Talk:Murburn concept

The requisite links and references appear to have been added

@Mgbo120:
Dear Sir, Dr. Mgbo120,
It appears that the requisite links and references have already been added.
Could you kindly revisit, provide with your kind suggestions in details and re-consider your decision please?
I was directed to the article by one of my friends and it appeared interesting.
Regards,
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 07:41, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Request for help

It appears that the moderator, Dr. Mgbo120, has been blocked indefinitely.
Would any other moderator please like to look into the area that was cited by Dr. Mgbo120 for rejection of this article? The article appears interesting.
Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 03:33, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

The comments by Mgbo120 have been addressed so now the draft is just awaiting review. The backlog for drafts is large these weeks, so it can take a few months for drafts to be reviewed. Bkpsusmitaa, as it is not clear from the article, has this concept gotten traction from other authors than Dr. Manoj? It might be a little too early to publish an article here about a proposed concept if it hasn't gained much traction. Also, do you know why this article uses "murburn/murcat" but sources only "murburn"? – Þjarkur (talk) 04:09, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Thank you, Sir, for posting your kind reply to my query and 'helpme'.

From the article, it appears that Murcat appears to be an acronym, "mild unrestricted redox catalysis", explaining "catalytic mechanism of certain redox enzymes" and Murburn similarly, is " ... murburn stands for "mured burning" (connoting a "closed burning"), and implies a spontaneous reaction/equilibrium involving diffusible reactive oxygen species ..."

The user annvinod has posted the explanations on the 1st para of the article itself. However, the article appears to be written in a highly technical style, for advanced workers in the field of biochemistry, while wikipedia is an encyclopedia (i.e., mid 16th century: modern Latin, from pseudo-Greek enkuklopaideia for enkuklios paideia ‘all-round education’), not a scientific-technical journal.

May be, annvinod could look into the matter and adequately explain the terms such as "burning flames", "anoxic oxidant", etc., for the general readers, with terms such as those mentioned either linked to other wikis, or explained in non-technical language.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 06:23, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

It was just that a Google search for "Murcat" didn't return a single result and none of the papers mentioned it. – Þjarkur (talk) 12:27, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Thank you, Sir, thank you once again for returning to address my queries. Google Search may or may not throw up a single result. It may all depend on the keywords that are used to rank pages. May be, Murburn and Murcat have not entered the keywords database in the Google Search Engine. The words/acronyms indeed appeared very new to me.

The absence of results for those two supposedly keywords should not be an issue. The real issue is whether the journals and the papers mentioned herein were indeed there, and whether the papers were really there. I believe that should be the criterion for an independent, third-party verification.

I have carried out a successful >10% random sampling of the links posted of papers from the authors who were supposedly proposing the Murburn and Murcat methodologies. The existence of the other referenced papers as well. However, I don't have sufficient technical expertise to adjudicate upon the veracity of the papers cited herein. The idea appears to be very new. Which is why I was interested in the first place! I believe I have to leave that decision to the editors of the journals who accepted those papers.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 16:38, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur: Thank you Sir, the term Murcat has been deleted as advised.

@annvinod: First of all, please sign off with ~~~~. That will automatically introduce your signature in situ, as I have said elsewhere too.

Next, although it isn't my place to comfort, support or advise users, I shall most humbly request Annvinod not to remove the term murcat. Rather, to reintroduce it. The explanation in the Google Doc(& papers) has the term Murcat, I have noticed, e.g., the snapshot above item #21 (has the term "mediating unrestricted redox catalysis"), i.e., above the following:

_{21. Guengerich, F. Peter; Yoshimoto, Francis K. (22 June 2018). "Formation and Cleavage of C–C Bonds by Enzymatic Oxidation–Reduction Reactions". Chemical Reviews. 118 (14): 6573–6655. doi:10.1021/acs.chemrev.8b00031.}

Please don't assume that the moderators are restrictive, if that was the reason for your removing the word. They are all following the guidelines and rules, that's all. Please re-introduce the word. As there are multiple mentions of the word in the cited papers.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 12:45, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Would annvinod clarify some aspects please?

Could annvinod kindly look into the term:

"molecule-unbound ion-radical" interactive equilibrium?

Would this phrase be [Quote] molecule — 'unbound ion radical' interactive equilibrium [End Quote]? Is this phrase equivalent to what is meant by a microcanonical ensemble of "quasi-neutral molecules and unbound ionic radicals"? Could this phrase structure please be re-written for further clarity?

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 06:22, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Bkpsusmitaa:

Dear Sir,

A link with the scientific publication details which verifies the validity of the Murburn concept is given below. Kindly let me know if any more information is required. The term "molecule-unbound ion-radical" has also been simplified and the word "Murcat" has been deleted as per the advice on the talk page.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1TgTd3b2Lf8_xk9yU-HysUP9y8kcesgb8

@Annvinod:

It appears that you are fairly new to Wikipedia. First of all, I would seek this occasion to thank you for posting this interesting article.

There are certain ways of writing on the talk pages. If any random page is enabled for editing (without editing of course ;-) ) you shall find that we use : to create an indent. The more they are, the more indented are the posts.

Next is to sign off your posts with ~~~~ to find your username posted in situ instead when saved.

Finally, I have checked and perused the Google Document posted on the Google Drive page, with individual references indicating each scientific papers referenced and your snapshots directing to the exact locations where those words / phrases / terms occur.

It is humbly requested that you please don't hastily remove a word or a phrase just for better clarity. Our target should ideally be to disseminate more knowledge first, while maintaining clarity. Clarity comes only next to knowledge.

I therefore believe I should edit those areas, wherever applicable, where I had posted the {{Citation needed}} comments and remove them. However, for the other moderator, i.e., Dr. Þjarkur, it is within only his ambit to follow his own wishes. However, I shall draw his attention to visit the Google Drive link and do the needful from his end on the draft article page.

I once again thank you, this time for your prompt response and posting the requisite snapshots of the relevant sections/portions of cited papers, along with brief descriptions, on the linked Google Doc.

One request though: Could you please elaborate further on the phrase, "burning flames"? A bit more informative elaboration / illustration please? Did you mean something akin to a magnesium rod burning in deep ocean, "burning flames" giving off light? Without oxygen, that is?

Please visit the current page frequently to be abreast of the latest developments concerning the main article.

In the end, I believe you have noted that a few areas of the article was edited, polished and appropriate links added. I have taken my liberty without seeking your permission, as this is the norm in wikipedia. I am informing you of this as you are relatively a newcomer to editing in wikipedia.

@Þjarkur:

Dear Sir, you may like to peruse the Google Document linked on the Google Drive of user Annvinod, wherein he/she appears to have addressed your concerns.

I have verified the contentious areas and find that the snapshots posted and explanations contained in the Google Doc satisfy my requirements.

I therefore have removed my objections from the article.

You may like to verify for the portions which you found objectionable.

Thank you, Sir, for the civil discussion that we have had on this page. Your decency and civility is admired.

@Moderators/Administrators:

Is it possible to support, and cooperate with, the poster, Annvinod, and import the above mentioned Google Doc as a whole in to this talk page? And also determine whether it is necessary to do so?

I am restricted by my own limitations to do so. I profusely apologise for the same.

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 09:22, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

The only thing that has been in the way is the amount of pending drafts, meaning that getting a review can take quite some time. The only thing I feel is missing from this article is:

• an explanation of how this hypothesis has been received (since it seems it's mostly just one group, Manoj et al., that has been working on it)
• a short explanation in the introduction of what the hypothesis explains (in a non-technical manner), the paper by Chirumbolo & Bjørklund (see the Google Docs file) seems to include some good examples

But there's really nothing in the way of this draft being accepted. I'm not a reviewer although I sometimes look over drafts, it might be best to wait for the opinion of the next passing reviewer (which can take a few weeks).

– Þjarkur (talk) 13:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

@Þjarkur:

Thank you very much, Sir, for your very prompt response, a third time. Really appreciated. The only problem being Annvinod, who appears to be a very new editor. However, I am sure she/he shall improve within a short period and become a competent Wikipedia editor.

I have posted on your page the following comments:

Sir, I had used the {{helpme}} for other users/moderators/reviewers/administrators to help me with deciding/importing/posting the Google Doc on the link to Google Drive to here in wikipedia, and consider its utility as an evidence.

I apologise that I couldn't explain myself clearly enough. The drive document may be lost. Changed. But in wikipedia its availability shall be ensured so long as wikipedia exists. (May it exist forever!)

Would you therefore kindly remove the "helped" part of {{helpme-helped}} please? Or post your comments specifically that the Google Doc doesn't need to be posted here?

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 13:34, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Just cite it, then the knowledge won't be dependent on a Google Doc:

• Venkatachalam, Avanthika; Parashar, Abhinav; Manoj, Kelath Murali (19 February 2016). "Functioning of drug-metabolizing microsomal cytochrome P450s: In silico probing of proteins suggests that the distal heme 'active site' pocket plays a relatively 'passive role' in some enzyme-substrate interactions". In Silico Pharmacology. 4 (1). doi:10.1186/s40203-016-0016-7. Retrieved 4 April 2019.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

And to answer the question above, no, we will not "copy the doc", again since it's already published somewhere and we can just reference it. Primefac (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

@Primefac:

Thank you Sir, Primefac, very much for clarifying my concerns. Yes, I was really concerned. The related papers were already cited in the Draft_Article page. However, since Wikipedia is only an Encyclopedia and not a peer-reviewed scientific journal, it is natural that:

(a) Lay editors would be able to polish up the article, without becoming unduly concerned about the references,

(b) Specialist editors would be able to refer to the relevant portions of the papers and verify where the terminology is discussed and elaborated; while

(c) an editor with greater gift would reconcile the above-mentioned two aspects (a) and (b) seamlessly.

Since the first editor, Mr. Þjarkur, was an experienced but lay (no prejudice intended), editor like me, the exact snapshots, where those concerned topics were introduced, discussed and elaborated, were requested from AnnVinod to address the concerns of editors such as Þjarkur.

So, thank you, Sir, for dispelling our concerns. Lay editors such as us could now rest assured that the Google Doc would no longer be required. Thank you very much, indeed!

Bkpsusmitaa (talk) 04:31, 12 April 2019 (UTC)