize=40px}}