Jump to content

User talk:Boghog/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 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)

Hi

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)

January 2016

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Eden 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.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • = Letter to the Editor: Nature Boy | magazine = Life magazine | date = 22 June 1948 | pages = 9–10 ]}}</ref><ref name=bbc>{{cite web|url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00stsjh|title=A Strange,

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)

Persondata

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)

However you might read it

…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)

Hi

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)

DYK for Jonas Åkerlund (politician)

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:02, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Edit-a-thon in Madison

inline
inline
inline
inline

Boghog, I'd like to invite you to an upcoming edit-a-thon:

ART+FEMINISM EDIT-A-THON

RSVP on the event page if you plan to attend or have any suggestions. czar 00:53, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

You received this message because you are a member of Category:Wikipedians in Wisconsin. To opt-in to future Madison event messages, add yourself to the mailing list.

MTA2 and MTA3

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)

Urotensin II receptor Edit

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)

Drugbox reordering preview

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|.

-DePiep (talk) 10:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 24 February

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)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language
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)

Thymidine kinase

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)

@Lave: And thank you for your major expansion of the thymidine kinase article! I was thinking of segregating the citations using WP:LDR so that the raw wiki text is less cluttered with long citation templates. Would you have any objections if I went ahead and did this? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:04, 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)

Hejsan Lave! We are in a very similar positions. Wikipedia editors can request access from some journals (see for example Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Databases#Medical). Have you tried the Karolinska (Solna) library? Their coverage of medical journals is excellent, but they also have a pretty extensive selection of more general scientific (e.g., chemistry) journals. Boghog (talk) 06:32, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Homotaurine

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)

Just FYI

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)
Thanks! However I do feel a little guilty as you did the lion's share of work on this and related articles. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:51, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
That may be true, but I can't write a synthesis section to save my life, much less draw images to illustrate any of the text. The article probably wouldn't have been promoted to FA if somebody didn't assist me by rewriting that section; thankfully, you helped me out with it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:25, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Intrinsic factor

@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)

The tags at intrinsic factor accomplished what they intended to; they called attention of experienced, expert editors to the article, and led to change. [Often, the extent to which we at-odds colleagues differ, is that some editors seem to believe that once they have visited an article, sufficient expertise has been brought to bear—and that no other experts need look. I see this as simple, personal hubris. In no sane universe is a job done with a single editor's attention (nor should one win the highest of prizes at ones' entry into a position, so much for the sane universe theory).]
Moreover, my affixing tags is never the sole task I involve myself in, at an article. I always put in considerable time, on the content of the article, often hours. It is simply my conviction, not universally shared by others, that when one is done for the day or session, it is near to criminal to leave problematic articles appearing superficially fine. This is a dishonesty expressed toward our readers, especially the youngest, and those least experienced in differentiating content of quality from that which lacks it. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 16:45, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Other comments

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)

Conflict of interest

@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)

The point, my illustrious but far too overbearing and hubristic colleague, is (i) that the partician coefficient article as a whole is populated almost exclusively by primary sources (if it is sourced at all), and (ii) this is a far better starting point for article content, and a very widely respected one. And if you knew the field of cheminformatics, yes it was seminal in its first edition—defined formally as "work, event, moment, or figure strongly influencing later developments"—which, had you attended the joint medichem/compuchem honorary ACS symposium held at the author's retirement, you would have known, and heard these words. But it is not worth the time to find a source for this point, though it exists. Rather, as always, have your way. It is, after all, your encyclopedia, and it is just your editorial opinion that matters. No good faith need be assumed. No peer respect, expected. But how I marvel at all the free time you have to stalk! Cheers, and soon again disengaging for good from you. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
You have completely missed the point. Don't hype the researchers. Boghog (talk) 19:17, 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)
Let me say, since you insist on pressing the point: Yes, the first edition of the work was considered seminal, and the second similarly so in continuing the work of the first. If you do not believe it, ask 5 career cheminformatics professionals about the book's impact, in its time—which is what the time-rich term seminal was chose to imply—and its and its author's continuing impact on the field. I know that the term has been used about the book, by others than me, in settings where the words would have been captured in print, and I know, more critically, that it is true. But, as I said, have it your way. Diminish the impact of a good Further reading source, by diminishing an accurate description of the impact of the source, rather as "hype" of a "researcher." By all means, continue the article on its mostly primary source trajectory. Le Prof 50.179.252.14 (talk) 21:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272 and 50.179.252.14: Seminal to partition coefficients? Corwin Hansch's work was seminal to partition coefficients (a citation to a review article which I added here) not Yvonne Martin's. Also your assertion that my contributions followed mostly primary source trajectory is false both before and after your claim. You are being dishonest. Boghog (talk) 21:52, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Further editing

Hi Boghog, I have some further plans, want your opinion about them:

  1. Re-organize the literature refs of the article "Thymidine kinase in clinical chemistry" the way you organized the main article "Thymidine kinase"
  2. Join the articles "Thymidine kinase" and "Thymidine kinase 1"
  3. Re-write the article "Tumor markers" to be up-dated and include the recommendations of oncological societies and organizations on what markers to use in what situations
  4. Re-write the article "Biomarkers" under the name "Genetic markers in oncology", transfer the stuff about tumor markers to that article.

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)

@Lave: Hi Lave. Sorry for not responding sooner. There is a Java Script (see User:PleaseStand/References segregator) that can be used to segregate refs. I also have a Python script for reformatting references, but this would require a lot of work to install. Concerning Merging "Thymidine kinase 1" into "Thymidine kinase" would make sense if there was only one thymidine kinase isozymes in humans. But there is also Thymidine kinase 2, mitochondrial, for which we do not have an article yet, but one could easily be created and it would be impractical to merge both into "Thymidine kinase". Biomarkers are somewhat outside by area of interest, so I do not have any strong feelings. However these articles may be of interest to wider set of editors, it would be a good idea to first place the appropriate {{Merge}} or {{Requested move}} template on the articles to see if there are any objections to these changes. Also Per WP:CITEVAR, it is a good idea first ask other editors on the article talk page if they have any objections to using list defined references. Boghog (talk) 16:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry

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)

So, what is wong with

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)

@Leprof 7272: It is clear that you do not understand the subject matter of this article. I will vigorously contest your edits. Boghog (talk) 21:52, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Your opinion is noted, and I would note I have published in this area, with our esteemed mutual friend. I will reply similarly, but ask that you do things by the book. Discuss. What is wrong with a permeation vs log P image—since there are so few usable images in Wikimedia—to illustrate the practical use of the concept? And how is it incomprehensible, with all the description and wikilinking, and the citation to the originating source? Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:55, 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)

I have also published in this area. But this is completely irrelevant. It is incomprehensible because it is off-topic. Partition coefficients are much broader than CNS. Boghog (talk) 22:00, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Of course they are (broader than CNS). This is simply an example. Can an example not open an article? Please say why not. And the attempted denigrations based on my mistyping should be over, see Talk at the article. (Lipophilic versus hydrophilicphobic) was the question.) Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:11, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Good, then we both agree that it is inappropriate to place this graphic in the lead. Boghog (talk) 22:14, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
No, we do not. See bold (and esp. underlined) and reply. Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:20, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
I have been bold and move the graphic to where it belongs. Boghog (talk) 22:22, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
So, the end of this discussion is "I am doing it my way, and not answering your specific questions." Clear and understood. Perhaps the proposition that examples cannot be used to open articles is indefensible… Leprof 7272 (talk) 22:24, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
See WP:UNDUE. Also the caption without context is incomprehensible. You are forgetting who you are writing for. Boghog (talk) 22:30, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
Misattribution of WP policy to support your case. I found 10 examples in five minutes at other articles, of examples representing utility and notability of concepts (see article Talk). The caption is clear, and has links, and while it may not make sense as first thing read, it does make sense read alongside the lede. Yes, permeation is a stretch, but there will be those who get it right off, others that rise to the occasion with a bit of wikilink-out work. But I forget myself. Oh Supreme One, in whose hands imperatives and far reaching judgmental hydrophilic conclusions of others' incompetence can only be natural, I beg to assure you I have not forgotten Him for whom I should write (as opposed to the students for whom I do). Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 23:13, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

UTS2 Merger

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)

Buspirone

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)

A surprisingly large amount of primary research cannot be repeated. Furthermore the results in animals often do not translate into humans. Your additions to Buspirone mixed animal with human studies. These two sections need to be cleanly separated. Also things like when a study or by whom a study was conducted in not encyclopedic. Simply state fact. Concentrate on the drug, not the researchers. Boghog (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


RESONSE I reverted the original hatchet job removal section because it was quite a knee-jerk reaction. That is not following the appropriate protocol. The research section has been in the article for quit a long time and is not a recent addition. If there was a problem with it, a citation should have been added, and the issue(s) worked out.
In addition is not an accurate assertion to say that listing research not "encyclopedic" (Wikipedia is not a standard reference encyclopedia). It's quite common to have research listed in medical references. As for animal research, it is also irrelevant to cite that not all medical research carries over, hence it being labeled research.
Please revert the section removal so any disputes can be resolve in a reasonable manner. ~Thank You 71.181.66.90 (talk) 17:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I did't say that the material that you added was non encyclopedic, rather the way it was presented was non encyclopedic. It is completely unnecessary to state that it was a study. Just state the conclusions of the study. Also is it not appropriate to state when a study was published unless it is in a history section. The material that you added requires heavy editing before it can be re-added. The most important thing is to separate the animal and human studies. To intermix the two is highly misleading. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I did not add that section it was already there, and has been for quite a while (as stated before). If anything, the section should have been flagged and fixed, not just completely removed on a whim. This is not in alignment with Wikipedia protocol, which is why I reverted the change.
I agree that there are some things that could use fixing, and why not, the article used to really suck.. Instead of just removing entire sections that one person does not like, let's work on making it better and more informative. Please revert the removal and follow Wikipedia's clearly delineated best practices. Thank You --71.181.66.90 (talk) 19:01, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

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)

I have

…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)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Information icon 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)

@Fred Gandt: I thought we were having a discussion. I have replied here. Boghog (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
For ease of finding, the noticeboard discussion is here. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 21:32, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272 and Fred Gandt: I think you both have a lot in common. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 23:07, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

I hope

…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)

Stop following

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)

@Leprof 7272: I and others have repeatedly explained that your use of attention banners is excessive. There is no need to include the same banners in both the lead and in sections. Boghog (talk) 23:49, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
And I have explained that there are cases where letting people know which sections are the point of which article banner saves time in re-analysis by follow on editors. Stop stalking. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: Most of the section banners that you have added are obvious and unnecessary. Please stop. Boghog (talk) 00:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Closed section, no more responses. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Your last edit

…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)

Wake up. See your talk page. Boghog (talk) 00:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I am talking to you here. As I have said to you before, you are not welcome at my Talk page. Your half-life there is milliseconds. I am looking only, and replying only (for a very limited further time), here. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:11, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: You don't seem to get the message. How many times do I need to repeat it? Boghog (talk) 00:13, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Patterns of behaviour are consistent, but each situation is unique. The Chromosome conformation… article is a case, where I judge, as a midlife professional with comparable professional training and experience to yours, that there is value in people seeing the full content of the article tags and seeing which sections each of the article tags apply. Otherwise, your message is clear and understood. You are always right, and I am always wrong. I adapt to your edits, and you revert mine. No more need be said. Please refrain from contacting me, except with apologies for WP:Stalking. Your communications, responsiveness, and actions at each article will speak for themselves, in the contexts they need to, if it comes to it. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:21, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: Repeating what I have posted on your talk page, per Wikipedia guidelines, all I am asking is to be more selective with your use of attention banners. Is that so unreasonable? Boghog (talk) 00:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
First, it is self-serving to cite an essay, and call it a guideline.
Second, my specific, individual responses to your edits, when they are selective and collegial, makes clear that I am responsive to your edits. Review the record, and you will see I agreed and placed the two article tags, just as you did—combined in a "multiples" markup. However, in reading the pages of recent contributors, and realizing they are graduate students, I realized they need the added prose and links of the full tags, and so the full tags were reintroduced (cf. full vs. abbreviated tag prose, and look at the Edit summary to see I have already said this).
Bottom line, you are prejudiced, and imperious. I approach each new encounter with some hope of you changing, and softening. You stalk me to places where you have no real interest in editing, as if to protect the world from me, and then approach each of these encounters prejudging that all is the same, and reversion is the only "stick" suitable for the errant schoolboy. Well apologies, but no. You are out of line today, with me.
Do something constructive to solve the problems and the articles to which you stalk me to. I've researched, added and completed more than a half dozen secondary sources, placing them in further reading. What have you done besides cause trouble and waste time, focusing on appearance and not substance? Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:34, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Wow, adding secondary sources to the further reading section so that you can demand that others do the hard work of moving them in-line with content. I am not impressed. Boghog (talk) 00:40, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Sarcasm is a last refuge of small minds, I think the quote goes, does it not? Especially given that the sources are an hour more of substantive work there than you have given. Closed section, no more responses. Leprof 7272 (talk) 00:22, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
If the shoe fits, wear it, the quote goes, does it not? Adding excessive attention banners to articles is counter productive. Full stop. Boghog (talk) 00:50, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
You have addressed nothing of substance that has been said, and close with your usual imperious tone and content. Well done. And I am. Leprof 7272 (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

POLD1 article

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)

Hi Sanjee, Thanks for you substantial contributions to the POLD1 article. Per you request, I will hold off on further edits until you are done. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:21, 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)

Hi Sanjee. WP:IUI gives instructions on how to upload graphics files. In short, go to Wikimedia Commons and press the Upload link (in a blue box at the upper righthand side of the page). Once you have uploaded the file, Wikimedia Commons will give you a link that you can copy and paste into the article. The link looks like [[Image:<name of image file> | thumb | <image size in pixels, an integer>px | <figure caption>]]. Instructions for adding tables can be found at Help:Table. If you have any additional questions, don't hesitate to ask. Boghog (talk) 03:07, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
I see that you had already figured out how to add figures and tables. They just needed a few adjustments. The main problem with the figure was that it wasn't cropped. I took the liberty of removing the unused white space around the figure. I also made a few adjustments to the table. I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 03:55, 26 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)

Protein families

[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)

You said about "several transporter systems" other than TCDB. Which systems did you mean? Nothing really comes to my mind except human gene nomenclature, but that would work only for human proteins and closely related species. My very best wishes (talk) 18:41, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
No objections to improving these pages of course [2]. BTW, speaking about human proteins, how do you think, would something like that be helpful or better not? I have no definite opinion about it right now. My very best wishes (talk) 02:09, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 14 May

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)

Speedy deletion nomination of PBB/342346

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 nomination by visiting 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)

This is just to remind you

…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)

Please, in future 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)
@Leprof 7272: Adding redundant attention banners to an article is disruptive. You came very close to being blocked for this behavior. If you continue this behavior, it is likely that you will be blocked. Please stop. Boghog (talk) 04:29, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: The essay that you refer to does not apply to redundant attention banners. Per WP:BRD, you made a bold edit to add the attention banner, I reverted, now it is time to discuss. I did explain my reasoning here which you simply deleted without discussion. Please follow the rules. Boghog (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272: The first rule of collegial participation is respecting community consensus. There is clear community consensus that your use of attention banners is excessive. You need to respect that consensus. Boghog (talk) 05:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The issue is whether the second is redundant, whether you took sufficient time in your reversion to see if, in my re-introducing the tag I addressed your initial concern, and whether you are following rules required to achieve a consensus in each editorial situation, regarding your reversions. See below. 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Second ping unnecessary, past posts about past editing is immaterial, and the issue remains whether the second tag is redundant. See below 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
A further unnecessary ping on the same subject, there is no consensus on this specific matter (your argument otherwise an absurdity), see below. 50.129.227.141 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
The absurdity is your refusal to get the point. Your use of attention banners is excessive and needs to stop. Boghog (talk) 19:55, 23 May 2016 (UTC)

Please, in future

...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)

In the latest case, you reverted without noting that the tag content was clarified when I returned it after your initial edit. (In returning the tag, I clarified the text in it to avoid your continued misunderstanding—the expert tag is not about sourcing.) The issue stated in the revised Expert tag addresses the fact that he article has accumulated, via inexpert attention, a significant amount of material. The accumulated material is, in my experienced view, incomplete enough in perspective that it is, to a significant degree, misleading. This is why it needs expert attention. It is a content and expertise issue, for agriculture.
Otherwise, there is no consensus about this particular case. To the contrary, Ninja, after reviewing the work posted at my Talk page, "I don't see any policy violations at Conditioner (farming)." So you are clearly not in consensus about this matter.
If you want to revert, create a consensus for a further, broader consensus regarding the current case. On this case, you missed the boat (point), that the revised tag is clearly not redundant (so our arguments regarding your right to remove redundant tags is not applicable). Otherwise, it is too easy that you see yourself to be given the free reign to break rules regarding removing tags, because there was an earlier discussion, about earlier edits, where something of a consensus existed. To claim that that past covers this present is to argue that I have not in anyway modified my behaviour. I have (including responding with a tag content edit, in response to your initial objection). It is you who are not modifying your behaviour in response.
Otherwise, in principle, there is no such thing as a general, longstanding consensus that covers all future edits of an editor; a specific consensus must be found on this issue. Please stop and review edits carefully before performing knee-jerk reversions. I repeat, the call for an expert is separate from the sourcing matter: it is a call for expert attention to the content. 18:47, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
I would note also, that unless you carry with you further undisclosed skills, you certainly are not an expert in agriculture, and should not be asserting your right to make a call in the matter at hand. Show some humility. I got a call from the son of a farmer. I went to the article hoping to be able to point the person to the Wikipedia article. What I found was a limited discussion based on commercial sales documents on this type of equipment. I found two documents on the web, point him to those instead, and made the further cursory review and edits that are now in dispute. What on earth have you done here, except disrupt what otherwise would have been a constructive set of edits? In what way are you the right person to insert yourself in an article about agriculture, and decide that the content does not need an expert's attention? Please, stop stalking. Please, find, in humility, some limits to your disruptions. Le Prof 18:54, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Because you ignored Ninja and my perspectives, ignored the edit summary contents, and ignored the Talk at the article and here, I have asked the attention of an Admin. Please wait with further reversions, for others to have a say. It is now tacitly two to one against you. The tag redundancy issue has been addressed, twice, by revisions of the tag content, and you have no consensus that the tags are redundant. Wait. Who knows, perhaps the others will agree with you. Meanwhile, feel free to state your Ag or other qualifications at Talk, there, for removing a call for an Ag Expert. No more discussion here. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:25, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Stop playing games. If the article has no citations, it is clearly inadequate regardless if it was created with or without citations. Full stop. Hence your second attention banner is redundant. I suggested a better option here which you simply deleted without discussion. Boghog (talk) 19:26, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Obfuscation. Talk page deletion, without discussion, is because you are not welcome at my Talk page, period. All other objections or concerns have been addressed. Now take it up at the article Talk page. This needs to end here. You make it too hard on others coming in to sort matters. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Obfuscation. You have a right to delete comments on your talk page, but your deletion of my comments implies that you have read them. Boghog (talk) 19:50, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Please reread the section above, "This is just to remind you", which states what you can and cannot assume about my reading your posts at my Talk page. (Your assumption is generally erroneous. You are again being imperious, declaring that deletion implies having read; think about how you handle spam email. Please.) Otherwise, in this case, I will acknowledge that I did choose to read that post, and did act on it (posting at the Ag wikiproject). One of us is persuadable, as to the common sense messages of the other. Unfortunately, you are not likewise yielding in any regard, even, in this case, where objective outsiders can agree that the issue of the content of this article will not be resolved by simply finding sources to support what is already there. Separate issues, and clearly stubborn, unyielding, close-minded opposition. This is my last on it here, feel free to say or do with this what you will. If you dissemble, however, I will paste in a "pre-recorded" repetitive one line making clear that you are trying to close on a less than honest note. Le Prof 50.129.227.141 (talk) 19:59, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Your attitude is incredibly arrogant. You have no problem pasting walls of words on my talk page, but you cannot be bothered to read what I have posted on yours. Boghog (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
@Leprof 7272 and 50.129.227.141: Since you have refused to respond to my post on your talk page, I am repeating the post below. I would also appreciate if you would stop playing games and deal directly with the issue. Boghog (talk) 03:24, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PubMed screen shot PMID 24685839.png

⚠
⚠

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)

Synthesis

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)

Hi Seppi. HMB is a very simple molecule with limited number of reliable sources describing its synthesis (for example, from the oxidation of diacetone alcohol[1][2] or microbial oxidation of β-methylbutyric acid[3]). Hence a synthesis section will likely be very short. More has been published on the biosynthesis and metabolism. I can work on both this when I have more time this weekend. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:40, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, I really appreciate it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for the help! I think there's a typo in the image though - shouldn't the compound on the far right be labeled β-methylbutyric acid? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:38, 4 June 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing out the copy and paste error. This has now been fixed. Given the synthesis of HMB is so simple and given the very limited number reliable sources that the discuss the synthesis, I don't think it will be possible to expand this section much further. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 08:58, 5 June 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

  1. ^ Coffman DD, Cramer R, Mochel WE (June 1958). "Syntheses by Free-radical Reactions. V. A New Synthesis of Carboxylic Acids". Journal of the American Chemical Society. 80 (11): 2882–2887. doi:10.1021/ja01544a072.
  2. ^ Doraiswamy LK (2001). "Example 5.2". Organic Synthesis Engineering. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 102–4. ISBN 978-0-19-509689-7.
  3. ^ Lee IY, Nissen SL, Rosazza JP (1997). "Conversion of beta-methylbutyric acid to beta-hydroxy-beta-methylbutyric acid by Galactomyces reessii" (PDF). Applied and Environmental Microbiology. 63 (11): 4191–5. PMC 168736. PMID 9361403.

Citation style

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)

  • Hi @Kashmiri: I was just following WP:CITEVAR. The first citation that was added to Survival of motor neuron used the Vancouver style author format. Since then, the use of a single |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.
  • A rationale for the use of the vauthors parameter may be found here and here. In short, |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)
  • One last point. |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)

Worries of nonconsensus template hacks

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

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

@Joflaher: Hi. I am not sure exactly what type of figure you are referring to. For chemical structures, there is some advice at MOS:CSDG. For protein structures, there is PyMOL. For other types of figures (e.g., File:Eicosanoid synthesis.svg) even PowerPoint can be used. Instructions for uploading graphic files may be found here. If you indicate what type of figure you are trying to draw, I can give you more explicit suggestions. Boghog (talk) 11:59, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

CDKL5

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 Chris. Thanks for your contributions to the CDKL5 article. I got carried away with deletion of the press releases since I thought they were all published by pharmaceutical companies and promotional in nature. The NICE press release does not fall in the same category, so I have restored it. There are a lot of drugs in the preclinical pipeline most of which never reach the market. Hence I think it is premature to include these types of links. I hope this is OK. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:58, 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 Chris. I have restored an edited version of the protein therapy approach that doesn't hype the company as much. Also per external links, Don't use external links to web-based or email-based support groups for patients, professionals, or other affected people (even if run by a charitable organization). I have therefore trimmed the external links section. One needs to keep in mind that the purpose of Wikipedia is not promotion or advocacy (see WP:NOTPROMOTION). Boghog (talk) 15:59, 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)

Editor of the Week

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:

I nominate Boghog to be Editor of the Week for his excellent work on science related articles. We need more people who are willing to help out in topics such as medicine and science, with the knowledge levels that will allow decent quality articles. It's something I know I can't do, so to see someone so prolific doing such good work is fantastic. This editor is a no-nonsense kind and knows/helps wikiproject Medicine so much.' He justly deserves this award.

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 @Worm That Turned: Not sure what exactly I did to deserve this award, but thanks your nominating me! Appreciate it. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:44, 3 July 2016 (UTC)
Congratulations! :) Opabinia regalis (talk) 00:32, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
Congrats! Thanks for your time and effort. Buster Seven Talk 10:06, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
Congrats Boghog! You definitely deserve an award like this for all the work you've done on Wikipedia IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:43, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

too much time on my hands I guess

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)

Hi Rskurot. Absolutely there is a need for more Molecular & Cell Bio people (see WP:MCB). Unfortunately that project is not very active these days. There was some significant recent work done on DNA and Enzyme, but other than that, not much. I don't know your interests, but topical articles like CRISPR or Cancer immunotherapy could really use some work. More active are the WP:MED and WP:PHARMA projects, so you might check those out.
As to your second question, I occasionally get frustrated that common sense arguments on the validity of a study don't carry much weight around here. But I also understand that these types of arguments are prone to editor bias and it is better to rely on the conclusions of reliable secondary sources. For those coming from a research background, Wikipedia sourcing guidelines and polices can seem very strange and overly cautious. One would think publication in a high quality peer reviewed journal should be sufficient sourcing. However especially for health related and controversial topics, secondary sources (review) articles are strongly preferred. As discussed in more detail in WP:WHYMEDRS, there are a couple of reasons for this. First, an astonishing high percentage of primary research cannot be repeated. Second, the results of clinical trials frequently contradict each other.[1] With the number of contradictory studies, it is often easy for a Wikipedia editor to cherry pick studies that support their particular view point. For this reason, it is generally much safer to rely on reliable secondary sources that review the available evidence to come to a conclusion. Does this make any sense? Boghog (talk) 15:31, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Kolata G (11 August 2016). "We're So Confused: The Problems With Food and Exercise Studies". New York Times.

Ineffectual system

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)

Hi. I think Wikipedia procedures on the whole work pretty well. On the other hand, I do not understand why you proposed deletion of {{Reliable sources please}}. It is a useful template that is widely used. You did point out the name of the template was inaccurate. The solution to that problem is to rename it (to for example {{Reliable medical sources please}} using WP:REQMOVE) rather than delete it. According to WP:TFD#REASONS, Templates should not be nominated [for deletion] if the issue can be fixed by normal editing. Normal editing includes renaming. Hence your TfD submission did not follow proper procedures. A WP:SNOW keep means that the proposed TfD has no chance of being accepted because no valid reason was given for the deletion. Boghog (talk) 06:50, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Free acid redirect

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)

Hi Seippi. Currently there doesn't seem to be a good target for the redirect. In analogy to free base, we could create a new free acid stub. There doesn't seem to be nearly as much written about free acids compared to bases, but I have found a couple of sources.[1] I don't have much time right now to work on this, but this weekend, I should. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Stahl PH, Nakamo M (2008). "Pharmaceutical Aspects of the Salt Form". In Stahl PH, Warmth CG (eds.). Handbook of Pharmaceutical Salts: Properties, Selection, and Use. Weinheim: Wiley-VCH. pp. 92–94. ISBN 978-3-906390-58-1.
 Done @Seppi333: Because of the difficultly that I am having in finding good secondary sources that discuss the concept in depth, I think the notability of a stand alone Free acid article is borderline. I have instead created a redirect to Acid#Dissociation_and_equilibrium where I have included a brief definition of free acid. Perhaps this could be split out as a separate article in the future, but for now, I think the current redirect is adequate. Boghog (talk) 08:17, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks again for doing this. You've been a big help. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:55, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Chemical structure of HMB

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)

I took a stab at this and added 3 sentences + 2 images (one of butyric acid w/ the carbons labeled and one of beta-hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid) in the beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#Physical and chemical properties section. When you get a chance to look, could you make or suggest any changes you think are appropriate? Sorry for annoying you with all these requests. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 00:55, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Sorry for not responding sooner, but I am really busy in real life in the middle of the week. The figures that you have produced are fine. The parent is butyric acid and the substituents are at the beta position. The chemical structure is very simple and therefore there is not a whole lot more to say. I took the liberty of split out a nomenclature section which is a distinct topic from chemical properties. I hope that is OK. Boghog (talk) 08:22, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for taking a look at it! I really didn't mean to put any pressure on you to do anything that you don't have time available to address, so please don't worry about that now or in the future - WP:There is no deadline. FACs run for about 2 full months before they close and this one literally just started, so there really isn't any urgency. Anyway, I figured butyric acid was probably the most logical parent compound to mention since 3-isovaleric acid is just 3-methylbutyric acid, which is why I created the File:Butyric acid carbons.svg image.
Also, I have two quick questions for you:
  1. Would it be reasonable to retitle the section that you called "Nomenclature" as "Chemical structure", or is "Nomenclature" the best heading for the current content? I was considering adding more content to that section about its structural classification; however, I'm ok with either heading.
  2. Would you mind if I removed the "acetone", "diacetone alcohol", "β-hydroxy β-methylbutyric acid", and "β-methylbutyric acid" text from File:HMB synthesis.svg and added these as annotations on the image at Commons:File:HMB synthesis.svg? This might increase its reusability on other wikis and I'm currently using {{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.
Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:48, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree that "chemical structure" is better than "nomenclature" in the "chemical and physical properties". Somewhat off topic, in taking a second look at WP:PHARMMOS, I am not sure that I agree with putting "Synthesis" and "Detection in body fluids under "Physical and chemical properties". The synthesis is not a fundamental property of a drug as there are many ways of synthesizing it. Detection is also not a property of a drug. I think "Physical and chemical properties" should be renamed Chemistry. Chemistry includes both synthetic and analytical (detection) chemistry. I will take this up at WT:PHARMMOS. Finally I have no objection if you change the figure. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:11, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 26 August

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)

Nomination for deletion of Template:UniProt2

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)

Converting ACCNx pages to ASICx pages

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)

Hi Genewiki1. Thanks for your contributions! According to the article name guideline, it is recommended that Gene Wiki articles should be named after the UniProt recommended name if short, or the HUGO gene symbol if the protein name is verbose. Hence I agree with you that ACCN1, ACCN2, ACCN3, ACCN4 should moved to ASIC1, ASIC2, ASIC3, and ASIC4 respectively. Since there are no redirects from the target pages, all you need to move the pages (and also change the direct from ASIC1 (gene), ... to ASIC1, ... ). Note that it is not necessary to include the "gene" disambiguation in the article names since these gene symbols are unique. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply. As per your approval I moved and then edited the 4 pages to the new names: ASIC1...ASIC4. I'd appreciate if you could check and report here if there are any problems. Best regards. Genewiki1 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Genewiki1. Your edits look good. I have however edited the lead sentence in an attempt to make it as simple as possible so that it can be understood by a wide audience. As discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear in the lead sentence that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:
The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human.
Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for checking and for the revisions. Genewiki1 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

trimethylamine monooxygenase and FMO3

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)

Based on expasy, there is only one human gene that encodes enzyme with trimethylamine monooxygenase activity, namely FMO3, hence I agree that these two articles should be merged. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:27, 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)

I would be happy to help, but the biggest problem that I face is that I do not have access to SciFinder or Reaxys to locate appropriate sources of chemical information for HMB. Even if I did, it is questionable whether there is additional chemistry information that is notable enough to add the the article. The only thing I can suggest is that someone at the chemistry project might be able to a literature search and supply us with the citations. With citations, I could do the rest. Boghog (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
Alright, I'm not sure precisely what you need so I downloaded PDFs of the properties and preparation reactions of HMB with the citations. I think this can also be downloaded in .txt or .xls formats if you prefer. Gresham et al. Journal of the American Chemical Society; vol. 76; (1954); p. 486 looks somewhat promising. Noti et. al published a 2012 patent on the preparation of HMB from 4,4-dimethyloxetan-2-one. Also ping @Seppi333: Download here Sizeofint (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
@Sizeofint and Seppi333: Fantastic! Exactly what I needed. Now I should be able to significantly expand the chemistry section. I am busy during the week but certainly by this weekend, I should be able to work on this. In the meantime, I have down loaded all the files. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

FA

  • [5] had requested, if your doing "chemistry part" (co-opt), it might be useful,..had left a different ref w/ Seppi333[6]..good luck--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
    @Ozzie10aaaa: Assuming it is what I think it is, that pdf might be something I could use to find additional citations which I might have overlooked/missed for sourcing article content; so, if you could send it to me as well, that'd be helpful. My email is censored out in the source code following this sentence. Also, thanks for helping out. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:11, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333:sent--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Ozzie10aaaa and Seppi333: Please send it me as well. We already have search results from SciFinder, so I don't think there will be anything new, but just in case. Also I remembered as part of my ACS subscription, I have limited number of searches I can do on SciFinder to fill in any blacks. Boghog (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
[7] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
@Seppi333: Thanks. Unfortunately nothing new. Please be aware that most of the physical properties in this report are calculated (and therefore of questionable reliability). Also I am highly suspicious of references #1 and #2 (Gakhokidze). The method used by Gakhokidze to prepare HMB is very unlikely to have worked so I am not sure what the author was measuring. Boghog (talk) 20:02, 25 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)

removal of eurocentric bias, replace with diverse, multicultural, non-eurocentric detail

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)

The place to discuss this is at the guideline's talk page. It is one thing to add to the list of reliable sources, but you replaced the list of Western sources with a new list of non-Western sources. This is not balanced. Also one needs to be very careful about sources. According to a Chinese government investigation, "80% of data in Chinese clinical trials have been fabricated". Science Alert. Boghog (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is that the list of journal that you have added (African Journal of Biomedical Research, Myanmar Medical Journal, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, Chinese Medical Journal) as far as I can tell have not issued any practice guidelines, and hence do not belong in this list. Boghog (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, having both Western and non-Western source list is more balanced. Fabrication of research is not new, neither is it unique to the Chinese, it is a universal problem and is also a common issue in the west: "Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern". Perspect Clin Res.. Should we also discriminate against western sources due to fraud? Favoring one (possibly questionable) source over another, based on ethnic/political/national affiliations or inclinations is indeed biased. We should not be swayed by political or ethnocentric interests when considering sources, but present balanced information. Prevailing western authority of scientific and medical matters is a form of cultural imperialism. Therefore, the inclusion or intentional omission of balanced diverse/international sources, where relevant, may indeed be an issue that needs to be addressed in a separate section of Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

About VGlut 3

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)

Hi. I am not an expert on glutamate transporters either. If you are specifically interested in VGluT3, I suggest that you edit SLC17A8 instead of glutamate transporter. The former article is a stub while the later is already fairly well developed. I also suggest that you stick to secondary sources (review articles and books). These are generally more reliable and discuss the subject at a less detailed level. What you need to do is paraphrase the sources that you are using. That means carefully reading the material until you understand it and then put it in your own words. I know this is difficult, but there are really no short cuts. If you make a first attempt, I will try to help by editing contributions for clarity. Boghog (talk) 07:45, 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)

changes to laminin alpha 5

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 alpha 5 subunit- 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)

Actin cytoskeleton

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 Actin or Actin#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)

Been that way a long time

Please get consensus first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

If you read carefully the discussion, there was a developing consensus that we should split the articles with testosterone as the primary topic. Boghog (talk) 18:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure and I support splitting aswell. The next question is how should the article be split and that question has not really been asked. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The discussion has lead to two different proposals for how the article should be split (primary/secondary topics or through a disambiguation page). So yes, the question has already been asked in two different ways. Also Been that way a long time – it has been that way for the last two months. For the prior 16 years, the lead sentence didn't even mention medication. I was returning the article to the consensus that existed for the previous 16 years. Boghog (talk) 23:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Been bad a long time

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)

@Leprof 7272 and 73.211.138.148: Fix problems, not plaster articles with attention banners. Also you have still not answered the question I have asked here and here. Why are you adding the identical attention banner to multiple sections? Boghog (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

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)

I am just a little frustrated right now and I apologize for blowing up. Thanks for your soothing note. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 23:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks

For your work on Selective factor 1 back in May. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 17:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC).

Thanks. It wasn't that much work, but I do appreciate your note. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:32, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

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)

Syncytin-1/HERVW/ERVWe1

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)

Thanks for your note. However the approved HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee symbol is ERVW-1, not ERVWe1. Boghog (talk) 20:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
The syncytin-1 article is primarily about the human protein and the inherited endogenous retrovirus gene encoding that protein, not the ancestral provirus. Concering the lead sentence in Gene Wiki articles, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:
The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 20:47, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
so syncytin-1 is one of the human proteins though... the above sentence implies that syncytin-1 is present in other mammalian species and what differentiates it is the gene that encodes it. Which would be innaccurate. The syncytin proteins in other species and even syncytin-2 in humans are not necessarily close relatives of syncytin-1... many use different receptors and have very little sequence identity within the SU. TM is conserved for most class I glycoproteins anyway.Jollyclause (talk) 21:15, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
According to HomoloGene: 137309, there is at least one ortholog to the human ERVW-1 gene. I am not certain that the dog gene is really an ortholog to the human gene, but that is at least what the Homologene claims. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
This list of primate orthologs looks much more reasonable. Boghog (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
@Jollyclause: Also per WP:LEAD, it is important to write the lead in such a way that it can be understood by a wide audience. It is also important to state why the subject is important early in the lead. That is why I moved up the function of the protein in the lead and in the article and move the technical description of the gene down. Boghog (talk) 20:54, 1 December 2016 (UTC)
coolJollyclause (talk) 21:15, 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)

  1. NCBI nomenclature follows the HUGO nomenclature. Also there do appear to be a number of primate orthologs of the human ERVW-1 gene.
  2. No objection.
  3. No objection.
Boghog (talk) 21:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 5 December

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)

References

You would do well to use these. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Doc James: Huh? Boghog (talk) 19:14, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The ref calls the natural product "ciclosporin"[8] This is a simple spelling difference between the two sides of the ocean. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:16, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
It is more than that. It was first spelled cyclosporine by those that first discovered it and this spelling is still to this date widely used in the scientific literature. Boghog (talk) 19:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
All three spelling are commonly used for both the natural product and the medication. There is nothing special about one spelling over another. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
There continues to be an overwhelming preference for the cyclosporine spelling in the scientific literature. Boghog (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

pseudogene changes

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)

They were not reverted, but were edited. I replaced the quotation with a paraphrased version. Boghog (talk) 08:33, 29 December 2016 (UTC)

pseudogenes changes

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)

boghog method of communication

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)

Hi. Thanks for your note. Wikipedia's purpose and procedures are very different from academia. No editor, no mater how impressive their credentials can be considered a reliable source. Only publications in reputable journals or other outlets with a history of fact checking are considered reliable. Only published reviews that undergo peer review can be considered secondary. We should be citing reviews, not writing reviews. Furthermore there are no shortage of recent pseudogene secondary sources. Per WP:SECONDARY, while primary sources are allowed, secondary sources are preferred. Concerning the diagram, I do not see how this contributes to the article. Graphics should be more than eye candy. Per MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE, they should aid understanding of the subject of the article. All the figure tells me is that there have been some recent publication on the topic. The figure does not help me understand what a pseudogene is. Also I just noticed that there was a request on the pseudogene talk page dating back to 2008 pointing to the same figure that I suggested to use as a template. This figure contains a lot of information about the structure of pseudogenes and where they came from which IMHO is much more appropriate. Boghog (talk) 08:51, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
The WP:LEAD (and by extension, any figures appearing in the lead) should be written in a way that it will be understood by a wide audience. Titles from highly technical publications are not going to mean much to most people. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Third round of FAC

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)

Structure diagrams

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)

Not very long. ChemDraw → file.pdf → pdf2svg → file.svg. Boghog (talk) 02:27, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok. Do you own a license for that software or do they offer some form of freeware version?
Anyway, the reason I asked is that another user (Medgirl131) asked me to create a metabolism diagram for bicalutamide similar to template:Amphetamine pharmacokinetics. If you can create the image file in svg, I could easily annotate the enzyme labels (CYP3A4 and UGT1A9) and reaction labels (hydroxylation and glucuronidation) as wikitext onto the image. Alternatively, I can create the svg diagram myself, but I don't have any software to draw skeletal structures on my laptop; so, I'd need to import the svg image files for the chemical structures of the bicalutamide enantiomers and its metabolites into inkscape. If you can create the metabolism diagram (without labels) or just provide me with the skeletal structures of these compounds in an svg format, I'd really appreciate it since it would save me some work.
Basically what I'd need is either:
  • the skeletal structures of (S)-Bicalutamide, (S)-Bicalutamide glucuronide, (R)-Bicalutamide, (R)-Hydroxybicalutamide, and (R)-Hydroxybicalutamide glucuronide.
    If it helps, this image is a low quality graphic of the chemical structures.
or
  • an unlabeled diagram illustrating this pathway without labels,[1] oriented horizontally (as opposed to the vertical orientation in this image) so that the width of the diagram is greater than the height. In other words, I'd want:
the top row/pathway to show: (S)-Bicalutamide → (S)-Bicalutamide glucuronide
the bottom row/pathway to show: (R)-Bicalutamide → (R)-Hydroxybicalutamide → (R)-Hydroxybicalutamide glucuronide
If drawing the diagram is something you can do for me, don't worry about the length of the arrows being too long or short; I can easily modify those in inkscape when I start to annotate it with {{AI4}} so that resulting annotated diagram looks cosmetically appealing. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:58, 16 December 2016 (UTC)
Citation for the pathway (Full text link)

References

  1. ^ Cockshott ID (2004). "Bicalutamide: clinical pharmacokinetics and metabolism". Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 43 (13): 855–878. doi:10.2165/00003088-200443130-00003. PMID 15509184. 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.
Unfortunately there is no freeware version of ChemDraw. I have made an initial attempt here: File:Bicalutamide metabolism.svg. IMHO, drawing the enantiomers is overly pedantic and would lead to a schematic diagram that is much larger than necessary. The source doesn't, so why should we? Boghog (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
Ah ok. Thanks for the graphic - that's exactly what I needed. I've modified the image slightly in inkscape; I'll annotate it today or tomorrow and ping you when I'm done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 08:46, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
How does this annotated image look? Are there any changes that you think I should make? Also, thanks again for providing me with the svg image file! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:15, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
On second thought, I think the stereochemistry should be displayed. I initially thought you intended to display the stereochemistry for all combinations of regioisomers and stereoisomers. Now I see that the metabolism is stereoselective. Hence I have added the stereochemistry. After my edit, the text and arrows don't line perfectly. Can you fix that? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Sure, thanks for fixing that. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
It's done. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Looks great. Thanks! Boghog (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Rotating the structures

The structure of bicalutamide as depicted in the bicalutamide article

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)

Also, thanks again for helping me out by drawing the structures in the diagram! It probably would have required several hours of work on my part if I had to create the image file for template:bicalutamide metabolism from scratch. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:41, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I have rotated File:Bicalutamide.svg back to its original orientation so that it now matches the metabolism graphic. The phenylcyano group of bicalutamide binds to the same pocket of the androgen receptor as the A-ring of testosterone which is normally draw on the left hand side. To be consistent with the way testosterone is drawn, the phenylcyano group should also be drawn to the left. There are a bunch of other figures of anti androgens that also should be drawn in the same orientation and I am in the process of fixing these. Boghog (talk) 20:56, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that works too, thanks! Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:00, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Template:Bicalutamide metabolism

Bicalutamide metabolism in humans[1][2]
Graphic of bicalutamide metabolism in humans
(S)-Bicalutamide glucuronide
(R)-Hydroxybicalutamide
(R)-Hydroxybicalutamide glucuronide
via UGT1A9
via UGT1A9
via CYP3A4
The image above contains clickable links
Add desired caption here

References

  1. ^ Cockshott ID (2004). "Bicalutamide: clinical pharmacokinetics and metabolism". Clinical Pharmacokinetics. 43 (13): 855–878. doi:10.2165/00003088-200443130-00003. PMID 15509184. S2CID 29912565. 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.
  2. ^ Grosse L, Campeau AS, Caron S, Morin FA, Meunier K, Trottier J, Caron P, Verreault M, Barbier O (August 2013). "Enantiomer selective glucuronidation of the non-steroidal pure anti-androgen bicalutamide by human liver and kidney: role of the human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT)1A9 enzyme". Basic & Clinical Pharmacology & Toxicology. 113 (2): 92–102. doi:10.1111/bcpt.12071. PMC 3815647. PMID 23527766.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boghog/Archive_10&oldid=1138909074"