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 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited NUBPL, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lactate. 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) 09:26, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to, please take a look at the articles Emil Källström and Jonas Åkerlund (politician) that I have created. Any help is appreciated.--BabbaQ (talk) 19:04, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edittoEden ahbez may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi, just to let you know: PERSONDATA is no longer used and should not be added to articles anymore. See this decision: Wikipedia:Persondata and the discussion that led to it. I saw that you added it to Jonas Åkerlund (politician) so you were probably not aware of this. If you come across an article with the PERSONDATA template, please remove all of it. Best, w.carter-Talk 22:55, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
…I am attempting to agree with you and support you at the glyphosate talk page. Cheers. HNY. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 06:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited CCL3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Pyrogen. 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) 09:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
If you want to, please take a look at the article about Carina Jaarnek that I created today. Regards,--BabbaQ (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2016 (UTC)
On29 January 2016, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Jonas Åkerlund (politician), which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that Sweden Democrat Jonas Åkerlund called immigrants "parasites" during a broadcast on his party's radio station in 2002? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Jonas Åkerlund (politician). You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, daily totals), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page. |
Boghog, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:
- ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON
- Saturday, March 5th, 9:30 a.m. – noon
- Madison Public Library (Madison, Wisconsin)
- Bring a laptop! There will be snacks and daycare
RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The additions to these articles look like a copy/paste as they have references boxes ([1][2]) still in them. They also contain PUAs, which usually come from a copy/paste. Bgwhite (talk) 07:32, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MTA2, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages IL-11 and P300. 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) 12:41, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the help with the formatting. There is an issue with the lead paragraph. The reason I cut it out originally was because it was wrong. This is why I'm going to change it back. If you can help me make a better lead then I would appreciate it. Thanks alot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arsalanm110 (talk • contribs) 14:31, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
We are in a this discussion about reordering names and sections in {{Drugbox}}. A slow and large issue as it happens, all fine. Yesterday I have worked the feedback into the proposal, and the demo (sandbox) is available! My question now is: could you check it for being sound & clear? i.e., not to comment, but to polish and simplify it, before I ping all participants? I am worried it is too complicated & too many angles, for most participants. That would hinder the discussion & outcome.
Useful links: talk sections #about Section moves 2 and #about Names 2. Demo in the testcase pages like /testcases9|.
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) 00:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further. |
Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Boghog, this was a quick reaction! Thank you for helping. I went for dinner, when I came back you had already corrected my double references ans improved a heading! Thank you!Lave (talk) 18:47, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Boghog, I appreciate very much the changes that you made to the references, this made the editing so much easier. I did not know that this was possible. However, I have another problem: I am now in retirement and do not have the former easy access to the scientific literature. I can reach search the medical literature and read the articles that are open. In some cases I can walk to the library of the medical university and read on the spot, but there are many journals that are not available. Does Wikipedia in some way give me access to medical journals that are not free? I intend to contunue updating the thymidine kinase, and now with more time I could possibly put some other enzymes or tumor markers on my watch list.Lave (talk) 12:54, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that blazingly fast fixup of citation formatting. I am sorry I do not comply, i just like the simple style. But i don't mind your changing them and understand why you do it, and appreciate it. I moved the content added by the sock of the blocked editor to the talk page. happy to discuss if you care about the content.... Jytdog (talk) 21:47, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
I've listed you under Wikipedia:Million Award#Million Award Hall of Fame because of your help with getting amphetamine to FA status; so, you technically deserve one of these. Sorry that it's over a year late. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
The Million Award | ||
For your contributions to bring Amphetamine (estimated annual readership: 1,250,000) to Featured Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC) |
@Leprof 7272: There are two types of people in this world. Those that like to complain and those that like to fix things. You are clearly the former. This really is becoming ridiculous. Your use of attention banners is excessive. In Intrinsic factor, you placed attention banners on the article, sections, sentences, and references. This is excessive and needs to stop. You are not winning any converts. Boghog (talk) 19:39, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I didn't immediately fix everything in the article since I did not have access to the review articles. I now have the pdfs and will replace the remaining citations needed templates with WP:MEDRS compliant secondary sources forthwith. Boghog (talk) 19:52, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Your point is well taken, regarding your history at the logP-related article. In this case, I stumbled on what you might arguably, reasonably say is clearly your ground (unlike Natural products, for instance). However, the general point stands (regarding your responses to me), and your general sense of ownership of particular articles, including this, that you edit perfuses everything you write me. ("...I have worked hard to make this article more accessible. Please keep it that way." Even adorned by please, rhetorical imperatives—L. Lat. imperativus, "pertaining to a command," in English, "having the form that expresses a command rather than a statement"—are still clearly orders, and orders are given by those in power, self-perceived or otherwise.)
Having to rehash this with you leads me again to wonder, as I have in past, if this endeavor cannot be allowed at times to contribute too much to ones sense of value. At one time it did, perhaps, for me.
As for tags, we differ fundamentally in philosophy, and both allow our pendulums to swing too far. They were created for a reason, and to go from 0-60 may be too much, but going from 60 to a dead stop is also unhelpful (and denies the value for which tags were created). So, I will add back tags that I think are fully defensible, and we can take the matter to admin—since no article belongs to either of us.
And I am glad you too have had the opportunity to meet Yvonne, with whom I had an early opportunity to train, in a practical context. (What would she say of our squabbles, I wonder?) In any case, she is an esteemed colleague, and I am happy for all that have had opportunity to work with her.
Otherwise, I did not miss your point, at all, about my intro to her bullet. The goal is to emphasize some sources over others. You followed up with a distinct way from the one I chose (I add one starting source, and call attention to it. You make many small edits calling attention to reviews that I believe most inexperienced editors will miss/misunderstand.)
My point is, if inexperienced readers prone to mis-sourcing read a defensible statement that a source is "seminal" (as this one is, and defensible that statement clearly is)—and if such a brief statement can bias them to read and report the arguments of the seminal text over their own primary source interpretations, is this not in the interest of the encyclopedia? But you cannot assume good faith to allow me even that inch, when you know in this I am correct. You remain unpleasantly reactionary, and this is why I go out of my way avoid you.
And will return to doing so, as soon as I make a "last stand" at logP. At which, by the way, since the article is yours—first, if you were the one adding primary sources, I am sorry, but I think this was an ill-response, and I have to say this to you, as I would to anonymous, inexperienced editors. Second, the sep funnel image should be pitched. It is off-point, as I discussed in Talk—you know, that large, pages-long tab that takes more time and effort than hitting a revert button?—and in a Talk entry, I point to a review with a shake-flask summary image that (while yet poor) is better than a sep funnel. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:53, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272:You have got to be kidding:
Seminal work by Y.C. Martin on physicochemical properties in drug design. Martin, Yvonne Connolly (2010). Quantitative Drug Design: A critical introduction (2nd ed.). Boca Raton: CRC Press/Taylor & Francis. ISBN 9781420070996.
Seminal? Really? This is overly promotional and off topic the subject of partition coefficients. Don't hype the researchers. Have reverted. Boghog (talk) 18:43, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Stalk? I have made 1/4 of the edits in this article starting in April of 2007. This article has been on my watch list for a very long time. Boghog (talk) 19:25, 18 March 2016 (UTC) Comparing the current version with the version just prior to my first edit, the current version is much better sourced. Can it be improved? Of course it can. But please keep in mind that I have worked hard to make this article more accessible. Please keep that way. Boghog (talk) 19:31, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
mostly primary source trajectoryisfalse both before and after your claim. You are being dishonest. Boghog (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, I have some further plans, want your opinion about them:
For the first point above, have you a macro or something to re-organize the references the way you did in "Thymidine kinase", or did you re-organize it alol by hand? For the other points above, your view-points?
Lave (talk) 10:34, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
Lost your last three edits at Partition coefficient, because they came when I was still editing under the "Under construction" banner. Will you re-add them, or shall I? Your three are very small, both in time and nature, compared to the edit that was in progress. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:36, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
We both want the same thing here, a good article that is approachable by a general audience. And though we each might act as if articles are our sources of value, and belong only to us, we each know this not to be true.
This said, what is wrong with the new sep funnel image, with simplified legend? The new correlation image? Moving your Examples up in the article, next to the subsection that it relates to? Moving the partition adjacent to the maths? Do a diff and look at the hundred of edits. If a clear error was made change it—the logP versus log P matter was raised in Talk and remains undiscussed. If it is not a clear cut error discuss it. As we have agreed, and you have argued, you do not perceive this or any article as yours. Please, then, make this clear with your actions, and respect this editor, and his time, and this work.
If you insist on reverting carte blanche, I have take this disrespect and waste to an administrative level, and we will both waste profound amounts of time. Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I actually came here to make the point that I spent a considerable amount of time being respectful of your edits, if you read the edit summaries, and look at a diff of the before and after. It still is mostly yours. The article is still very much yours—structure, content, voice, etc. Can you allow no one to share your space? Or just not me? Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi I wanted to delete the UTS2 page but you instead wanted to merge the UTS2 and Urotensin-II page. I'm relatively new to Wikipedia so I don't know how to do a merger. Can you help me out with that? Thanks a lot. Arsalanm110 (talk) 13:55, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
re; buspar article. how are those medical claims, it is clearly labeled research. also, many medical studies use animals models for human research. on top of that many of the studies had multiple sources cited. why do you keep on removing the studies? it is useful information.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.66.90 (talk) 17:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your input. I thought about it and it's fine for you to remove what you think is wrong. I would rather not mislead anyone here. I did spend quite a bit of time researching for this, however. It's part of my PhD work and, while not complete, is founded. My teacher will just have to go to my last edit page. FYI, I may make one more edit before submission (proofreading). After that, I will not touch the page till I know more. Again, thank you for your input. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.42.88.141 (talk) 02:59, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
…moved in your direction, by reducing tag content. You have not moved at all in mine. At the same time, the record is clear. You have never worked on the article in question, and what you have done there—all you have done there—is to remove tags from sections with no sources at all, and removed a tag reason that is allowed by markup, and by guidelines. You are out of line. Read the article, before and after. At a request, I spent hours making it encyclopedic. You are stalking, and warring, and carte blanche disrespecting this editor. While it is nothing new, this adds clearly to a pattern on your part. Please desist. Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. fredgandt 22:06, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
…we can edit peacefully, at the article on the bomb-making mix. I retained your lede, but back edited, for reasons stated (leaving some questionable content in the markup, via the <!-- style of markup. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
One more time, and I spend an hour cataloging, and take you to a Noticeboard. 50.179.252.14 (talk) 23:41, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
…at Chromosome conformation… was a reversion pure and simple, and you doctored the Edit summary to disguise the fact. Deal with article issues. Stop warring. I am sincere in letting you know that I have had my fill with your imperious, "I am always right," and "In a 1-to-1 vote I always win" mentality. I will push this forward, and the myriad of your fans of late will likely be in attendance. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Dear Boghog,
Thank you for your suggestions and changes to the POLD1 article. I am editing the POLD1 article as an initiative with the journal GENE. Could you please make changes after I finish making the changes. Would be much appreciated.
Thanks, Sanjee — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevaniarora (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, I am almost done for the day. Adding figures. I am unsure how to move the table I have added as well as how to link the table to the text. If you could help me with that. I will be adding figures next, so give me a an hour to finish up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevaniarora (talk • contribs) 21:11, 25 April 2016 (UTC) Done for now, not sure how to edit the images and table and link it to the text. I have 2 more images to add but not able to get the right resolution on wiki. Please help! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevaniarora (talk • contribs) 21:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Thank you much Boghog, I had a few frustrating moments with the figures yesterday. I have 2 more figures to add, will try to do that sometime today and will really need your help with the adjustments. I have some more corrections in the table will do them as well. Much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.249.80.211 (talk) 13:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC) Thank you :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sanjeevaniarora (talk • contribs) 12:51, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
[1] - yes, agree. Actually, TOG superfamily is something highly suspicious, even though this is sourced. I think none of other databases uses it. My very best wishes (talk) 20:51, 4 May 2016 (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) 00:26, 15 May 2016 (UTC)
If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. This is a notice that the page you created was tagged as a test page under section G2 of the criteria for speedy deletion and has been or soon may be deleted. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you want to do. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia.
If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nominationbyvisiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Pranish|Message 07:33, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
…that until there is a longer history of your collegial participation with this editor in editing (much longer than applies at present), that your commenting at my Talk page, as if a mutually respected peer of others there, is simply not welcome. After we have had several occasions where your first impulse is no longer to perform baby-out-with-bathwater reversions, making me waste undue time to fight for portions of edits that are clearly contributions—until such time that you cease to make me fight for my very presence here—I will not have you commenting at my Talk. (Whether I will read unwelcome comments there, before deleting, I cannot say, but they will always be available to me via History, should I choose.) I understand, from several consultations, as well as general observation of behaviour, that it is my prerogative to do this at my Talk page. I cannot of course stop you from commenting at article Talk pages, and will not make any effort to alter your comments at places other than my Talk page. I look forward to a time when I might reverse myself on this matter. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
...follow this guidance, when responding to tags that I place, with which you disagree: see here. Thank you for following the rules. Cheers. Leprof 7272 (talk) 02:08, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:PubMed screen shot PMID 24685839.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:46, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Natural product, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Robinson. 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) 09:12, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. Would you be interested in writing another industrial/laboratory synthesis section for a drug/natural product article that I'm working on for FA (hydroxyisovalerate)? I could probably manage to piece something passable together on my own, but you did a terrific job the last 2 times you helped me out, so I figured I'd ask.
I still need to add and revise a fair amount of content in the article, so there's no rush if you're interested in tackling it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)
No problem - I appreciate the help. I've got a quick question about the MP/BP of this compound. I've found 3 sources that list different MPs/BPs for HMB:
Of these sources, only chemspider cites another source, but I'm still not really sure which MP/BP is correct (there was a similar concern on the HMB talk page a while back). I was wondering if you knew of any sources that corroborate these values. If not, should I just forego adding an MP/BP to the drugbox? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:38, 6 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Hello, I wonder why you are replacing standard citation style (last= | first= | last2= | first2=, etc.) with Vancouver style (vauthors=). Has there been any consensus on mass replace? Thanks, — kashmiri TALK 07:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
|author=
parameter to store more than one author has been deprecated and a new parameter |vauthors=
has been introduced. Hence I updated the parameters in this edit. A consistent citation style had been established before your first edit to this article and your subsequent edits have introduced an inconsistent citation style.|vauthors=
does everything that |first1=
, |last1=
does including producing clean metadata and providing full compatibility with |display-authors=
and |author-link=
. In addition, vauthors does one thing that |first1=
, |last1=
does not, and that is to provide error checking to ensure that the author names are consistently formatted. Vauthors does all of this without the unnecessary parameter overhead that |first1=
, |last1=
introduces. Boghog (talk) 08:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)|vauthors=
may be used in any WP:CS1 style template (cite journal, cite book, etc.) and currently is in use in over 39,000 articles. Hence the use of vauthors has effectively become a standard along side first1, last1 (for comparison, last1 is used in 326,000 articles). Boghog (talk) 09:01, 11 June 2016 (UTC)Hi, User:Wikid77 here. Per your concerns of nonconsensus template changes (dif815), I have noted similar problems with re-reverts in 6-year template {{cvt}} (hist) and blanking of the related doc-page sections, plus adding incorrect parameter descriptions in other doc-pages, then posting unusual tangent messages after an issue has been clearly explained, plus asking other editors (via template-talkpage) to revert edits, as a wp:meat puppet request to further push incorrect changes to templates or doc-pages. Such problems raise the long-term question of "wp:competence is required" beyond wannabe wp:TAGTEAM. I don't have time, now, to document all the edits, but this is just a notice of related concerns which I have had. Thank you (and others) for trying to stop similar edits. -Wikid77 (talk) 23:13, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Question: Would you please direct me to a site where I can learn what program to use for making a diagram figure and down-loading it to the ALOX5 Wikipedia page? I am joflaher. Thanks
Hi Boghog. First, belated congratulations on being editor of the week! That's some accolade! Second, I have been editing the CDKL5 page attempting to bring it up to date and include advances in potential treatments, slow and minor though they currently are. I believe you have removed some recent updates because the links/citations I used were to press releases, even though one of them was to the UK's National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) a body known for its careful language and avoidance of hyperbole. So would it be appropriate to use links to press reports which are based on the press releases? I am thinking of sources such as: http://www.pharmatimes.com/news/duchenne_patients_get_nhs_access_to_ptcs_translarna_1077311 or this: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSFWN19S0NS Please advise, Chris Chris7turner (talk) 13:25, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, apologies for the short delay in replying, I was at a festival over the weekend. Yes, this is helpful but I'm wondering if there is a way of including the early stage trials? They are happening and in a field where so little is known about treating the disorder, I'm wondering if this is actually worthy of public note? Perhaps there could be a section called 'pre-clinical trials' so that its clear what stage they are at?
I'm also aware of a charity recently set up which is well-funded and able to give grants to researchers in this field, www.louloufoundation.org, which needs a higher profile to be effective. How should this organisation be referred to? I should emphasise I am not personally involved in any of this but I know someone who is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris7turner (talk • contribs) 08:40, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Sorry, forgot to sign off properly.Chris7turner (talk) 08:41, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. This is good news, thank you. I have added one external link, to the CDKL5 forum, a recent initiative to bring together professionals working towards a greater understanding of CDKL5. I hope you are OK with this as it is not promotional, linked to any pharmaceutical company or involved in advocacy. Best, Chris Chris7turner (talk) 10:21, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Boghog |
Cheesehead to the Core |
Editor of the Week for the week beginning July 2, 2016 |
Excellent work on science related articles and willing to help out in topics such as medicine and science. Added bonus of having a knowledge level that produces quality articles. A no-nonsense kind of editor. |
Recognized for |
Work at WikiProject Medicine |
Nomination page |
Editor of the Week | ||
Your ongoing efforts to improve the encyclopedia have not gone unnoticed: You have been selected as Editor of the Week for work on science related articles. Thank you for the great contributions! (courtesy of the Wikipedia Editor Retention Project) |
User:Worm That Turned submitted the following nomination for Editor of the Week:
You can copy the following text to your user page to display a user box proclaiming your selection as Editor of the Week:
{{subst:Wikipedia:WikiProject Editor Retention/Editor of the Week/Recipient user box}}
Thanks again for your efforts! Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 21:15, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I just wanted to make contact & say Hi. On a blog I frequent, I recently ran into a nemesis of yours & Jytdog's - SageRad - and while researching the whole Glyphosate debacle I became aware of the two of you.
My contributions to Wikipedia to date have been pretty trivial, but I was wondering if there's still a need for Molecular & Cell Bio people. I bailed on a PhD program about 10 years ago without dissertation, so I have the equivalent of an MS in Molecular Physiology from Tufts in Boston.
What struck me especially, reading the Talk pages, is the legalistic nature of much of the arguments. Your point about a lack of an appropriate control in a source seemed less important than whether it was primary or secondary, which seemed odd. I'm only now catching up on all the FAQs, but I wonder if this kind of argumentation is one of the contributors to Editor Burnout that I've heard of.
Anyway, should I write to Doc_James to get involved in a project? What do you advise?
Thanks,
Rskurat (talk) 11:17, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Hey - I'm writing this on your page and another editor's page because you were both involved in (a very short) discussion about the my proposal for the renaming of a template recently.
Just to be clear from the start, I am not holding either of you responsible for the terrible state of the editing system of Wikipedia! But I wonder if either of you have the time to respond, or even help improve the system.. or perhaps even suggest it to someone else.. an admin or something.
My background: I am only ever going to be a casual editor of Wikipedia. I became sick of the WP:Systemic bias which led to mob rule in Wikipedia on certain subjects. More than that, I became sick of being hounded by certain individuals to the extent that my account was compromised. An admin informed me that there was no way to trace who had done this.
Anyway, I had a look back at the proposal I had made just now. One of you had suggested "SNOW KEEP" (I have no idea what that means), because I had nominated it for deletion. I recall, only a few years ago, that in order to rename something, you had to do an Afd (or equivalent).
I presume that mechanism has been changed, at some point.
Now that I'm no longer a regular editor, I haven't bothered keeping up. I have a strong background in coding, but the mechanisms for editing here now seem exhaustive! And inconsistent. And often ineffectual. Take this case, for example: it isn't a particularly important change for the inner workings of Wikipedia, I'm happy to admit. However, it is a change and I did attempt to take it through the proper procedure.
Thankfully, one of you has taken the time to put in an indirect. Had it not been for that editor, or admin, this procedure would have presumably completely stalled! I would like to think that some procedure is in place for closing admins so that a proposal does not merely get dropped just because it is in the incorrect place (deletion nomination instead of renaming nomination, for example).
I'm not sure that the solution is the best one, but I'll go with it because, frankly and with no disrespect, I really don't care enough to lend any more creativity, logic or time to the issue.
I just thought I'd point all this out and see what you guys think.
Thanks, Anon --98.122.20.56 (talk) 03:31, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, do you know if there's any existing articles that would be an appropriate redirect target for free acid? I've encountered the term a lot in journal articles and commercial websites about HMB (e.g., [3]) and I ended up using it in the HMB article to refer to the acid. Based upon how the term is used in publications, I gather that it's just referring to the protonated form of the conjugate base w/o any inactive moiety attached (e.g., analogous to how the term "free acid" is used here: [4]).
If there's no existing articles that would be an appropriate target for a redirect from this term, then I suppose I'll look for a chemistry textbook that defines "free acid" and use it to create a stub article. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Hey Boghog - sorry to bother you again, but I need your help with writing some more chemistry-related content on HMB. Someone from the FAC would like to see more about the chemistry of HMB, so I figured it would probably be reasonable to describe the chemical structure of HMB, analogous to how it was done with amphetamine in Amphetamine#Physical and chemical properties. Based upon the chemical taxonomy in this ref - http://www.hmdb.ca/metabolites/HMDB00754#taxonomy - how would you go about describing its structure? I'm not sure which structural parent(s) is/are the most notable or the best way to describe its structure in relation to those parents.
Sorry if I'm taking up a lot of your time with all these requests; I just don't have enough of a contextual understanding of chemistry concepts to be sure that I'm getting it right if I do this myself and I don't really know who else to ask. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
{{Annotated image 4}}
to annotate wikitext with a white background to blot out the existing image text on wikipedia; however, I'm not 100% positive that the background image text is blotted out by the white background on all web browsers. On my iphone's mobile safari browser, the annotated wikitext was shifted by 1–2 pixels to the left relative to where it renders on my laptop's chrome browser. I tweaked the image template in the article to address this on my iphone, but there might be other browsers where deviations like this cause some of the underlying image text to appear. If you're okay with the removal of that text from File:HMB synthesis.svg, just let me know. I've already edited the svg file to remove those 4 terms and am ready to upload it; I just wanted to ask for your permission to do this first.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, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Template:UniProt2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:40, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am contacting you, as you are very active in biochemical subjects. I do not want to take a major action without any consultation. The issue is this:
The Human Gene Nomenclature (HUGO) committee decided many years ago to name the genes coding for Acid sensing ion channels as ASICs. See the relevant page: http://www.genenames.org/cgi-bin/genefamilies/set/290 I think that in Wikipedia the gene names should be those approved by HUGO.
Currently ASIC1 - ASIC4 are redirected to ACCNx (x meaning a relevant digit).
I would like to cancel this redirect and transfer the current contents into the ASIC pages (that are currently redirected). Technically I know what to do to cancel the redirects and transfer the contents. After such a transfer ACCNx pages should be directed to the appropriate ASICx pages. I would appreciate reading your opinion on the subject.
Best regards, Genewiki1 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. Sorry to bother you with a merger issue again, but I just thought I'd double check with you to see if there's any reason not to go ahead with merging trimethylamine monooxygenase → FMO3. It appears to me that these are the same enzyme based upon:
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'll go ahead and merge them. Thanks for taking a look.
On an unrelated point, would you be interested in being co-opted as a nominator at the HMB FAC? It's pretty clear to me that I alone can't adequately address some of the more complex chemistry-related objections/concerns of some reviewers and I'm not entirely sure what kinds of information would be relevant or appropriate for a chemistry section. So, if you're willing to help out with addressing those issues at FAC and add any chemistry-related content on HMB which you believe is missing and can cite (I realize that not much data is available, so I don't really expect that much, if anything, can be added about its chemistry), I'd be happy to co-opt you as a nominator. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JMJD1C, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Histone demethylase. 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) 10:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding removal of eurocentric bias in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and corrected at revision Wikipedia policy demands that we must present neutral, unbiased consensus. The reference to European/American/Western authorities and the omission of non-white authorities directly conflicts with the policy on neutrality and bias. The world has changed, the eurocentric bias of the past is no longer authoritative and dominant. let us move forward and embrace and promote the diversity of world cultures.
That isn't balance either and some of the added sources are questionable.
The eurocentric sources currently prevailing are just as questionable (or valid, depending on your bias).
The African Journal of Biomedical Research, Myanmar Medical Journal, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences , Chinese Medical Journal are just as valid and reputable.
Wikipedia should not become a bastion of eurocentric authority and bias. Please let us progress.
We must strive to embrace diversity and promote a multicultural Wikipedia. Therefore, it is imperative to correct the wrongs and update the sources accordingly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.137.147 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello! thankyou for your help on editing the information about VGluT3. I´m not an expert about that, and I would like to know how can I change the sentences without change the real sense of the explanation? I would like to write it in the right way. Thankyou — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16Agutierrez (talk • contribs) 07:25, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello again. Ok I finally made a paraphrasis of the information, and I hope that it could be in the right way now. I made a Link to the SLC17A8 page because I think that it has a very technical information. Thanks for your comments, it helped me to improve myself writing articles. Thankyou! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB16Agutierrez (talk • contribs) 08:10, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
please check again if you find my explanation useful- \references were simply wrong if you read the cited literature!
these 2 proteins (collagen VII and FBLN2) are NOT interaction partners of the laminin alpha5subunit- please read: http://jcb.rupress.org/content/138/3/719 (the reference cited) carefully - it explicitly talks about laminin 5 - which is NOT the laminin alpha 5 subunit- same for the FBLN2 - cross references on the Collagen VII and FBLN2 page should also be deleted thus!
hope this helps — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salzprinzessin (talk • contribs) 08:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Do you have any suggestions on where this redlink should redirect to? I'm guessing that Microfilament is probably the best target, but ActinorActin#Cytoskeleton and Cytoskeleton appear to be suitable alternative targets; I'm also not sure if there's a more appropriate article which is better suited as a redirect target or if the topic merits its own independent article, so I figured I'd ask you. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:56, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Please get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Please get consensus first, esp. when coming follow-on to an article, that others have spent hours working on. Fix problems, not appearances. 73.211.138.148 (talk) 20:58, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I wanted to post to confirm the validity of your concern that any issue posted to WP:MED tends to attract a group of people who share a bias for medical topics. You have raised concerns about this before. While I like that there is group discussion in medicine, I wish that this perspective could be counterbalanced by other, equally organized groups which collaborate. Right now Wikipedia does not have many groups as organized as the one in medicine, which means that the pro-medicine perspective can encroach on physiology, chemistry, and a range of related topics which ought to be well-presented.
One of the unfairnesses of this is that for people like you who have a perspective in biochemistry, wherever you go, lots of medical advocates will appear and the relatively few biochem advocates are overwhelmed by numbers. This is not an ideal situation. I can recognize the lack of balance and think that it is not ideal. I am not sure how to respond to it, but I can acknowledge it and say that I wish for something better. Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:30, 12 November 2016 (UTC) |
For your work on Selective factor 1 back in May. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC).
Hello, Boghog. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi,
I was editing the syncytin-1 page and noticed you were also actively editing the page. I just want to clarify something that I noticed we were tending to go back and forth on. The provirus is in the HERV W family. ERVW1 is the provirus at the 7q21 locus (stands for endogenous retrovirus W member 1) and ERVWe1 is the name of the gene that encodes syncytin-1 (endogenous retrovirus W member 1 envelope). Syncytin-1 is the name of the protein (syncytin is a more general word for any syncytin protein, of which there are many - see heidmann papers). I think it's important that we keep the terminology consistent and correct throughout the article.
family: HERVW
provirus: ERVW1
envelope gene: ERVWe1
protein: syncytin-1
I'm going to go ahead and revert to the above described terminology, let me know if you have any other questions.
Jollyclause (talk) 20:32, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
Also, a few more things:
1. For nomenclature I would rely on NCBI and you can see here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/nuccore/AF208161 and here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/30816 that ERVW1 refers to the provirus at that locus. The "e" refers to the functional envelope protein there, syncytin-1 (as is seen in the literature).
2. I would like to remove The sentence: "Gene knockout of syncytin genes in mice provides evidence for their absolute requirement for placenta development and embryo survival." I have not read the primary article for this but the article cited is Heidmann's review that says syncytin-A is embryonic lethal while syncytin-B is not. This gets too hairy especially since this article is on syncytin-1. There is plenty of literature on the necessity of syncytin-1 in placental/embryonic development (see Holder (2012) Placenta; Mi (2000) Nature, or Benoit Barbeau (2009) JMB) we don't need to start confusing things adding in mouse syncytins. They are actually quite different from the human ones.
3. I would also like to delete the origin section entirely because it is essentially copied and pasted from the lead. I'm moving the mitochondria analogy to the lead.
Its great to see other people care about this subject. Syncytin-1 is a very cool protein. I want to make sure wikipedia is a strong resource for people interested in syncytins. I look forward to putting together more :) Jollyclause (talk) 21:33, 1 December 2016 (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) 00:29, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
You would do well to use these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I don't have a clue why you reverted my changes to the first paragraph. Please explain. Drdfp (talk) 08:31, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for your latest comments on the talk page. I'm happy for any advice you can give me as a novice wiki editor. I will be making images reminiscent of those you suggested. For example, you've apparently seen the one in the "processed" section and approve of it. I'm intending a series of those. The point of the image I made at the top was to grab the attention of the reader, and make her/him take notice that there may be something of interest to read. I understand why you deleted it. I don't agree with you, but I accept it. I'm thinking that if I grabbed headlines from the NY Times, Newsweek, etc and posted them on a virtual corkboard, it would be OK with you, right? Also, I have no clear idea of whether we should have these conversations in this form or rather on the article talk page...plesse advise. Thanks, Dennis Drdfp (talk) 18:53, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I had no idea what a boghog was or why you used it as your username, until I read that "boghogs communicate by biting each other very hard on the thigh", which literally made me chuckle, but not laugh, out loud!!!! I've had almost 4 decades of experience with scientific peer review, which often develops into not just questions of whether all the i's are dotted and t's are crossed, but the exact properties of the dot above the i. In fact, if you looked closely at, and remember the "corkboard" figure you deleted, the dot above the i of leukemia was a drop of blood. I really hope that we don't get into edit wars, but I still want to argue that you inappropriately deleted that image. Your reasons were
"There are a number of problems with this new figure. First of all, all the sources displayed are primary:
Zhang X, Zhang J, Ping X, Wang QL, Lu X (2016). ......"
You probably cannot imagine how impressed I am that you went through the trouble and spent the time to find the citations based on the collection of pixels on the image!!!!!!!! Nice work. Back to your reasons:
"Wikipedia prefers WP:SECONDARY sources, especially for medical related content (see WP:MEDRS). This is in part because a astonishingly high percentage of biomedical research cannot be repeated."
Notice that wp only PREFERS secondary sources. wp does not PRECLUDE primary sources. However, more importantly, I argue that my image IS a secondary source!!!! It is not the text of a primary source. It is a novel "artwork" of patchwork "headlines" designed with two purposes in mind: to get the casual reader to see a linkage between the term pseudogene and cancer and thus encourage the reader to read on. Am I a reliable secondary source? What do I need to do? My goal is to raise the C class pseudogenes article to A class, hopefully FA. Oh yea, and you bet I am upset about irreproducibilty!!!! Back to your reasons:
"Wikipedia should simply state facts. From WP:MEDMOS: Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation."
The corkboard figure did NOT hype a study: it hyped the pseudogene article! It did not cause needless duplications in the text because it was NOT text! It was an image! Did I mention that I am impressed that you took the time to actually find the text citations???? I do not expect a reader to seacrh for those articles by manually decoding the pixels into text!" Back to your reasons:
"Per WP:NOTJOURNAL, wikipedia should not read like a scientific journal or research talk."
I completely agree with that statement FOR THE TEXT. The image was not text. It did not frustrate the novice viewer (not reader) by forcing her/him to decipher the almost impenetrable text of research articles. That's what I can do. I want to use my expertice to save them from having to do that. Back to your reasons:
"Per WP:RECENT, the figure places too much emphasis on recent research. Again, it is much better to rely on secondary sources that review and summarize primary research."
Again, I claim that the image IS a secondary source that "summarizes" (in pixels) primary research. Back to your reasons:
"This may be a subtle but nevertheless an important point: Wikipedia articles should concentrate on the subject, not research on the subject."
That is an important point, and I don't think it is subtle. I understand it. I want the article to concentrate on, and explain the subject, so well that it becomes an FA. Part of that is making it interesting to read and visually appealing, and I believe that the figure helps to reach that goal. The original "lead" figure made the novice viewer, IMHO, think "WTF? Why should I look any further at this crap?"
BTW, 4 decades of back and forth peer review prepared me for this discussion!!!!!!!
soooooo, now that I've countered your reasons, please take a look at the figure again and let me know if you've reconsidered. At least reinstatinng it and leaving it on for a few days to see if anybody else objects to it (or comments at all!) would be a step in the right directions from my view. I'm looking forward to your reaction. Dennis Drdfp (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've renominated the HMB article again at FAC. You may want to add the 3rd nomination to your watchlist: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive3. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:05, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, how long does it take you to create svg diagrams like these: File:HMB synthesis historical.svg and File:HMB synthesis 2.svg?Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:01, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
{{AI4}}
so that resulting annotated diagram looks cosmetically appealing. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)References
These data indicate that direct glucuronidation is the main metabolic pathway for the rapidly cleared (S)-bicalutamide, whereas hydroxylation followed by glucuronidation is a major metabolic pathway for the slowly cleared (R)-bicalutamide.
Would you be able to easily rotate the chemical structures in the metabolism diagram clockwise by 180° (or analogously, flip the structures horizontally and vertically)? Medgirl pointed out to me that the other depictions of the chemical structures of bicalutamide and its analogs in the bicalutamide article are illustrated in that manner. If you can't do this very easily, I can do this myself in inkscape, so just let me know if this isn't a simple task for you and I'll do it myself. Rotating the structures in inkscape is simple, but I'd need to do a little work to reorder the chemical elements which would appear backwards after performing the rotation; e.g., the NC- in the lower left corner of the structures would display at the top right as -NC after performing these rotations, so I'd need to revise the letters to correctly depict it as -CN. I'd need to do the same with the F3C, OH, and O-glucuronide moieties. It would take me around 20-30 minutes to manually rotate the structures and then correctly reorder all of the chemical elements.
If you're willing to do the rotations, just send me the rotated image file via email and I'll fix the arrows in inkscape before uploading it to commons. Since the metabolism template is currently used in the bicalutamide article, it's better if I fix the arrows before the file is uploaded in order to avoid issues with the wikitext rendering in the wrong position. My email address is commented out in this page's source code immediately following this sentence. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:29, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Bicalutamide metabolism in humans[1][2]
(S)-Bicalutamide glucuronide
(R)-Hydroxybicalutamide
(R)-Hydroxybicalutamide glucuronide
via UGT1A9
via UGT1A9
via CYP3A4
Add desired caption here
|
References
These data indicate that direct glucuronidation is the main metabolic pathway for the rapidly cleared (S)-bicalutamide, whereas hydroxylation followed by glucuronidation is a major metabolic pathway for the slowly cleared (R)-bicalutamide.