Rebekah best
Welcome! edit
|
Help edit
Hello new wikiproject member! I was a member last year and have had some success with several articles. If you need help or advice I am still pretty active on wikipedia and will be more than willing to assist you. Just leave me a comment on my talk page. Note that I will not do your work for you!!!--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 16:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
I noticed that your page is a little box-less. you can find them all here. --Artemis Gray (talk) 02:42, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
WOW, thanks for that tip. I just used the link and got some boxes. Needless to say I am not very computer savvy.--Rebekah best (talk) 02:53, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Tisk, tisk...worrying about userboxes while grades are at stake. :-( [ J.K., I don't really care :) ]--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about me, I can take care of myself. By the way, that's the first time I have seen anyone use abbreviations. Good job!--Rebekah best (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Hey, I know you can, just messing around anyways...jeez. :-] NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:16, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
- Don't worry about me, I can take care of myself. By the way, that's the first time I have seen anyone use abbreviations. Good job!--Rebekah best (talk) 03:10, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
Well... edit
...its been about a month now, not too much work done/being done, hope you have a good explination for that at the end of the year when you sit down with the big cheese...--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
- To add on to User:NYMFan69-86 above,
| EDIT. | 1. Little tunny 2. Mauritian Tomb Bat |
There is no excuse for not editing. Do yourself a favor, and edit now while you can work at a relaxed pace. You’ll soon find that that’s how Wikipedia functions. Procrastination only yields a failing grade and a poorly written article. You might want to check out these things if you haven’t already: Article views:[1],[2]. edit count. Also, if you have a wikipedia-related problem that’s stopping you from editing or need some help, feel free to ask by posting a message on my, User:NYMFan69-86, User:JimmyButler, etc.’s talk pages. –Vancemiller (talk · contribs · count · email) 22:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Comment edit
Concerning your recent (beautiful) additions to little tunny, see it's talk page.--NYMFan69-86 (talk) 03:35, 12 November 2010 (UTC)
One more comment edit
Congratulations for being the first in the pack to make a contribution in the next phase, to population bottleneck. If you look in the reference list, you can find two copies of your reference. I suggest you remove the copy that is written among the references. The one that is together with the text it supports is sufficient. You might also read paragraph Theoretical mechanisms in punctuated equilibrium. That text describes how small founding groups, a kind of bottle necks, may be necessary to produce radically different life forms. Does this contradict the statements that you entered? If it does, how can this be resolved? --Ettrig (talk) 13:25, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Thank you for commenting! I appreciate your input. I don't believe that the article does contradict my new statements. I was careful to use the word "may" so that it would not come across as a definite outcome. I think it is true that speciation can occur in small, isolated population. However, I also think that, more often than not, the isolated population will just die out. This is because it does not alway get the diversity it needs for natural selection. (I mentioned this in my statements.) Natural selection would also be more likely to occur in a small population. A large population was one of the requirements for Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium, so natural selection would definitely take place at a slower rate. However, any trait that is even slightly beneficial would grow in percentage given sufficient time. I will see to the referencing problem.--Rebekah best (talk) 23:47, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
- Ettrig has raised a concern on the population bottleneck talk page that is most specific and clearly needs to be addressed. This is known as peer-review. It is what defines science and gives publications credibility. It is also why one must truly understand the content they are adding as opposed to hand picking sections from sources on the same topic and transferring them to Wikipedia. --JimmyButler (talk) 15:50, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Interaction edit
I'm adding a new point category. Interaction with the Wikipedia community in a respectful and intelligent manner (5pts). Disagreements are inevitable; however, social grace can go a long way in reaching consensus. My disappoint with first semester was the lack of exchange - often because students did not monitor the pages carefully to even know a comment had been made. This destroyed the enthusiasm of those who have traditionally assisted our efforts. Thank you Ettrig for both the encouragement and for not abandoning us in our time of need!--JimmyButler (talk) 00:59, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Writing tip of the day. edit
Efficiency is preferred in scientific writing and likely within formal business letters. Look for words in a sentence that can be removed without altering information being conveyed. For example: "The whale then swam to the surface". If you can find the "filler word" here then you can remove it from the contributions and then you will receive 10pts. --JimmyButler (talk) 19:21, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
Haha, very funny. I fixed the problem, though.--Rebekah best (talk) 21:58, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Transitional Fossils and Runcaria. edit
It is a very important subject, and I wish to take it to GA/FA status in the future. An example you included, Runcaria is being discussed. As you can see, it now has its own article. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 06:09, 24 February 2012 (UTC)