![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
I note you have changed the citation style to Vancouver in this article. Generally under the MOS citation style is not to be changed. What is the special reason here? Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
|author=
parameter). The only difference in changing from ((cite journal)) to ((vcite2 journal)) (and |author=
to |vauthors=
) is generation of clean meta data. Otherwise the displayed citations look identical. Boghog (talk) 08:52, 2 January 2015 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Articles for creation for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (gossip) @ 20:44, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
In this edit [1]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:44, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter to ((cite journal)). That way compact author lists will be fully supported. If we do nothing, storing multiple authors in a single |author=
parameter may be deprecated in the future. Boghog (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter to the standard ((cite journal)) template. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter. The only consequence of replacing |vauthors=
with |author=
is that the former generates clean author metadata whereas the later does not. In all other respects, the displayed citations look identical. As requested here, what I really would like to see is the |vauthors=
parameter be supported directly by the ((cite journal)) template. If that is done, then I think we can convince the maintainers of WP:REFTOOLS to add |vauthors=
as an option. I have been expanding the use of ((vcite2 journal)) template, especially within Gene Wiki project to make sure that there are no issues with the new template. I have not notice any issues, so the next step would be to make a request here. I foresee some resistance to the proposal, so I would really need some support from WP:MED to make this fly. So my question to you is (a) do you think this is a good idea and (b), if so, would you support it? Boghog (talk) 20:00, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
were to be added to other languages citation templates? Then there would be zero extra steps. Boghog (talk) 21:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)|vauthors=
were not added to other languages cite templates, there would be still no extra steps. For example, to translate into Spanish, one must replace "cite journal | author" with "cita publicación | autor". If the article used vcite2, then would instead replace "vcite2 journal | vauthor2" with the same "cita publicación | autor". No extra steps. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
were added to the other language citation templates I would support as there would be zero extra steps. It has taken a massive amount of work to install the citation templates in 100+ languages already. User:CFCF did most of it. Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
Manage link if it should be & something has expired. RDBrown (talk) 04:19, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Template:Infobox nonhuman protein has been nominated for merging with Template:Infobox protein. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)
Hey Boghog - I started working on an eoxin article (from my userspace for now... User:Seppi333/Eoxin) and noticed an issue with the naming convention of the associated enzyme articles for these compounds. Arachidonate 15-lipoxygenase (15-LOX) has 2 subtypes: 15-LOX-1 (located at ALOX15 - this is the eoxin producing enzyme) and 15-LOX-2 (located at ALOX15B).
Our other lipoxygenase articles use the longer name (e.g., the most notable lipoxygenase is 5-LOX; this contraction and ALOX5 both redirect to Arachidonate 5-lipoxygenase), so I'm assuming the ALOX articles should be moved for consistency:
Do these moves seem appropriate? Also, should the general 15-LOX article be converted to a set index of these two, or just remain as is?
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:59, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
Some refs for context:
Nevermind, I'm not going to edit these pages further since I lack the background chem knowledge to really understand what I'm writing about. And on that note...
![]() |
The Science Barnstar | |
This is for all the work you put into expanding and improving amphetamine's chem content and citations; you helped a lot with getting through the FA process and I appreciate the assistance. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:48, 2 February 2015 (UTC) |
Hi! Sorry, I edited again since I thought I just missed to save... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciMarie (talk • contribs) 16:30, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
looks good! Thanks for you help and input! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SciMarie (talk • contribs) 16:36, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
The article is a stub so expanding the article with new information is necessary. If you delete new information you will prevent a coverage of the whole area of interest. If something is unclear or could be improved just expand it yourself or correct it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.232.111 (talk) 18:28, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help. It was the paper containing the crystal/NMR structure and the analysis of the data for the variant so it is the source for this specific data. I could not find another structure yet. Perhaps the other sources should be audited as well since there are two other primary sources too. Maybe all of the sources could be fortified (but not replaced) by this review :The NQO1 polymorphism C609T (Pro187Ser) and cancer susceptibility: a comprehensive meta-analysis [[2]]? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.57.232.111 (talk) 21:10, 6 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi, Boghog,
I see you have been in the thick of editor discussions about how to format citation templates. I just saw your recent edit of Chikungunya on my watchlist, and looked up your wikilinks to editor discussion about the doi templates and other templates. Here on your talk page I see you are also discussing templates. I'd like my practice to human-readable, not subject to willy-nilly reversion by people running bots, and consistent with the practice of more experienced Wikipedians, so I'd appreciate hearing from you your thoughts on why (or why) to include whitespace between the equal sign that distinguishes a field label from field content or whitespace before or after the pipe character that shows the beginning of a new field. I have a habitual pattern in using whitespace, which I think I picked up from the documentation of the citation templates, but maybe I can change my habits if I see a rationale for doing so. For an example of how I do citation template, I invite you take a look at a Intelligence citations bibliography I keep in my user space. What do you think about the mark-up style there, which I tend to copy and paste into articles as occasion arises? Thanks for any thoughts you have about this or any pointers you can give to Wikipedia documentation on the issue. See you on the wiki. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:14, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
|display-authors=
, |author-link=
, etc. parameters. To permit the storage of author data in a more compact comma delimited list while retaining all the advantages of first1, last1, first2, last2, ... parameters, I created the ((vcite2 journal)) template (see also rationale). Boghog (talk) 06:51, 1 February 2015 (UTC)@WeijiBaikeBianji: Concerning the guide to brief inline citations, there are two methods that are in use in your example, both of which have distinct advantages and disadvantages. The is no one "best" way to organize citations. A lot depends on the type of citations and how they are used. Individual editors may also have their own preferences and which style is used is subject to WP:CITEVAR.
In your example, the first citation style is ((harvnb)) and the second is List defined references. I think harvnb makes most sense if the citations are to books and different pages of same book are cited in different parts of the Wikipedia article. The disadvantage of this method is that it is more complicated and generally not needed if most of the citations are to journal articles. If different pages of the same source need to be cited, ((rp|page number(s)))
is an alternative. The advantage of list defined references is it separates the clutter of the citations from the text. The disadvantage is that it is separates the text from the source that supports that text make it somewhat more difficult to compare the two. List defined references make the most sense if the same source is used multiple times while less sense if each source is cited only once. Boghog (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
As Doc James mentioned above, another potential disadvantage of both techniques is that they may not be supported in all foreign language Wikipedias making it more complicate to transfer a English Wikipedia article's citations into a foreign language article. Boghog (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Can we have a bot do this on all medical articles and than do so again on regular basis?
Consensus is here [3] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:26, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
You appear to have introduced a citation error into Tobacco smoking when you replaced a cite PMID template with a cite journal content (see the last citation). I don't know how that could have happened if you were simply substing the templates. Be careful out there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
((cite pmid/9862656))
and ((cite pmid/2136102))
templates that were substituted and the script I am using to do the substitution did not anticipate these inconsistencies could exist (these templates contained "author" + "first" + "last2" + "first2" parameters, huh?). I will modify the script so that it checks for inconsistent author format input and outputs a consistent author format. Please note that this script does a lot more than substitute the templates. It rebuilds the templates from scratch using the data supplied by the templates and supplements with data from PubMed if missing in the template. The script also checks to see what the predominate citation style is (multiple authors assigned to a single "author" parameter vs. "first1, last1, ..." parameters) and maintains that style in the substituted template. (Of course, it would be much cleaner to use the more compact ((vcite2 journal)) template and store the author list in the |vauthors=
parameter ;-) Boghog (talk) 17:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
In light of your comments about the protein template merger, I figured you might have some thoughts on a protein naming problem. We currently have an article ribonuclease A, and another, skimpier one at pancreatic ribonuclease, to which RNase I redirects. Fine, except RNase A and RNase I and pancreatic ribonuclease are all accepted synonyms for the same thing. Worse, the UniProt recommended name for these in eukaryotes is the clunky "ribonuclease pancreatic". The RNase A article (the most common term in the literature by a long shot) focuses mostly on the well-studied bovine form (UniProt).
The technically correct resolution seems to be: merge the general content in ribonuclease A to pancreatic ribonuclease, redirect, and move what remains on the bovine protein to bovine ribonuclease pancreatic, but that's awful. Is there any compelling reason (broken bots?) not to put the bovine form at bovine pancreatic ribonuclease, even though that breaks the convention a bit? Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:35, 5 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, just wondering if you have any feedback before I paste this image into FOSB.
It came from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC58680/figure/F1/.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 07:18, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
I'm sorry I've felt it necessary to revert your recent edit to Hyperbaric medicine. I'm very sympathetic to the desire to do away with ((cite doi)) and removing access dates from journals, but your edit went far beyond that. You changed dates with month and year to just the year. You merged multiple author parameters into a single author parameter. You replaced the full name of a journal with an abbreviation. In each of these cases your edit removed information, or reduced data granularity, or obfuscated information. The data in our references is available for third parties to use via data dumps and removing pieces of information or lumping together multiple pieces of information simply makes it more difficult for those third parties to extract information from the dumps. Someone had gone to the trouble of separating individual editors when writing the reference and you ditch that hard work when you pull all of it into the author parameter - not to mention that you make the reference less amenable for re-use in other articles that use different citation styles because you've hard-coded the separators. Finally there's a long-standing consensus that because this is not a paper encyclopedia, it's better not to use journal abbreviations (Wikipedia:Scientific citation guidelines #Citation format); many readers won't know the abbreviations and supplying the full journal title is a service to them. Again, somebody went to the trouble of finding the full journal title and using it. Setting it back to an abbreviation is a retrograde step and you ought to avoid doing that. --RexxS (talk) 01:08, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
@RexxS::
multiple author parameters into a single author parameter– The original consensus stated that the substitution of ((cite pmid)) templates should comply with WP:CITEVAR. Concerning the author parameters, my edits were completely consistent with WP:CITEVAR. The Hyperbaric medicine article had a mix of author formats but by far the predominant (and the originally established style) stored a Vancouver style comma separated author list in a single
|author=
parameter (70 citations). In addition six citation used "first, last, author2, author3, ..." format, four used a deprecated "coauthor " format, and one was a transcluded ((cite pmid)) citation that used a "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." format. WP:CITEVAR also states that consistent a citation style within an article is desirable. Before my edits, there was a mix of styles. After my edit, there was a consistent style. The reason for using "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters is that it generates clean metadata. However the value of this metadata is highly dubious. First, how often is this used? Second, Wikipedia is not a reliable source and this includes citations that may suffer from accidentally or intentionally introduced errors. The vast majority of this citations in this article came from PubMed. The only metadata one really needs is the pmid where one can download a fresh, error free copy using RefToolbar or some similar tool. The best long term solution might be to use a parameter like |vauthors=
in ((vcite2 journal)) that would generate clean metadata without the character overhead of explicit "first1, last1, first2, last2, ..." parameters (see rationale).Someone had gone to the trouble of separating individual editors when writing the reference– that someone was Citation Bot (diff) as a followup to an incomplete citation added by an ip (diff). This bot edit was in violation of WP:CITEVAR.
reduced data granularity– I reduced excessive unnecessary data granularity. The Vancouver style comma separated author list is trivial to parse.
simply makes it more difficult for those third parties to extract information from the dumps– again, before my edit there was an inconsistent mix of formats. After my edit, there was a consistent format that makes it easier to extract information.
your edit removed information– some of the citation author lists were incomplete and my edit added the missing authors. Again, why would anyone want to reuse incomplete error prone citation data extracted from a Wikipedia article? Wikipedia is not a reliable source of citation data. PubMed is.
full name of a journal with an abbreviation– again, the reason for doing this was consistency. The majority of citations before my edit used abbreviations. I can modify the script so that full journal names are used throughout. However the danger of doing this is that occasionally a journal has a very long name in which case other editors might complain.
month and year to just the year– once again for consistency. I can modify the script so that a consistent
|date=MMM YYYY
format is used.I hope this explanation is sufficient. Would it be acceptable to use a consistent (1) Vancouver style author format, (2) full journal names, and (3) |date=MMM YYYY
throughout this article? Boghog (talk) 15:13, 11 February 2015 (UTC)
|author=
parameter. Hence not only the current predominate format, but the first established format used the Vancouver system. This is probably true of most older medical articles that used Diberri's template filling tool to create citations.|vauthors=
parameter contents with appropriate error checking to produce clean author metadata and is fully compatible with |author-link=
and |displayauthors=
parameters. Furthermore its use is completely transparent to both Wikipedia editors and content consumers.|vauthors=
support directly into Module:Citation/CS1 so that it can be used in the standard ((cite journal)), ((cite book)), etc. templates. This parameter would have all the advantages of "last1, first1, ..." parameters without the character overhead which can become significant for citations with a large number of authors. Boghog (talk) 20:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)Hi, boghog I did read the guidelines and policy and I must have missed a few things, when you pointed me in the right direction I saw that the like that I posted did in fact violate the terms and conditions.
That was not my intention as I thought it was relevant and is except for the fact that it's also there to sell which is the part that violates the terms and conditions.
I do apologize for this and will try to pay more attention to what is allowed and not allowed as I am new here.
Sincerely, Matt6648 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt6648 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
I like this a lot. Thanks for doing it. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:57, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
|department=
parameter is both a non-obvious (i.e., the name of a "department" in a magazine or newspaper) and not ideal since it doesn't automatically include parenthesis. Boghog (talk) 16:21, 19 February 2015 (UTC)I appreciate where you are coming from. However, the entire goal of an open source reference is to encourage individuals to add material where they have specific knowledge. I sincerely hope that you and others will edit, remove and improve what I have tried to add, however, a blanket declaration of 'spam' is not right, nor an accurate description. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon33dn (talk • contribs) 23:25, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
Extended content
|
---|
|
Using material you have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is relevant, conforms to the content policies ... is not excessive ... and should not place undue emphasis on your work. When in doubt, defer to the community's opinion.I am part of the community opinion. You have only added citations from one research group to a number of articles which clearly qualifies as excessive. Furthermore all the citation you have added are WP:PRIMARY (
reliable primary sources may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them). Citing only your own papers is neither acceptable in scientific publications nor per WP:UNDUE, in Wikipedia. Finally the material that you have added appears not central to the subject of the article. In short, the purpose of the material that you have added appears more to promote the work of one research group rather than improve Wikipedia. Boghog (talk) 00:08, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cathelicidin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Kallikrein 7. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello Boghog,
I just want to let you know I will be editing the ERCC6 page quite a bit in the next few days. I will make sure not to amend any of the content you have written.
I am a Stanford University junior majoring in chemical engineering; the reason for my edits of this page stem from a project I am doing for biochemistry 2 class here (ChemE183). As part of my grade, my edits must be able to be seen (obviously). I just wanted to let you know, and ask that if I put any information on the page/formatting that you don't agree with, please let me know and I will fix it immediately. I don't want to step on the shoes of any other editors; yet, I also want to make sure my content that I am taking quite a bit of time to post doesn't get deleted.
Thanks so much and let me know if any other concerns arise.
Ajit Vakharia Stanford '16 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajit Vakharia (talk • contribs) 23:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Useless generalization deleted. I am sure that you have become aware that sulfur in cysteine is quite different from that in ITC, so that the change was also an implausible generalization. In other words, the change was about sulfur-containing phytochemicals, about which nobody can make useful generalizations in effect on life, and the article is restricted to about three specific categories. Thanks. 70.74.198.226 (talk) 09:40, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MTA1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Transcription. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, as you probably already know from the edit notification/echo ping, I've nominated the amphetamine article for TFA. I was wondering what you thought about the blurb I wrote for it at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests/Amphetamine. I basically just took a couple sentences from the first 2 lead paragraphs and condensed them to meet the ~1,200 character limit (I just made sure it had fewer characters than the featured article blurb for today, which is over 1,200).
Is there anything you think we should change in it? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 03:49, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Boghog you have a minute--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DNAJC19, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chaperone. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
Hello Boghog - thank you for your guidelines on formatting this page. I will be working on this entry and that for ERCC1 under the direction of Andrew Su and Ginger Tsueng of the journal GENE (Elsevier Press) who have asked us to edit this entry in addition to writing a review article on ERCC1 and ERCC4 that will be published in GENE. HumDNARepair (talk) 21:20, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Your edits introduced multiple "Vancouver style errors" - perhaps something has changed in the cite templates. Regards. Materialscientist (talk) 12:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll see on WP:MCB, but I thought I'd ask personally here too. Given how excellent the enzyme FAR was, it'd be great to have your help in overhauling the gene article a bit. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure you'll see on WP:MCB, but I thought I'd ask personally here too. Given how excellent the enzyme FAR was, it'd be great to have your help in overhauling the gene article a bit. T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 10:08, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited PDE6B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CGMP. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NAD(P)H dehydrogenase (quinone 1), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page NQO2. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 17 April 2015 (UTC)
Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfox369 (talk • contribs) 20:23, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I would like to inform you that it was not the wrong pmid number. Rather, the Pubmed Central number was listed, which I double checked and is correct. I will be watching any further edits carefully. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Silverfox369 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
|pmid=
. PMC ≠ PMID. The script that I used to reformat the citations assumes that the PMIDs were correct, but this in case they were incorrect. Boghog (talk) 20:33, 22 April 2015 (UTC)Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Troponin C type 1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ventricular. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
…going to rekindle old conflagrations by deeply engaging you on the question you left at my talk page. This once, I'd reply that the content moved to footnote in the article in question was all there before I arrived, was moved to the footnote so that it could be retained and not deleted, was corrected for the same reason, and was tagged as it was to make clear that someone had said those things (that were in the original content), and that that very someone needed to be identified. So, yes, I called attention to the shortcomings still present after the editing I had done. This, I have found for the most part, results in good longterm consequences for articles, at least with people who AGF with regard to my editing. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
the content moved to footnote in the article in question was all there before I arrived. – False. You have tagged your own edits. @Leprof 7272: tagging own edits diff Boghog (talk) 22:19, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
Boghog, one is not supposed to comment on neutral notices of discussions elsewhere---but far worse is that your comment is misleading, as it appears to point to a discussion in which a consensus had been reached, when in fact it links to the very discussion of the notification. Please demonstrate your good faith be removing your misleading comment. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 17:47, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
The important discussion is that concerning cite ISBN generally not the talk page issue. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:38, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 1 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello Mr. Boghog,
I have been editing the pages of subunits of proteasome complex. I noticed that the structure of my content has been edited by you. I want to share my consideration with you.
Proteasome is a very complicated subject to discuss. I noticed that there is a page dedicated to proteasome and have been trying to connect my page to the main page as much as possible.
For the Gene Wiki page of each individual subunit, I think it should contain the following information as following,
1. Intro: basic information regarding the gene and protein, and their brief function. 2. Structure: I think it should started with "protein expression". It includes the information regarding the gene and its process for translation. It should also contain information regarding the protein itself, including MW, PI, and amino acids. As a component of a complex, the "complex assembly" is an important part within the structure section. 3. Function: I started with evidence provided by crystal structure. In my humble opinion, the major function of a subunit is its interaction with other partners and its contribution to form the complex, which needs strong evidence from crystal structure analysis. And the function of proteasome as a whole, including protein degradation and MHC class I precessing, is less important since it is about the complex instead of this particular subunit.
As a long term process, I am trying to search information regarding this individual protein, such as its unique interaction with other enzymes, or their contribution to gate opening or complex assembly. These information will come back later.
If you may kindly share your thought regarding the structure and content of these particular subject, I would be really appreciate it.
Best,
Heartbd2k DingWang (talk) 20:26, 1 May 2015 (UTC)Heartbd2k DingWang
Thank you for spending time to share your thought. I agree for most of your idea. I just started to write those pages and multi-subunit complexes is quite a complex concept to cover. I will try to adopt your structure in my future writing.
I will revisit those subunits when I have filled most of them with basic information. I will add more specific info regarding subunits themselves instead of the whole complex. the complex has its own page which should provide more detailed information regarding the complex info.
Best,
Ding — Preceding unsigned comment added by Heartbd2k DingWang (talk • contribs) 22:05, 2 May 2015 (UTC)
This is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (express) @ 16:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, thanks for catching the extra periods that were being added; not sure why WPCleaner is doing that, I'll have to file a bug report. However, you really shouldn't revert the entire edit, especially when it would be so incredibly easy to remove the extra periods. Please undo your reverts and manually remove the extra periods. (Or, if you really don't feel like manually removing the periods, undo your reverts and let me know so I can remove the periods.) Each of the edits you reverted contained more than adding a period. Thanks, --L235 (t / c / ping in reply) 04:34, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I just noticed that you reverted Cite PMID to the old style. Cite PMID is very convenient. PMID is the record number we use in all references in the biomedical sciences. If Cite PMID has been deprecated (as you wrote) why it is still mentioned at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Citation_tools
Warning banners
| ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
((cite pmid)) and ((cite doi))
|
On your writeup in the Signpost. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:53, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Hey Boghog - since I'm planning on merging the content from the other 2 articles (butyrate + sodium butyrate) at some point this week, and since this is basically a drug which is MOS:CHEM, MOS:MCB, and MOS:PHARM/MOS:MED, I was wondering if you'd be interested in lending a hand in organizing it accordingly. I have no idea how significant any of the 3 compounds are from a chemist's perspective, but from a medical POV, butyrate-producing microbiota are essentially the symbiotic equivalent of toxoplasma gondii (in mice, toxoplasmosis induces DNA hypomethylation in amygdalar AVP-related genes) - they're bacteria that can+do modify the host's neuroepigenome - and can drive subtle long-term changes in behavior in healthy hosts as a result. (e.g., PMID 25401092)
Is any chemistry-related data in the chembox worth retaining/incorporating in the chemistry section if a drugbox is used instead? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm sure some researchers/authors realize the current limitations of butyrate, but the doses used in addiction research are generally at least half or less that of what I've seen covered in those cancer papers... I remember seeing ranges of 100mg/kg - 300mg/kg when specified as oral or "systemic", the latter end of the range corresponds to the sodium butyrate dose used in their original paper on amphetamine/HDAC1/c-fos to restore c-fos once it was repressed by ΔFosB. That not really that bad IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:47, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Hey there!
Just wanted to extend my thanks for your formatting help on the MAPK15 page -- I'm pretty new to the editing process, and really appreciate your updates! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sasanit (talk • contribs) 22:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:32, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:33, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
You are receiving this message because a technical change may affect a bot, gadget, or user script you have been using. The breaking change involves API calls. This change has been planned for two years. The WMF will start making this change on 30 June 2015. A partial list of affected bots can be seen here: https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-l/2015-June/081931.html This includes all bots that are using pywikibot compat. Some of these bots have already been fixed. However, if you write user scripts or operate a bot that uses the API, then you should check your code, to make sure that it will not break.
What, exactly, is breaking? The "default continuation mode" for action=query requests to api.php will be changing to be easier for new coders to use correctly. To find out whether your script or bot may be affected, then search the source code (including any frameworks or libraries) for the string "query-continue". If that is not present, then the script or bot is not affected. In a few cases, the code will be present but not used. In that case, the script or bot will continue working.
This change will be part of 1.26wmf12. It will be deployed to test wikis (including mediawiki.org) on 30 June, to non-Wikipedias (such as Wiktionary) on 1 July, and to all Wikipedias on 2 July 2015.
If your bot or script is receiving the warning about this upcoming change (as seen at https://www.mediawiki.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=allpages ), it's time to fix your code!
Either of the above solutions may be tested immediately, you'll know it works because you stop seeing the warning.
Do you need help with your own bot or script? Ask questions in e-mail on the mediawiki-api or wikitech-l mailing lists. Volunteers at m:Tech or w:en:WP:Village pump (technical) or w:en:Wikipedia:Bot owners' noticeboard may also be able to help you.
Are you using someone else's gadgets or user scripts? Most scripts are not affected. To find out if a script you use needs to be updated, then post a note at the discussion page for the gadget or the talk page of the user who originally made the script. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 19:03, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Dropped you a line. WormTT(talk) 07:49, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Template:PMID3 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Magioladitis (talk) 12:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Hey Boghog - I know you're knowledgeable about this topic, so I figured I'd ask. I expanded a table (NF-κB#Addiction) yesterday based upon a new review, but I made an assumption about an effect of NF-κB when I replaced "regulation of cell survival pathways" with "NF-κB inflammatory response in (structure)". Am I correct in assuming the former statement could entail the latter as a functional consequence? I'm not entirely sure on that since NF-κB makes a distinction between an inflammatory response and a cell survival response in the text.
I'd need to add that entry back into the table otherwise. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:56, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Membrane-bound transcription factor site-1 protease, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Golgi. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
Was adding a citation for the AEBP2 article to this publication but I think I messed somerthing up. Can you help add the correct parameters? Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.39.34.12 (talk) 19:04, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
![]() |
The Barnstar of Good Humor | |
To Boghog, for pointing me to AXL receptor tyrosine kinase. Axl ¤ [Talk] 13:59, 28 July 2015 (UTC) |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NRL (gene), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Photoceptor. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nuclear receptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Synaptic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:47, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
For the record, bold, italics, and all caps cannot all mean shouting here, so I took your down-dressing on that matter as particularly weak. Perhaps work to have these tools disabled in Talk? Since others have allowed, but since you they so offend? Meanwhile, you may use no textual tools for emphasis, but I do. You will not change me, at least not in the limited ways you seem willing to try.
That is to say, if the rest of your life experiences have not taught you this, hear this once from me: beating peers is not a winning strategy of persuasion. Your way of relating/communicating with me does absolutely no good, whatsoever, toward the ends that you seem to be aiming for (compliance, respect, etc.). It smacks of overwhelming personal frustration (enough so that it has led me to offer up an occasional passing prayer for your work and family).
Otherwise, when I make a knee-jerk mistake and initially misunderstand another editor's effort, I most often correct myself, editing out prose regarding my misunderstanding, especially if it has led me to misjudgment and criticism. While I will never again touch your words, anywhere, I would offer you might do the same with your own words at the other page.
Whether you decide to leave them in, a testimony to your "shoot first, ask questions later" approach to me, is up to you. But, again, just this once: Besides doing me no good at all—only tempting me to reply in kind, a temptation which I committed some time ago to deny—I suggest they do you no good either. Note italics, no bold. (To the extent that I understand the less collegial, more vitriolic forms of our natures—imagine losing temper with wife or colleagues—these self-indulgances, when they occur, damage not only the receiving party, but also ourselves.)
However, note, when you respond "against interest" (I take based on precedent that a significant interest of yours has been attempting to belittle me), that is, when you actually find some point on which to agree with me, it is so bloody remarkable as to be breathtaking and thought-provoking. Then, then, you are truly admirable, and I am responsive. (A word fitly spoken is like apples of gold in a setting of silver… or again, To make an apt answer is a joy to a man, and a word in season, how good it is.) Do whatever you will, there, at the Infobox issue. I won't respond to that matter, further. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Could you have a look at the optimum temperature you gave in the Lactase article? There is a discussion here which claims that the reference you added gives 37 and not 25 as the optimum. --Raziman T V (talk) 08:38, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to know exactly what aspect of this edit constituted "ref spam". Thanks. Everymorning (talk) 02:18, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
A 2015 study in Cell Metabolism detected irisin in human plasma using tandem mass spectrometry. Why is the year in which the study important? Why is the journal in which this study was published important? Why was the detection method important? This sentence tells more about that study than what the study says about the protein. When I run across contributions like this, it is frequently due to some one trying to promote their own publications, and if so, this is a form of WP:REFSPAM. Combined with earlier studies, the paper suggests that "human irisin exists, circulates, and is regulated by exercise". This is far more relevant than the year, journal, and detection method. Unfortunately this is a primary source supporting a medical claim which is strongly discouraged per WP:MEDRS. I think it better to wait until this finding is supported by an independent secondary source. In sort, I think it is too soon to include this statement in a Wikipedia article. Boghog (talk) 02:55, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:17, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
Hey, this refers to [6]. What tool did you use to make those changes? I get why vauthor is preferred, but I tend to use the citation generator a lot, and that won't spit out the vauthor, nor will it make the other changes you made... So if there's a way to fix that myself without manually going over each ref or having others fix it (not my intention at all!), I'd prefer that. Thanks. Garzfoth (talk) 09:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter, there is no longer a need for ((vcite2 journal)) (just replace "vcite2" with "cite" ). When I find some time, I will make a change to the tool so that it outputs "cite" instead of "vcite2". Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:57, 25 August 2015 (UTC)|vauthors=
parameter. Boghog (talk) 17:08, 29 August 2015 (UTC) Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 30 August 2015 (UTC)
Per this edit here [7] the discussion is for deprecation rather than deletion yes? Wondering if we can change this? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:37, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
Your edit summary; "Not WP:MEDRS compliant nor does it directly support the corresonding text." ... where in MEDRS?
References:
((cite journal))
: Cite uses deprecated parameter |authors=
(help)99.109.126.40 (talk) 05:53, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, I would like to know why you think that PNAS journal is an unreliable medical sourse. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnemonic1975 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HOXA5, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page PTEN. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited DDR1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esophageal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:37, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:PDB#Requested edit 2. Thanks. Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for fixing up my edits concerning the FAT gene wikipage. I am very new to this and am learning the syntax on the fly. In particular the referencing, which I get wrong all the time.
Concerning the wiki entry. FAT is not really correct anymore. The accepted name is now FAT1 (see also http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=FAT1). Problem being that FAT (without the 1) is an alias for CD36.
Is it possible to rename the entry to FAT1 instead of FAT. Will this then alter any links made from other pages?
Your help much appreciated.
Best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkiNaki (talk • contribs) 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
Thats great. Thanks for renaming the page. I do note that if you do a google search, it still comes up FAT (gene) as a hit, rather than FAT1 as the page name. But I guess this will change with time?? Will the redirect page ever disappear?
Thanks also for the link on how to insert citation links for the wiki page. Much appreciated.
Best, — Preceding unsigned comment added by SkiNaki (talk • contribs) 06:57, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Could you take a look at the merge proposal on this page when you get a chance? No crisis, but another opinion would be welcome. --Smokefoot (talk) 17:47, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
Joylandrews (talk) 05:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)== Crucial to leave the only link in the internet available to help find other kids with H3F3B mutations. Not "spamy"! ==
Why have you called my edit "spamy"? It is absolutely relevant and crucial to get information to parents of kids who have mutations in H3F3B. What type of reference would you like in order to publish the link to help these families get their kids the medical attention they deserve? I can provide you with a genetics report if that is helpful.
Thank you.
Joy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joylandrews (talk • contribs) 03:51, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Don't use external links to web-based or email-based support groups for patients, professionals, or other affected people (even if run by a charitable organization).
How would you recommend this be re-written to meet the criteria? Or are you saying that Wikipedia cannot publish information about medical theory when it is emerging? Can I phrase it in a different way that would make this admissible? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joylandrews (talk • contribs) 05:39, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, I have no connection to Genedx other than that they are the company that did the exome sequencing for four of the five known cases where a child has a known mutation in H3F3B. I am fine leaving the company name out of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joylandrews (talk • contribs) 05:40, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Also, please note that the website is NOT a support group - it is a place to find other patients so that medical studies can be done and these children's lives can be improved and maybe even saved. And, the Facebook page already found one medical researcher in Germany who found it in an online search. Please be a part of the search for information and help me find a way to write this section in a way that complies with the standards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joylandrews (talk • contribs) 05:45, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for this. I do understand that Wikipedia has strict guidelines. Is there a way to edit the section so that it more clearly calls out that the site exists? For example, could I add "There are ongoing efforts to locate individuals who have genetic mutations in H3F3B, such as at www.H3F3B.org, so that they can connect to the researchers who are currently studying this condition"? This is accurate. Neurologist Elliott Sherr at UCSF (http://brain.ucsf.edu/) is writing a paper on these variations. Thanks again - I really appreciate it.167.246.62.1 (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
The synthesis of this enzyme is the same to all enzymes... what can I do? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Alara (talk • contribs) 18:33, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I'm copyediting this article at the request of LT910001 on the Guild of Copy Editors request page. Since we're edit-conflicting, I'll put their request on hold; please let me know when you're done, so I can continue. Thanks and all the best, Miniapolis 20:19, 21 October 2015 (UTC)
I just made some edits to the 1L-1a page that were rejected in whole. I can see if the wording is an issue, but having reviewed the page referring to primary sources, I do not think that ClinicalTrials.gov, Elsevier, or the numerous PubMed links could be problem. If you want the name of the drug used removed, that would be fine, but it is no lie or mistruth to say that there are more iL-1a agonist pharmaceutical applications being examined than currently listed. If there's a change in wording you'd like, let me know. In my text, I attempted to try to limit talking too promotional a tone by taking the wording from the "Purpose" sections in the case of currently running clinical trials. In hindsight, I think that I should have used the exact wording from the findings/results sections in the PubMed and if you want to talk about what that would look like, that's fine. That said, it is not an untruth that the pharmaceutical applications are being examined. Moreover, I maintain that the sources are legitimate. The sources are (in order) as follows. Let me know which one would count as a primary source.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccargo (talk • contribs) 22:05, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this is how you respond on here (as you can tell I'm about as new as they come), but thanks for the thoughtful response. It seems fair. (Though the Multikine wasn't me, I thought the same thing, but I didn't want to touch it.) I'm going to be honest, I don't see myself showing the same commitment to editing here. (Some are editors and some are readers) Would it have been better to just put a message up on the talk page for IL-1a and let someone else do it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmccargo (talk • contribs) 13:30, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Hello. You have recently merged Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase with DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase. We are 4 students of a Medicine University and we have just realized that our contributions are not visible. This is a problem because when the teacher will correct our work won't know where to find what we have done. All the article you emerged with DNA-3-methyladenine glycosylase is our work and we want you to do something about this. Please answer me. We are waiting an early answer to this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Arafi (talk • contribs) 09:31, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Which is the reason for the merger? Both terms, DNA-3-methyladenine DNA Glycosyalse and Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase, are different concepts, being DNA-3-methyladenine DNA Glycosyalse an enzyme in E. coli and Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase a different enzyme that, despite sharing the function, have considerably different structure and mechanism, as well as another function (ODG activity) that DNA-3-methyladenine DNA Glycosyalse lacks of. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Salmeron (talk • contribs) 10:50, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Good morning Boghog, we are the creators of the wikipedia article that you merged with yours:" Human Alkyladenine DNA Glycosylase". We are 1st-year students of Medical School in Barcelona (Spain) and this article was a project for our Biochemistry Class which has a agreement with the local offices of Wkipedia. Because of the modification that you made, our article doesnt exist anymore and the project is due tomorrow so we want to ask you to undo the merge until November 10th and then you can do whatever you want. This project counts a 30% of our final grade and we would appreciate if we can restore our work. Thank you, Martín Marzabal — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB15-Mmarzabal (talk • contribs) 11:40, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Telokin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:09, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
I reverted an edit you made at drug discovery because the link involved was spammed rapid-fire to many articles - WP:REFSPAM. If you feel the reference was indeed appropriate at this article, please feel free to add it back. Since you seem to be active in editing in this subject area, will you please examine the other articles where I reverted this addition and revert me if you think I was wrong to remove it? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 15:00, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
...that you were an expert on the inflammasome, but your work at the NALP3 article was a distinct improvement over what appeared before. I am glad your periodically disrespectful commitments regarding this editor occasionally point in a constructive direction. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2015 (UTC)
Maybe you can help out at photosynthesis. Its not a lot of work. An editor is angry with me and I dont agree with them, so someone else should look over their work. Hydrogen per se is not involved in photosynthesis unless it is coupled to a hydrogenase and even that is rare. But whatever, the main thing is to make the text right and clear, independent of my or their mood swing. --Smokefoot (talk) 15:24, 23 November 2015 (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) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:18, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2015 (UTC)
I saw you reverted a lot of the changes I added to the page. These were all referenced with decent evidence base. All of the added information is of interest to patients (or typically their parents). As a reference source do you not think this material should be available on wikipedia? B A Thuriaux (talk) 16:11, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
And another thing...
I object to the idea that I added primary material on the site. There was no primary material there.
Finally, I have read the notice in "medical advice" to which you helpfully provided a link... nothing in that notice states that wikipedia has a policy of not giving advice.
If you wanted to add material that is fine, but you should consider carefully before removing existing material with decent references. What I mean is that it is fine to add references to baclofen and other drugs which are used to treat seizures etc. but it is not fine to remove references to CoQ10 and other anti-oxidants as this is typically the only "medication" that patients are given.
Publication Types, MeSH Terms, Substances, Grant Supportlists this paper as both a Meta-Analysis and Review. Hence this source is secondary. Ostergaard 2007 publication is primary while her 2009 publication is secondary. I know she reviewed her own work, but the review article also places this work in a wider context and is also subject to another round of peer review, hence the review should be considered more reliable. In any case, I have retained the conclusions of the material that you added about the founder mutations while trimming some of the unnecesary detail. Boghog (talk) 20:37, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
At present, the evidence of [vitamins and cofactors] effectiveness does not rise to the level required for universal use., if we mention CoQ10 and antioxidant therapy, we need to also mention that evidence that this treatment is effective is lacking. Boghog (talk) 17:12, 29 November 2015 (UTC.
I made not comments on the efficacy of the treatment, simply that that treatment with cofactor q10 is the most frequent form of treatment (this is the case for any kind of Mitochondrial disease). I will revert but happy to insert a source that says that there is conflicting evidence on the efficacy of CoQ10 suplementation in MDS (and certainly no evidence of an impact in the case of SUCLA2 - but because no one has investigated this for SUCLA2). B A Thuriaux (talk) 17:57, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited SUCLA2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CoA. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 30 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
Not everything needs a reference. That material I added is a statement of the obvious; obvious to anyone that knows something about the subject. If you knew the subject matter you would recognize the material was correct and improve it with the reference you think it needs rather than resort to the mindless nonsense of reverting an edit at the behest of your friend and inciting an edit war. Please read from this article to gain a basic understanding of the process.
From the wikipedia article on Photosystem II : "The hydrogen ions (protons) generated by the oxidation of water help to create a proton gradient that is used by ATP synthase to generate ATP." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosystem_II
An edit that is insightful, reasonable, and well written should remain; improve it rather than revert it. I don't need your permission nor anyone else's to perform edits here. Zedshort (talk) 13:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I don't see that you have been properly notified that Glyphosate is under discretionary sanctions and is subject to a 1RR restriction per the temporary injunction in the Arb case. Please do not edit war in the GMO topic area, or elsewhere. Please disregard this notice if you have already been notified. Thank you. Minor4th 23:09, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
FYI, herbicides are a type of pesticide. It's a common mistake for people to think herbicides are not a kind of pesticide. That being said, I'm hoping to leave the article be for the time being until the ArbCom case closes, which should be in a few days from the most recent update. I may not agree with everything you've said so far over at glyphosate (really more minor things best left when the dust settles from the case), but I'm glad to see editors not involved in the case are willing to work on the page. Kingofaces43 (talk) 21:37, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Boghog I noticed that you are having to fix some of my edits for consistent formatting after I made deprecated (co-authors)parameter fixes. I hope that hasn't been too frustrating for you. I have been individually listing the authors as described in the fix here which is obtained by clicking on the (help) link such as this example ref 3 here. I usually use the doi generator to generate the new cite parameters. Regards CV9933 (talk) 11:31, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
|coauthor=
with explicit |first1=
, |last1=
, ... author parameters is a legitimate way to fix the deprecated parameter error. I prefer to use the |vauthors=
parameter since it preserves the original formatting style. Boghog (talk) 11:43, 21 November 2015 (UTC)I noticed that you changed the format of the references on the page for SCNN1A that I edited as part of the Gene Wiki project. Your revisions are acceptable to me. But, I generated the references using the Wikipedia's own CITE application that is available on each page. If you really want your style then could you please contact whoever is responsible for the CITE application to change the format that is automatically generated. This will save you time and will save the author time to recheck the page.
Genewiki1 (talk) 07:44, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
Genewiki1 (talk) 09:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Slam Dunk Contest, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Fred Jones, Dee Brown and John Wall. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for your Serpin edits! I always appreciate your citation formatting blitzes! T.Shafee(Evo﹠Evo)talk 09:10, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) is wishing you Seasons Greetings! Whether you celebrate your hemisphere's Solstice or Christmas, Diwali, Hogmanay, Hanukkah, Lenaia, Festivus or even the Saturnalia, this is a special time of year for almost everyone!
Spread the holiday cheer by adding ((subst:User:WereSpielChequers/Dec15b)) to your friends' talk pages.
There are a lot of long articles about genes, enzymes etc. marked as stubs. They turn up at Wikipedia:Database reports/Long stubs, a place I monitor. I'm afraid I don't understand much of the content, and I am certainly not competent to decide how complete they are. I wonder if anyone in the projects you are associated with would be prepared to monitor them?Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:24, 27 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:25, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. The amine oxidase article has some issues and I was wondering if you could help me figure out how to address it.
The main problem is that the article content (text, infobox, and citations) is entirely about the AOC1 gene (UniProt link) and the protein that it encodes (the diamine oxidase/histaminase enzyme: EC 1.4.3.22), while the article title spans a much broader scope. A more correct title for AOC1 would be amiloride-sensitive amine oxidase (copper-containing) or amine oxidase (copper-containing), although the latter term includes AOC2 and AOC3 as well.
A second issue is that several enzyme articles (e.g., Flavin-containing amine oxidoreductase) include text along the lines of "xyz's are a family of various amine oxidases". There's a very large number of incoming links to the amine oxidase article in large part due to its inclusion in various navboxes, so finding these articles isn't particularly easy to do to remove such links.
In order to address this, I think the current amine oxidase article (Special:permalink/697409496) should be moved to AOC1 and then a new amine oxidase article should be written to cover the topic with the correct scope. The only issue with this is that "amine oxidase" technically refers to a huge number of enzymes since it's an ambiguous name. In a nutshell, I'm not really sure how to address rewriting amine oxidase after moving the current page to a more appropriate title. Should that article just be a stub which states something along the lines of "Amine oxidases are a family of enzymes that catalyze the oxidation of amines" and then lists a few examples like the ones below?
A few human "amine oxidases"
|
---|
For example, some of the enzymes that I can find listed as an "amine oxidase" in a database (ExplorEnz or BRENDA) include: amine oxidase (flavin-containing) (alternate name for EC 1.4.3.4), amine oxidase (copper-containing) (alternate name for EC 1.4.3.21 and EC 1.4.3.22), flavin-containing monooxygenases (EC 1.14.13.8), renalase (EC 1.6.3.5, spermine oxidase (EC 1.5.3.16, N1-acetylpolyamine oxidase (EC 1.5.3.13), Protein-lysine 6-oxidase (EC 1.4.3.13), and other enzymes classified as an "amine oxidase" (e.g. epigenetic enzymes like KDM1A). |
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:42, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Amine oxidase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alkylamine. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:08, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, Thank you for all your useful edits to the Parathyroid hormone article.
Would you mind having a look at the Calcium_balance.jpg diagram (which can be viewed in the Calcium metabolism article) to see whether it should not replace the current Calcium_regulation.png. The current diagram is inaccurate in that it shows blue arrows (which represent PTH's effects according to the legend) pointing only to the kidneys as target organs. PTH's effect on bone is unclear in the diagram (being indicated in unexplained pink, which seems to suggest that PTH causes bone resorption via 1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D. This is incorrect). The purple arrows are also undefined. It is, in my opinion, a very confusing and misleading diagram.
The two diagrams do not display exactly the same information. Calcium_balance.jpg is about the movement of calcium from one body compartment to the other, and indicates how each of these movements is regulated. The Calcium_regulation.png diagram attempts to illustrate PTH's target organs, but clutters it with the effects of 1,25 dihydroxy-vitamin D and of calcium ions, in a blaze of colors with undefined points of origin or end-points, or explanations in the legend.
Cheers Cruithne9 (talk) 11:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Let me give this some thought. I think that what you point out about the action of calcitriol on bone is important, as it would explain why calcitriol can be used as replacement therapy in patients who have had parathyroidectomies. If I managed to fit in an purple arrow going from 1,25 dihydroxy Vit D3 running parallel to PTH's purple arrow to the bone resorption calcium-flow arrow in the File:Calcium_balance.jpg diagram, would that be an acceptable summary of the physiology of calcitriol? The alternative would be to mention it in the legend; but that is too long as it is already - and I am not too sure that that would be be adequate, as the picture speaks a thousand more words than text does! Cruithne9 (talk) 06:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Try File:Calcium balance 2.jpg to see how you like it. Cruithne9 (talk) 09:26, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. I'm not sure that you were notified that I had added comments to the end of the Parathyroid hormone article section, above. It is about a new diagram I have created.
My apologies if you have seen the comments, and are busy evaluating the diagram etc.
Cheers (and best wishes for 2016). Cruithne9 (talk) 16:03, 2 January 2016 (UTC)