User talk:Pdcook

April 2010[change source]

Welcome, Pdcook!

Hello, Pdcook, and welcome to the Simple English Wikipedia!

You may begin by reading these:

For some ideas of pages to work on, read Wikipedia:Requested articles or the list of wanted articles.

At Wikipedia, remember to be bold! This means that you should not be afraid to change any articles. This is because, if you make any mistakes, you can always fix it later! If you have any questions, you can always ask them at Simple Talk.

I hope you have a fun time here. If you need any help, be sure to visit Simple Talk or contact an administrator. See you around!

—Classical Esther^talk 02:25, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Query[change source]

What is the point of this other wikipedia when we already have the normal Wikipedia? Immunize (talk) 16:41, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see the point of a Wiki being "simple". Immunize (talk) 16:42, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied on your talk page. Kansan (talk) 16:45, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems others have answered the question well enough. I think the Main Page had a reasonable answer to your query: "The Simple English Wikipedia is for everyone! That includes children and adults who are learning English." P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 18:53, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Enzyme[change source]

I've had a look, and I think it needs to be more or less completely rewritten. The enWP article is not much good either. It's an absolutely central article for biochemistry and cell biology, too important to be left as it is. An interesting source is Arthur Kornberg's For the love of enzymes: the odessy of a scientist. Harvard 1989. I'd welcome you doing it, what do you think? It does require adequate chemical knowledge. Macdonald-ross (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well I know the en:enzyme article was rated FA a few years ago. I'm hoping I'll have the time to work on the Simple article, and I agree a ground-up rewrite is probably the best way to go. Perhaps I'll start a userspace draft this weekend. Regards, P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 16:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm obviously wrong about the enWP article. What was I thinking of? Anyway, I've put in brief sections about enzyme function and cofactors. Macdonald-ross (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm hoping I can work on these some time, but the en:May 2010 Tennessee floods have sucked up my free time. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 02:43, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I ran across more sources, and so did more work on Enzyme. I've put up the 10-billion-fold quote to Template talk:Did you know. Macdonald-ross (talk) 07:50, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

expansion[change source]

Please expand your articles to a reasonable length (paragraph). Anything less can be speedily deleted. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:06, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Working on it. I guess I didn't see "article is a stub" as a CSD. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:07, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Technically, no. The criteria is mainly used for one-two liners that don't show any expandable content (little or no meaning). However, some admins have expanded the use. Griffinofwales (talk) 01:11, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would be unfortunate if my referenced additions get deleted merely because they are stubs. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 01:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2010[change source]

Everybody forgets sometimes, but here at Simple English Wikipedia we use the section heading "Other websites" instead of English Wikipedia's "External links", which you used in "Carl Levin". Do remember to use "Other websites" in articles that you create in the future. Thanks for your help! Belle ^{tête-à-tête} 05:43, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the tip. P. D. Cook ^{Talk to me!} 12:12, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]