Seppi333

Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 9, 2016

Always friendly and constructively active at and around WT:PHARM and Template talk:Infobox drug. Seppi was patient and persistent and succeeded in gaining the first pharmacology FA star in over three years.

Recognized for

Bringing Amphetamine to FA status and Adderall and Methamphetamine to GA status.

Nomination page

@Doc James: How woul you feel about titling the section "Drug effects"? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:50, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

How about "Adverse effects"? Drug effects is for both positive and negative. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Read the 2nd paragraph of Amphetamine#Physical and the first paragraph of Amphetamine#Psychological; much of that content isn't about an adverse effect. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:53, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: So are you fine with "Drug effects"? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 11:58, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I do not think "drug effects" is good as that also covers "medical uses" and the positive effects. Most people use the term "side effects" and "adverse effects" as synonyms. Some people argue that they have slightly different meanings, but I doubt most people agree. I am happy with either one of them. Would also support the use of "harmful effects" but should likely bring it to wider discussion before implementing. One could move the positive physical and psychological effects under a heading in "uses". Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:02, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. For now, change it to adverse effects in the 4 articles; while it seems a bit stupid to list effects like the ones I pointed out under that heading, one could argue that those effects can be considered "adverse" since what constitutes an undesired or harmful effect is subjective, whereas assertions about abuse and escalating doses are simply inconsistent with the definition of side effects. Alternatively, we could use "non-therapeutic effects" if that works for you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:10, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"Adverse effects" has consensus. I have asked if Casliber is also good with that. Not a big fan of "non-therapeutic effects". Overly long and not commonly used. Other wise will make the change tomorrow if no concerns. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:22, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Can you cut "Long-term adverse effects" and change the "Side effects" to "Adverse effects" in nicotine? Same thing in methamphetamine. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 12:45, 23 May 2019 (UTC)°[reply]

Sure done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:43, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Doc James: Ty. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very glad that you are just on a break! Have a good time.--Iztwoz (talk) 08:26, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: FYI, I finally contacted the head of SVAI about publishing in WJM, among other things. He's going to get back to me within a week once he's had some time to go through my email. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:50, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

270° panorama overlooking La Jolla Shores Beach as seen from the Martin Johnson House, Scripps Institute of Oceanography, during a late August sunset. Photo by Gregg M. Erickson

Who: All members of the public

What: Southern California Wiknic & Bonfire.

When: Sunday 1 September 2019, 2:00PM PDT / 1400 until 10:00PM PDT / 2200

Where: La Jolla Shores

Sponsor: San Diego Wikimedians User Group ( US-SAN )

Your host: RightCowLeftCoast (talk · contribs)

Please add your username to our attendees list so we know how many will be attending, and please add your intended potluck contribution to the list.

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject San Diego at 18:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC). You can unsubscribe from future invitations to San Diego Wikimedians User Group events by removing your name from the WikiProject San Diego mass mailing list, and from the Southern California meet-up group by removing your name from the LA meet-ups mailing list.[reply]

Thanks for your comment here - I entirely agree - and also wow at your expertise with the addiction article. Was wondering if you had any time to review and/or comment here for the article I wrote and had a lot of help with, as I've been trying to improve the whole category. Aiming for FA nom at some point soon. Thanks so much :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 10:53, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@E.3: Hi there. I'll take a look but I don't have a whole lot of time at the moment. If/when you nominate the article at FAC, let me know. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:53, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi how are you? Thanks again for helping with this article. I was hoping you might consider reviewing this again per FA criteria. Thanks :) --[E.3][chat2][me] 06:42, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'll take a look soon. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 09:20, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic reviews and support so far, the article with all of everyones help has become more interesting than I ever hoped! --[E.3][chat2][me] 12:11, 19 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I have compeletely rewritten the source code for this template, which should resolve the last regression from your report. And I dropped the parser function, using CSS only to transform letter case. Would you like to review my change? Thanks. -- Great Brightstar (talk) 09:53, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interlanguage links for Addiction and Substance dependence seem to be a bit mixed up. Are you interested in helping straighten it out? (Ping me if you are.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:58, 25 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@WhatamIdoing: I haven't actually looked at the data pages, but what I expect is that other language variants of WP conflate the 2 as one disorder, which would more accurately be termed a substance use disorder. If that's the issue, I'm not sure it'd be possible to accurately link the articles on addiction/dependence/SUD to the right wikidata item without revising, merging, and/or moving articles from other language variants of WP to match the article title with the scope of the article content. I might do more harm than good trying to fix that since I'd have to use machine-translation when editing other Wikipedias. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:25, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds complicated. I can tell that some of the titles are "wrong", but as you say, it's not necessarily clear whether the title accurately represents the subject of the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Seppi333, I have been meaning to contact you for a while now, with some questions about approaching a few articles, as I noticed on your user page that you may have some relevant experience. I have mainly edited bio related articles on wikipedia, but am looking to make a foray into statistics articles, because a number could use some revamping; specifically, Matrix calculus, structural equation modeling, factor analysis, and mixed models. Many of these articles fail to cite seminal articles, or key formulations of matrix differentiation (Magnus and Neudecker), and overall fail to link together with coherent notation, not even within each literature(i.e. factor analysis lit tends to use certain symbols and equations, but the factor analysis page ignores a lot of this). Do you have any recommendations about how to approach a project like this? I've started in my sandbox with FA here

Petergstrom (talk) 00:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Haha, I'm actually in the same boat as you when it comes to editing articles that are unrelated to my off-wiki skill set. In terms of editing those articles, the only thing you should really keep in mind is whether or not your edits are compliant with MOS:MATH. Everything else is pretty much the same as any other article in terms of citation policy. As for standardizing the notation with the literature, I don't see any problem with that and I'd encourage you to do that; you might want to just leave a note on the talk page explaining what you're doing if you completely revamp a section though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:42, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Petergstrom, on the question of symbols and equations, you might be able to get some help at WP:MATH. Also, the visual editor has an equation editing tool, which you might want to try out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed 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 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add ((NoACEMM)) to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

Google Code-In, Google-organized contest in which the Wikimedia Foundation participates, starts in a few weeks. This contest is about taking high school students into the world of opensource. I'm sending you this message because you recently edited a documentation page at the English Wikipedia.

I would like to ask you to take part in Google Code-In as a mentor. That would mean to prepare at least one task (it can be documentation related, or something else - the other categories are Code, Design, Quality Assurance and Outreach) for the participants, and help the student to complete it. Please sign up at the contest page and send us your Google account address to google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org, so we can invite you in!

From my own experience, Google Code-In can be fun, you can make several new friends, attract new people to your wiki and make them part of your community.

If you have any questions, please let us know at google-code-in-admins@lists.wikimedia.org.

Thank you!

--User:Martin Urbanec (talk) 21:58, 23 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry this got a bit fraught. I didn't fix the dablink once I thought to check for it because opening that huge list to edit it gave me a wall of text of which the main message seemed to be that a simple change to that list would be inadequate and would be overwritten. I figured that as you knew what was going on you'd know how to sort it out. I think we now offer help to all sorts of readers with that dab page, whether they want a gene or internet slang (or an airport or an imprint).

Good luck in your project to sort out all the other ambiguously named genes. PamD 16:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seppi,

Would you mind if we moved the Cathelicidin discussion from WT:MCB -> WT:MOLBIO, since it's a topic relevant to both the cell biologists and geneticists? No worries either way, but I'm hoping that centralising towards the main talkpage will also help keep cross-talk between the communities easier. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Evolution and evolvability: Sure thing. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Puddleglum2.0 has given you a cookie! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. You can spread the WikiLove by giving someone else a cookie, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend.

To spread the goodness of cookies, you can add ((subst:Cookie)) to someone's talk page with a friendly message, or eat this cookie on the giver's talk page with ((subst:munch))!

Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 17:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Puddleglum2.0: Haha, thanks. Been a while since I got one of those! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:33, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

:D you're welcome! Puddleglum2.0 ^{Have a talk?} 17:34, 30 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold,

I bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all people.

For unto you is born this day in the city of David a Saviour, which is Christ the Lord."

Luke 2:10-11 (King James Version)

Ozzie10aaaa (talk) is wishing you a Merry Christmas.

This greeting (and season) promotes WikiLove.

Spread the cheer by adding ((Subst:Xmas4)) to their talk page with a friendly message.

--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ozzie. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:06, 18 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SELECT DISTINCT ?gene ?geneLabel ?hgncsym ?gname ?pname
 {
   ?gene wdt:P31 wd:Q7187 .
   ?gene wdt:P703 wd:Q15978631 .
   ?gene wdt:P353 ?hgncsym .
   ?gene wdt:P688 ?protein .
    OPTIONAL { 
    ?article 	schema:about ?gene ;
                schema:name ?gname ;
 			    schema:isPartOf <https://en.wikipedia.org/> .
    }
    OPTIONAL { 
    ?article 	schema:about ?protein ;
                schema:name ?pname ;
 			    schema:isPartOf <https://en.wikipedia.org/> .
    }
   SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } .
 }

Click here to launch the Wikidata query

This gives you 1.gene item, 2.item name, 3.HGNC name, 4.(optional)article name linked from gene item, 5.(optional)article name linked from protein item. Best--SCIdude (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also this gives you all family items with enwiki articles (453):

SELECT DISTINCT ?family ?familyLabel ?fname
 {
   VALUES ?ftype { wd:Q417841 wd:Q67015883 wd:Q67101749 }
   ?family wdt:P31 ?ftype .
    ?article 	schema:about ?family ;
                schema:name ?fname ;
 			    schema:isPartOf <https://en.wikipedia.org/> .
   SERVICE wikibase:label { bd:serviceParam wikibase:language "en" } .
 }

Click here to launch the Wikidata query

--SCIdude (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what I needed, thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:30, 19 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewer of the Year

This year's Reviewer of the Year is Rosguill. Having gotten the reviewer PERM in August 2018, they have been a regular reviewer of articles and redirects, been an active participant in the NPP community, and has been the driving force for the emerging NPP Source Guide that will help reviewers better evaluate sourcing and notability in many countries for which it has historically been difficult.

Special commendation again goes to Onel5969 who ends the year as one of our most prolific reviewers for the second consecutive year. Thanks also to Boleyn and JTtheOG who have been in the top 5 for the last two years as well.

Several newer editors have done a lot of work with CAPTAIN MEDUSA and DannyS712 (who has also written bots which have patrolled thousands of redirects) being new reviewers since this time last year.

Thanks to them and to everyone reading this who has participated in New Page Patrol this year.

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days

Rank	Username	Num reviews	Log
1	Rosguill (talk)	47,395	Patrol Page Curation
2	Onel5969 (talk)	41,883	Patrol Page Curation
3	JTtheOG (talk)	11,493	Patrol Page Curation
4	Arthistorian1977 (talk)	5,562	Patrol Page Curation
5	DannyS712 (talk)	4,866	Patrol Page Curation
6	CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk)	3,995	Patrol Page Curation
7	DragonflySixtyseven (talk)	3,812	Patrol Page Curation
8	Boleyn (talk)	3,655	Patrol Page Curation
9	Ymblanter (talk)	3,553	Patrol Page Curation
10	Cwmhiraeth (talk)	3,522	Patrol Page Curation

(The top 100 reviewers of the year can be found here)

Redirect autopatrol

A recent Request for Comment on creating a new redirect autopatrol pseduo-permission was closed early. New Page Reviewers are now able to nominate editors who have an established track record creating uncontroversial redirects. At the individual discretion of any administrator or after 24 hours and a consensus of at least 3 New Page Reviewers an editor may be added to a list of users whose redirects will be patrolled automatically by DannyS712 bot III.

Source Guide Discussion

Set to launch early in the new year is our first New Page Patrol Source Guide discussion. These discussions are designed to solicit input on sources in places and topic areas that might otherwise be harder for reviewers to evaluate. The hope is that this will allow us to improve the accuracy of our patrols for articles using these sources (and/or give us places to perform a WP:BEFORE prior to nominating for deletion). Please watch the New Page Patrol talk page for more information.

This month's refresher course

While New Page Reviewers are an experienced set of editors, we all benefit from an occasional review. This month consider refreshing yourself on Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). Also consider how we can take the time for quality in this area. For instance, sources to verify human settlements, which are presumed notable, can often be found in seconds. This lets us avoid the (ugly) 'Needs more refs' tag.

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:11, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which transclusions were broken? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Amphetamine&oldid=932066097 Whywhenwhohow (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I should’ve said “refs broken in transclusions”, as the named refs you modified are explicitly called in them. IIRC, it was all of them. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 15:37, 23 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]