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 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | Archive 18 |
Hey Boghog! I've noticed you made some changes to the references on the page (Calpain-2) that I recently edited. That was my first contribution to Wikipedia, so I am still not clear on how to tell what the difference between your and my version in source view is, and whether you corrected something I did incorrectly by mistake. Could you please explain those points so I can make better contributions in the future? Thank you, Ivan Shapovalov (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)
|pmc=PMC1171751
should be |pmc=1171751
, |date=2011-05
should be |date=May 2011
. Also there were introduced several redundant {{url}}s that duplicated external links that |pmid=
, |pmc=
, or |doi=
. Finally the previously established citation style used |vauthors=
. Boghog (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)Hi! Boghog I've edited this template many times, although I don't know the reference of (1.1), (1.2)--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)
Although I'm not an expert in this field, PMID:26464018, this article mentions that compared with PRD-like, PRD loses its Homeobox domain, maybe that's why TRANSFAC database put it out of Homeobox domain (3.1). However, according to the phylogenetic tree of evolution, TALE should be older and widely existed in both plants and animals, still belong to (3.1).--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)
Greetings Boghog! I notice you have altered key information on the GFP page pertaining to copepods and lancelets. Your source does mention copepods and lancelets but I don't know if it elaborates beyond that. The sources you removed led to incorrect citations in the In Nature section, and these sources were secondary review-like articles over the specific topics mentioned in this section. Please let me know if I am wrong in this, as I only want to accurately represent GFPs in nature. I don't think information in this section should be removed completely either, as it is both intriguing and consistently verifiable. Single Eukaryote T / C 14:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Hello,
Please don't cherry-pick words to try and make your own point. {{Cite Q}} is used in over 43k pages and this is a stable use case. The quote on there links to a TfD from 2017 when it was still rather new. The template has recently had significant work to improve and stabilise it, as per the talk that is linked from the very same documentation page. The real issue with that template is enwiki users still holding out over every inch of integration with Wikidata, as was noted in the TfD which was closed with no consensus.
--Lewis Cawte (Talk) 21:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)
|name-list-style=vanc
? That needs to be fixed.|name-list-style=vanc
Boghog (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)Hi. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question. I was planning to create an article regarding structures produced by a Soviet biochemist, V. O. Kalinenko; however, I have given up so far, since firstly, I am a layman (i.e., just an amateyr) and secondly, my knowledge of English is at an intermediate level. The refs: 1, 2, 3. I know you are a very experienced Wikipedia user; therefore, I am really interested in your opinion on that matter. Is it worth having its own article, and is there any possible way to request its creation? Thank you very much. --Pinoczet (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi. Here is an attempt. Boghog (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
References
@Pinoczet: Your draft was very well written, and after a few minor edits, I have moved it to main space. I had some concerns about notability, but you have included at least one independent secondary source that cites the original work, so that should be sufficient. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
Hi,
I noticed that you cleaned up the references that the bot automatically generated from {{cite journal |doi=}} in Ferredoxin. Do you do this manually or is there some tool that I could use too to automatically expand it correctly? there is a bit of a lag with the bot and it would be convenient to see what my references actually are while I am editing.
Thanks and keep up the good work :)
|vauthors=
parameter is the citation filling tool. But this tool requires a PMID as input. I have a command line Python script that process raw wiki text to convert citation authors into the |vauthors=
format, but it is complicated to install on another computer. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
The Copyeditor's Barnstar | |
For fixing inconsistencies of less experienced contributors (like me). NikosGouliaros (talk) 19:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC) |
Hi again. I hope you are doing well. If you find some time, could you review the draft I have created, please? Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
I will edit the 21-Hydroxylase page to resolve the objections mentioned in Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1 - Just to let you know. You may also edit the page in the meanwhile if you wish, also to resolve the objections or for any other reason you wish, including the citation reference formatting or style Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
After that, I think it's too cumbersome to directly add host, discovery place and other information after the text. I want to present them in the form of tables.
See: {{SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus}}, but how to make sure that a clade in phylogenetic tree is synchronized with the corresponding column in table?
--Htmlzycq (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi BogHog,
I’d like to significantly expand upon the history section in the heme oxygenase article, particularly focused on origins leading up to Tenhunen et al characterization of the enzyme. As you are active on the page and a veteran Wikipedian, if I prepare a draft in the talk section would you mind reviewing the content?
Cheers SloppyTots (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natural product you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
The article Natural product you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Natural product for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for putting an image with transparent background at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Full_Structure_of_21-Hydroxylase.png - however, it is one of the three identical subunits, not the full structure. Could you please make an image of the whole protein, containing of all three subunits to this picture? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Hi there! Hope you're doing well. I'm a journalist, and I'm working on a story about Wikipedia pages with COVID vaccine information. I'd love to find time to talk, if you're willing. Feel free to shoot me a note here, or email me at ggedye@washingtonmonthly.com. For reference, here's another story I've written about Wikipedia: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/02/04/when-the-capitol-was-attacked-wikipedia-went-to-work/ Spelunkerr (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I made a mistake when trying to retitle to the current consensus name for this Nerve Growth Factor, which is Nerve Growth Factor NR4A1. Can you help me move the wikidata to the newly titled article? Sbelknap (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
See this edit at about line 187 where your tool removed part of |date=
(this citation).
Please fix your tool.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
You have uploaded a very good image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Full_Structure_of_21-Hydroxylase.png Could you please suggest me a tool that generates such images so I could upload them to wikimedia, i.e. the tool should not have any legal restrictions to do that, or where can I find images aready made of human enxymes with thranparent background which are in public domain? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
set ray_trace_fog,0 set ray_shadows,0 set antialias,1
I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Hey, why are you removing people's content?
There are thousands of recent publications in high quality journals discussing the use of hydroxytyrosol in clinical trials. Why are you removing any references that are added? I and several of my friends and colleagues are becoming very annoyed at your actions and will continue to add good quality, understandable material to the Hydroxytyrosol page.
Your tireless work on a slew of science and health articles is always appreciated. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
Hi. I've noticed that you're using scripts to rapidly edit the citation templates for science and technology articles, changing the author parameters from "firstx", "lastx", and "authorx" to "vauthors", always with the edit summary "consistent citation formatting". Why do you do this? No offense, but in most cases, the formatting is already consistent, but you replace wholesale more commonly used author parameters with one that otherwise isn't used very often. I wonder why you seem to prefer the "vauthors" parameter over something used far more often, and even want to use scripts to add replace more traditional parameters en masse. I'm not criticizing your work; I'm just wondering about that particular quirk. Thanks in advance. 49.144.202.125 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
{{cite web}}
: |author=
has generic name (help)|vauthors=
over |firstn=
, |lastn=
, not the least of which is that the former is much more concise. In addition, |vauthors=
has strict error checking which ensures that the author format is completely consistent. |firstn=
in contrast allows first full and middle name, first initials with or without periods. In addition, |firstn=
and |lastn=
allows complete "!@#$%^&*()" gibberish. In contrast |vauthors=
will thrown an error if the parameter values are not Roman characters and the first initials are not exactly one or two uppercase characters with no intervening punctuation or space. It is also important to mention that the CS1 citation templates parse |vauthors=
to produce clean meta data and are completely compatible with |author-link=
and |display-authors=
parameters.I think you have been a bit too strict. I guess that you want reliable sources but for example the think with a Cuba's delegation inspecting a venezuela factory I didn't see why you removed it. Is it goood if i Add a section Production abroad and in Cuba ? Or is it simply not allowed at all. It's kinda of hard to find mainstream or external sources with such niche topics !Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes sorry I was wrong. Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I haven't checked your edits in any detail, but reverted some to get behind vandalism in the lead paragraph. Please take a look. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Would it be possible to change the heading in the entry from QX39 to CA77.1? We are worried that by using the wrong name it is going to create confusion in the field. I have not be able to figure out how to change the entry name, so if you could help with that it would be great. Thanks very much. Ana Maria
Please don't change all citations to "Vancouver style" (like here). While this citation style is formally allowed in Wikipedia, it contradicts MOS:INITIALS, involves unnecessary loss of information, and is less familiar to general audience. Please also read WP:CITEVAR carefully. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
|first=
in contrast is essentially free format.Boghog (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
|first=
... is essentially free format" is actually a great benefit – if you haven't read the famous "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names", please do so and think about it. While not everything there is relevant here, it clearly demonstrates that any system that tries to put personal names in some sort of a Procrustean bed is broken by design and should be avoided as much as possible. The claim that "the template throws a error message if violated" is also wrong, even for this arbitrary set of unjustified rules. For example, it accepts "Ångström AJ", which is not valid, but rejects "Tsakalos GTh", which is valid. Most importantly, it does not prevent typos or other errors in author names, so this "validation" gives no benefit and only forces to cripple people's names. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
|vauthors=
are used throughout a Wikipedia article, the author format is guaranteed to be 100% consistent and will throw an error if it deviates from the "Wikipedia Vancouver" style. Free format is a disadvantage when it comes to consistency, which is one of the purposes of using {{cite journal}} templates in the first place. Finally CITEVAR states that "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles" is "generally considered helpful" and that is what I did. Please note that in addition to imposing a consistent citation style, I made a number of other improvements including adding missing authors, templating cites, and copyedits. Boghog (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)it does not prevent typos or other errors in author names– false.
|firstn=
and |lastn=
will accept complete "!@#$%^&*()" gibberish. In contrast |vauthors=
will throw an error if any non-Roman characters are included. Boghog (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)|firstx=
and |lastx=
and replace with |authorx=
. In the case of Olestra, as far as I can tell, every single author has a western name published in a western journal or website, and hence none of the exceptions raised by "Falsehoods" apply. Boghog (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)|vauthors=
with |authors=
, you have introduced a Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list error. If you insist, I have introduced bloated cite parameters in this edit including full first author names that you failed to add yourself. Boghog (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)|vauthors=
); works from non-Enlgish authors also need to be cited sometimes. If you wish the most consistent and concise style, then completely omitting any author information would be ideal. :–) In other words, you are trying to solve a problem that does not exist and by very poor means. Generally, I believe that, in principle, the visible formatting of all citations should be controllable from user preferences, and thus the wikicode should contain the fullest bibliographic information. This was very much possible already in 1985, so implementing this in Wikipedia requires only somebody to take care of it. Your edits, however, make this improvement more and more difficult and thus I consider them counterproductive.|vauthors=((Ka-Tsetnik 135633))
). I strongly agree with you that the style of citations should be an option that can be set in user preferences. Long term, citations are likely to be stored in WikiData. Furthermore, in biomedical research, a large majority of sources are available in databases like PubMed. Because Wikipedia citations are subject to typos and vandalism, it will be much safer to download citation data from PubMed rather than to harvest them from Wikipedia. These databases store full names, so there will be no loss of information. Boghog (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)How did you make this edit? Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
|vauthors=
parameter. Unfortunately most of the other citation tools like WP:Citoid and WP:RefToolbar have no option to create Vancouver style author lists, which results in articles with an inconsistent citation style. I have been using Diberri's tool which is still functional to create citations. I also have a Python script that pulls citation data from PubMed. However the installation of that script is rather involved and I really don't have the time to publish and properly support it. Cheers Boghog (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)How is this "consistent citation formatting" - diff. And there are more examples. You just change one citation formatting to another. It is not the same as "making it consistent". Could you please stop doing that? I understand that you like this citation formatting, but it doesn't mean you need force it everywhere.--Renat 19:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
|vauthors=
), now it is one style, and the same style that established by the first major contributor, so my edit was completely consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Boghog (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
... it was editor laziness ...- doesn't matter why this happened.
As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. It has nothing to do with this situation.
Generally considered helpful – imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles. Boghog (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
HiBoghog! You recently made an edit to Massive perivillous fibrin deposition in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. As the dominant contributor to the article, I established the dominant citation style where authors are listed individually using "|lastX=" and "|firstX=". I used this for all 11 references. You proceeded to change every single reference to Vancouver style, including the removal of first names. As none of the references used Vancouver style beforehand, the edit is not made in good faith, as your edit prioritises your personal preference for Vancouver style over the guidelines expressed in WP:CITEVAR. There is also a track record of this type of edit. For an article about a very rare disease where researchers are well-known in the field, removal of first names is particularly harmful - the more expert readers will rely on reading a researcher's full name to recognise their work, and they are unlikely to further research their article without knowing them first. Pending further discussion, I will be reverting the edit. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)
I noticed you tagged these pages for merging but didn't actually start a merge proposal discussion on the talk page. I realize you probably noticed the need for a merge in passing and quickly tagged them and moved on, and in this case you were successful in alerting another user (me), but if you want the merge to occur without boldly doing it yourself, I urge you to actually propose the merge on the talk page per WP:MERGE. Then there is a better chance that someone will come along, see there are no objections to a merge, and actually do it. Just tagging pages accomplishes little. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. I notice that when you standardise the citation for patents, you change the link to point to Espacenet rather than WIPO or Google patents which I prefer to use. Is there a policy reason for this or just personal preference? Personally I never use Espacenet as they don't allow downloading of the full text of the patent as a single pdf file, they serve it to you one page at a time, and for modern pharmaceutical patents which are often hundreds of pages long this can be a real pain especially when it comes to quickly searching through them to find a particular bit of information. Would it be possible for you to use links to WIPO or Google patents instead? Meodipt (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
|url=
parameter to the {{cite patent}} template. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)Hey man I made a series of updates in the article for the drug Risdiplam, I didn't add new text I just added more parameters to the already-existing sources and I added a new source; however you removed the editors for all of my sources, why is that? Am I supposed to include only 1 editor or is there a limit or something like that? Also, you didn't erase my sources, right? I mean you just removed the editors but left the sources, is that correct? Thanks in advance, 177.227.43.209 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. When you have a minute, could you please clarify for me whether or not material published by the National Cancer Institute within the US National Institute of Health is considered trustworthy. For example, please read the opening sentence on the following link: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/hydroxytyrosol
I had some instances when you removed my posting and one from my friend when we added content that did not use review articles. I now accept the reason and I have tried to use good quality review articles from high quality journals. I am confused as to why even they are removed. It is beginning to seem as though Wikipedia does not want anything posted to the Hydroxytyrosol page. There are dozens of high quality review articles from high quality peer-reviewed journals, including Springer, Oxford, Cambridge, the NIH, etc., reporting on clinical trials. But any attempt to post this material results in immediate deletions. Jbtuk (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2021
Hello Boghog:
WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.
Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.
There is currently a backlog of over 3100 articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!
Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for Creationat21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Still's disease and Basal cell.
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Do you know if there is a way to put legal status into a chembox, as opposed to a drugbox? The US state of Maine recently banned all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances with a fairly broad definition, which means all of the dozens of pages we have for such compounds all now have a relevant legal status to note, but they all have chemboxes not drugboxes as they are not generally regarded as pharmaceuticals. I was sure there must be a compound with a chembox that says it is illegal but I can't seem to find any examples.Meodipt (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Your addition to Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid has a strong US-centric perspective. As can be read under Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid#Regulation, PFOS has been added to the Stockholm Convention more than ten years ago. More than hundred countries have ratified the PFOS amendments, meaning that only very few uses are possible in those countries. The act introduced in Maine becomes effective in 2023/2030 only and applies to all PFASs, but unavoidable uses may be exempted. --Leyo 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
I just saw the Maine law come up in the news. Actually I shall intend to add relevant legal statuses to all sorts of these banned environmental chemicals for whatever jurisdictions they are banned in, but that will take a long time and time is not something of which I have a great deal to spare right now. No US-centricism intended though I assure you. Meodipt (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
Boghog, I'm concerned about the information bias on the Ivermectin page and can't edit because I have too few edits. I'm reaching out to see if you be willing to see this large research paper that substantiates the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a medicine for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, which is a peer-reviewed Meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/.
In Wikipedia, the medicine is listed as a parasite treatment in spite of its use over many years in anti-inflammation & anti-viral applications for which it has been used to combat Dengue, Zika, West Nile, etc with literally billions of doses.
This research clarifies Ivermectin's efficacy and appropriateness for preventing and treating Covid-19, though understandably and industry that is making $billions off new drugs would not be interested in an off-patent medicine.
Thanks for considering this correction/update to a site that appears to be managed to meet a political preference rather than facts.
Hi again. I hope you're doing well. Since you are a very experienced user in terms of the proper references formatting, may I ask you for help to prepare the following work: RNA Plasmids? Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask for your advice. I am planning to briefly describe 'RNA plasmids' in the article Plasmid; where exactly should I do this? Thanks a lot! Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Hello again :@Boghog: I came across your name again reading the Gene therapy article. Michel Sadelain has new articles about his work in the space and I noticed inaccuracies and typos on his Wikipedia article. I used the secondary sources to clean up the article and made additions to the article. Would you be open to reviewing my sandbox?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello Boghog,
Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.
Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.
At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.
There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.
If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software.
Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here.
To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I have nominated Autism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bangalamania (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
When you see edits like this, please revert them. Site-wide consensus is against that, per this discussion. Several reasons are given there (and at WP:GNL), but the foremost one has to be that the overwhelming majority of sources do not use this terminology. Another one is WP:NOTADVOCACY; those WP:Student editors should not be allowed to use Wikipedia to impose a language-reform agenda. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 04:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
when using the citation-template-filling tool the ISBN option always produces the Error: Could not find requested source. 1Veertje (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boghog,
Could you re-check your edit to the citations in 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol? Three independent issues caught my eye. Generally, you made them consistent to your preference, not consistent with how the article originally was and not generally in keeping with MOS.
Please let me know if there's something I'm missing, or if you know of a MOS that is in opposition to the standard ones that needs to be addressed. DMacks (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
|vauthors=
is that it is much more concise and insures that the author format is completely consistent. |first=
will accept anything including initials with or without periods, with or with out spaces, full first names, and even complete "*&^@*^$@" gibberish. If gibberish is included in |vauthors=
, it will generate an error message. Boghog (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)New Page Patrol | November 2021 Backlog Drive | |
| |
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. |
Template:KEGG enzyme 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, you seem to be following me around fixing my bad citation formatting that I add to articles. Is there anything I should be doing differently or a tool that I should use. I tend to get the visual editor to create my citations magically for me because I'm lazy, and because I discoveed that I tended to write (more) broken prose when I tried to use markup. Talpedia (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
|pmc=
should not contain any characters. For example, |pmc=PMC12345
will trigger in an error and should be converted to |pmc=12345
. Some of the citations tools like RefToolbar make this error. Concerning the Antipsychotic article which we both recently edited, from the beginning it has mainly followed Vancouver System author format. Per WP:CITEVAR, my recent edits were to maintain that style consistently throughout the article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)
Hey, thank you for the suggestion to use the PMID number rather than the whole citation. Will have to learn it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienditor (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Dear Boghog, prior to your suggestion, I used the "cite" widget on the PUBMED page; it automatically produces citations. Is the final result different? Thank you, Scienditor (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
@Scienditor: The PubMed widget produces a citation in a similar format, but it is not templated using the {{cite journal}}. The advantage of templated citations is that they are more uniform, they contain hyperlinks back to the PubMed for example, and they produce metadata that can be harvested by citation managers. So for example, the PubMed widget produces:
Whereas, the template filling tool produces:
which renders as
Boghog (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) boghog: thank you - it is better indeed. I have much to learn! Scienditor (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. 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 2021 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 |
Hi User Boghog, thank you for helping to clean up one of the student edited articles Amyloidosis. I have just logged in and will be reviewing and cleaning up all the student edits. I am looking forward to this as their work on the talk pages looked amazing. Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
HiUser:Boghog,
I wonder if you might be willing to wade into the discussion about deletion of a large number of RNA motif related articles that look like being put for deletion.
See WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard#Hundreds_of_RNA_motif_pages
It would seem a shame to lose all of them.
Thanks Alexbateman (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
Template:Homologene2uniprot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boghog! Thanks for participating in the review of the ACE2 page. You've done a lot of work in there! Fabulous. Including editing my edit by moved Zipeto review to a more appropriate section. Except I can't find WHERE you moved the review to? I couldn't find anything related to Zipeto in TALK. And I couldn't find anything related to Zipeto in the actual page. Where did you move it to? Thanks in advance. I've made only a couple of edits in my time. Willing to learn how this game is played. :)
yaktam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaktam (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Boghog! Obviously, I am blind. Thank you so much! It does make better sense in that section! Stay well. Stay hydrated! :) yaktam
Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the article Transposable element. I believe it should include some information on the so-called Class III TEs (see: Pierre Capy et al., Dynamics and Evolution of Transposable Elements, 1998).
a grab-bag consisting of transposons that don't clearly fit into the other two categories, and added:
Examples include the "Foldback" elements in fruit flies, the "Tu" elements in sea urchins, and "MITEs", or "miniature inverted repeat transposable elements", which are found mainly in plants and fungi.
If you find some time, could you briefly describe Class III TEs, please? I was about to do it myself at the end of the Classification section, but I must admit I have difficulty with the correct wording of this paragraph so that it is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Since you are an expert in the field of molecular biology and an experienced Wikipedia user, I decided to contact you and rely on your knowledge here. Thank you very much. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
{{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link){{cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)Hi, here are the citations. The second one is a book section that contains 5 different chapters. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi, you're one of the top 10 contributors to this article, can you comment on the move request? Thanks — Omegatron (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
The consistent citation formatting award | |
Thanks for keeping citations spic and span with your tireless efforts! Alexbrn (talk) 06:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC) |
Hi again Boghog, there are a few recent inaccuracies on Philip Kantoff's Wikipedia article. If I present you corrections, could you help make the edits?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.102.203 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2014
Hello Boghog, thank you for the editing and formatting of some of the references.