Jump to content

User talk:Boghog/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

A barnstar for you!

The Teamwork Barnstar
Nice work collaborating to make Binding site better! Also thanks for working with the student editors in a non-bitey way :) Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 14:58, 17 December 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! It really helps when the student is willing to discuss, as they were in this case. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:37, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

CRP page

Hi, Boghog.

I see you've recently edited the CRP page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C-reactive_protein). On that page, under "Serum levels", I notice very contradictory information as to the half-life of CRP, either 19 hours or 4-7 hours. These two values seem to be based on peer-review publications and it appears that the literature and other web pages are also contradictory. I have not read the literature enough to make my own judgement on this. Do you have any insight? Perhaps disagreement on the half-life of CRP can be noted instead of the current text.


Best, Adam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adams5400 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. I have responded at the article's talk page (Talk:C-reactive_protein#Half_life). Boghog (talk) 14:39, 1 January 2019 (UTC)

Concerning citations

Hi, Boghog! I've noticed that you fixed some of my citations in Cerebral folate deficiency. I made them automatically using this tool. Should I use some other tool instead? --CopperKettle 16:55, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi CopperKettle! Good to see that you are back. The Biomedical citation maker is a little dated since it produces citation templates with |author= whereas |vauthors= is preferable way of specifying Vancouver style authors (the later is parsed by the template to produce clean meta data and is compatible with |display-authors=, |author-link=, etc.) The Wikipedia template filling tool produces {{cite journal}} with the more up-to-date |vauthors=. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:05, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
What would we do without you? I know you already have one of these from 2008, but I rarely make an edit without some evidence of your eyes passing over the article soon after. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks and thank you for adding and expanded great content to beginning with! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:18, 18 January 2019 (UTC)

Boghog

Hello,

It seems you repeatedly removed reference that I cited on the hydrogen-deuterium exchange page. It seems you also prefer or remove many edits everyday. I wonder, what is the issue in the citation which I added ? It is very much relevant and in the exact match to the section. Is there is any alternate way to add citatation then please let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maheysh (talk • contribs) 15:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. It look very suspicious when an editor adds the same or related citations from the same research groups to a number of different articles, especially when no content is added to go along with the citations. This behavior suggests that the editor has a conflict of interest (see also WP:CITESPAM). Also Wikipedia prefers secondary source (e.g., review articles). All the citations that you have added are WP:primary. Boghog (talk) 15:23, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
The following three citations that were repeatedly added to a number of article (1) are all from the same research group and (2) are all primary. Several of the article are more general whereas the publications below are specialized examples. More appropriate sources can be found. Essentially you are using the articles to highlight the citations which is backwards. Boghog (talk) 20:53, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

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

The 2018 Cure Award
In 2018 you were one of the top ~250 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.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

citation formats Reply Comment

Thank you for your care with the medical articles. I seem to be making work for you reformatting the citations I've added to Do not resuscitate. I usually use ProveIt to generate citations automatically. Is there a better way? Particularly I see you change authors' first names to initials, which is a traditional British style, where I was leaving them in whatever way ProveIt generated, which seemed to be whatever way the journal had used. Perhaps there is an application which generates references better? Another question is that I hope you won't mind my re-inserting web links if the doi goes behind a pay wall, and there is a free web link elsewhere, such as a university site or researchgate? Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:50, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. WP:ProveIt is a generally accepted way of adding citations. The problem is that ProveIt in turn uses WP:Citoid and there are disagreements between Citoid and English Wikipedia |date= and |pmc= conventions that result in CS1 errors (see Category:CS1 errors: dates Category:CS1 errors: PMC respectively). I have been correcting these errors. In addition, there are often inconsistencies in the way first authors are displayed. Other than in featured articles, there is no requirement consistency, but consistency does make the citation lists look cleaner and easier to read. If the existing citations in an article use |vauthors=, you could use the Wikipedia template filling tool format citation in this same style. Boghog (talk) 13:03, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
Also concerning web links, tf the URL and the DOI point to the same page, clearly there is no reason to include the URL, but if there is a legal free version, please go ahead and reinsert these. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 31 January 2019 (UTC)
I appreciate the explanations. Numbersinstitute (talk) 21:36, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Yohimbine

Dear Boghog, You recently removed an entire section of 23,387 bytes of material on the ground that it "is supported only by primary sources, (cite review, don't write them))". I do not believe your interpretation of the relevant guidelines about primary sources is correct in this instance, but in any event wouldn't it have been better to raise the matter on the article's talk page first? This I now invite you to do.Ttocserp (talk) 08:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Ttocserp:. You are right, I should have opened up a discussion on the talk page which I have now done. Boghog (talk) 11:16, 9 February 2019 (UTC)

Active moiety

Considering that several articles mention "active moiety" or "active moieties", do you think it would be beneficial to readers if I were to create an active moiety article or a Moiety (chemistry)#Active moiety subsection? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Actually, I just noticed that New chemical entity#Definition already defines an active moiety, but the scope of that article isn't really appropriate for an active moiety redirect IMO. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:38, 16 February 2019 (UTC) Nevermind. It definitely seems like an encyclopedic topic; since the moiety (chemistry) article needs to be expanded and an independent "Active moiety" article would remain a stub, I expanded Moiety (chemistry) and redirected active moiety to Moiety (chemistry)#Active moiety. This was a pretty trivial issue, so I apologize for bothering you with all the talk page pings. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:56, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Hi Seppi. If split, we would have two very short stubs bordering on dictionary definitions. Hence I think these two article are better left merged. Boghog (talk) 14:27, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:British suffragists and suffragettes

Template:British suffragists and suffragettes has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Zackmann (Talk to me/What I been doing) 00:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Enamelin

Please leave my editing of enamelin alone until I finished all sections, you are creating edit conflicts — Preceding unsigned comment added by CuspOfCarabelli (talk • contribs) 22:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Help!

Sorry to bother you, I’m not clear on how to communicate with other users (or even if that’s appropriate) but I noticed you were helpful in sorting out my references earlier and I was hoping you might be able to help again with the additional citations I’ve place on the page regarding leptomeningeal collaterals.

Best,

Tom Drtomriddington (talk) 20:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

course grading and edits

Hi Boghog,

I'm the instructor for a biochemistry course in which students are creating or expanding Wikipedia pages. The final edited versions of their pages are due the 12th. If it's all the same to you, would you mind refraining from editing their pages for a few days? It makes it easier for them to get the pages the way they like them, and makes grading easier as well. After the 12th of course you should feel free to edit as a you see fit.

Thanks for all your work over the years in improving the quality of the biochemistry information available on Wikipedia. I use it as a resource all the time, as I'm sure 1000s of other practicing scientists do as well.

Che183 (talk) 05:05, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. If it is important for grading that the articles are not edited others, it would be better that the students make edits in their sandbox and the sandbox version is graded. Once an article is in main space, anyone can edit it. I will try to restrict my editing to the reference format. Boghog (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
Hi Che183--we don't seem to have you listed as an affiliated instructor with us, so I just sent you an email about working with the Wiki Education Foundation. Boghog is right, students don't have ownership of the pages they work on, or even the ones they create. All articles are edited collaboratively, which is great because students often make mistakes, and experienced Wikipedians know how to correct those mistakes. If your course is supported by the WEF, then you can look at your students' contributions through the authorship highlighting feature of the Dashboard. This is helpful for grading, as you can see exactly what a student did with an article. Elysia (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.17

Hello Boghog,

News
Discussions of interest
  • Two elements of CSD G6 have been split into their own criteria: R4 for redirects in the "File:" namespace with the same name as a file or redirect at Wikimedia Commons (Discussion), and G14 for disambiguation pages which disambiguate zero pages, or have "(disambiguation)" in the title but disambiguate a single page (Discussion).
  • {{db-blankdraft}} was merged into G13 (Discussion)
  • A discussion recently closed with no consensus on whether to create a subject-specific notability guideline for theatrical plays.
  • There is an ongoing discussion on a proposal to create subject-specific notability guidelines for chemicals and organism taxa.
Reminders
  • NPR is not a binary keep / delete process. In many cases a redirect may be appropriate. The deletion policy and its associated guideline clearly emphasise that not all unsuitable articles must be deleted. Redirects are not contentious. See a classic example of the templates to use. More templates are listed at the R template index. Reviewers who are not aware, do please take this into consideration before PROD, CSD, and especially AfD because not even all admins are aware of such policies, and many NAC do not have a full knowledge of them.
NPP Tools Report
  • Superlinks – allows you to check an article's history, logs, talk page, NPP flowchart (on unpatrolled pages) and more without navigating away from the article itself.
  • copyvio-check – automatically checks the copyvio percentage of new pages in the background and displays this info with a link to the report in the 'info' panel of the Page curation toolbar.
  • The NPP flowchart now has clickable hyperlinks.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – Low – 2393 High – 4828
Looking for inspiration? There are approximately 1000 female biographies to review.
Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:18, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for all your citation work

Hi Boghog, I wanted to thank you for all the work you've done formatting references in articles that I and many others have worked on, it's greatly appreciated.

I was wondering, do use use a tool to help streamline the process and if so what? I have just been using the citation tool built into the visual editor by getting searching for the PMID or ISBN number (most of my cites are to medical review articles) but this doesn't necessarily fit with the style that others have used in these articles beforehand. Would be useful to know to relieve some of your burden! Thanks again, PeaBrainC (talk) 18:29, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your question. Historically the citations many Wikipedia biomedical articles were created with User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). This tool formats authors in Vancouver style and has been updated to use the |vauthors= parameter. Unfortunately most of the other citation tools like WP:Citoid and WP:RefToolbar have no option to create Vancouver style author lists, which results in articles with an inconsistent citation style. I have been using Diberri's tool which is still functional to create citations. I also have a Python script that pulls citation data from PubMed. However the installation of that script is rather involved and I really don't have the time to publish and properly support it. Boghog (talk) 05:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
That's helpful to know, thanks. I had wondered whether you were using a system that was even more automated - in my head there might have been a magic tool that identified all the references in an article then pulled the citation data for each of them and outputted them in a format of your choice (giving an effect similar to Endnote). Clearly not, and you've been working really hard! PeaBrainC (talk) 08:44, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

N-glycosyltransferase

Seems like you broke some references there. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:07, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry. Self reverted. Boghog (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
One problem was that the last name of the author "Joseph W. St. Geme III"" was parsed as "Iii". This was fixed in this edit. Boghog (talk) 20:59, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Pfam2PDBsum

Template:Pfam2PDBsum has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 11:02, 2 April 2019 (UTC)

Citation tool

You are a wonderful person to follow me around, and correct my poorly structured references but I'm starting to feel guilty. I read your previous posts, and tried using the Diberri tool, but I couldn't get it to recognize doi's (and then I entered a doi with the PMID dropbox selected and it returned the wrong citation. I use the Cite tool in the wyswyg editor, but is there something I could use that would be better? Thanks for everything you do. Ian Furst (talk) 00:00, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Hi Ian. Unfortunately the citation filling tool is the only tool I know that will generate Vancouver style author lists. In addition, the tool currently does not support doi searches. The tool obtains citation data from PubMed and PubMed does store doi data for some but not all citations. In principle, it should be possible to extend the tool to allow doi searches of PubMed which would provide a partial solution. I will look into that. Other tools use Zotero translators to fetch citation data from Google Scholar and other sources using a doi or url as a search query. The citation filling tool is a Perl script and there are methods to access Zotero translators from Perl, so this functionality could in principle be added to the citation filling tool, but this would require a lot of work to implement. Boghog (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

Ethnicelebs.com as a source

Hi Boghog. I noticed that you recently used ethnicelebs.com as a source for information in a biography article, Christian Yelich. Please note that there is general consensus that ethnicelebs.com does not meet the reliable sourcing criteria for the inclusion of personal information in such articles. (See User_talk:XLinkBot/RevertList#EthniCelebs.com). If you disagree, let's discuss it. Thanks. --Ronz (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I had no idea about the reliability of ethnicelebs.com. I don't edit biographies very often. Boghog (talk) 17:00, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

Editor 149.200

An FYI that editor 149.200 has also been active at Vitamin A and Vitamer, and is getting pushback there for contentious editing and insufficient referencing. David notMD (talk) 12:12, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Vcite2 journal

Template:Vcite2 journal has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. * Pppery * has returned 19:47, 28 April 2019 (UTC)

{{R from gene symbol}}

I noticed that this template existed today.

Before I go go about potentially categorizing hundreds of redirects with this Rcat template, I figured I should ask whether or not the gene symbol listed on UniProt for a protein is always the same as the HUGO gene symbol. I'm specifically asking about genes that encode a single protein since I've recently started moving articles on gene/protein pairs that use the gene symbol as the page name; I've been moving those articles to the UniProt name for the protein (e.g., as with the articles on solute carrier family proteins). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi Seppi. I forgot that template existed. In answer to your question, the gene symbol list on the UniProt pages should be identical to the HUGO gene symbol, but apparently in rare cases, there might be a difference (see UniProt Gene names). If in doubt, check with HUGO. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 03:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Citation Editing

Hello! Just wanted to ask what was wrong with the citation I made in the Odd-Carbon Fatty Acid wiki page. Thank you so much for your time!

Thanks for your note. The tool that you are using (I assume the Visual editor or RefToolbar) has at bug in it regarding PMC IDs. For some reason, it is prepending the number with "PMCPMC" (i.e., |pmc=PMCPMCxxxxxx) which generates an error message and a non-functional link. Also it is adding a redundant |url= link that points to the same page as the link generated by |pmc=. I fixed both issues as well templated a few other citations in the article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:29, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Gene articles

Hi, thanks for helping with Agouti (gene). Do you mind if I move the infobox to ASIP Agouti signalling peptide? I was aiming to keep Agouti (gene) more approachable, kind of like Silver dapple gene compared to PMEL (gene). Iamnotabunny (talk) 18:24, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. I have replaced {{Infobox gene}} with {{Infobox protein}} in Agouti (gene) which is more compact and I hope not overwhelming. I have also moved Agouti signalling peptide to Agouti-signaling protein (the recommended UniProt name) and replaced {{Infobox protein}} with {{Infobox gene}} in that article. Boghog (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

NPR Newsletter No.18

Hello Boghog,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

Niharika Kohli, a product manager for the growth team, announced that work is underway in implementing improvements to New Page Patrol as part of the 2019 Community Wishlist and suggests all who are interested watch the project page on meta. Two requested improvements have already been completed. These are:

  • Allow filtering by no citations in page curation
  • Not having CSD and PRODs automatically marked as reviewed, reflecting current consensus among reviewers and current Twinkle functionality.
Reliable Sources for NPP

Rosguill has been compiling a list of reliable sources across countries and industries that can be used by new page patrollers to help judge whether an article topic is notable or not. At this point further discussion is needed about if and how this list should be used. Please consider joining the discussion about how this potentially valuable resource should be developed and used.

Backlog drive coming soon

Look for information on the an upcoming backlog drive in our next newsletter. If you'd like to help plan this drive, join in the discussion on the New Page Patrol talk page.

News
Discussions of interest

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7242 Low – 2393 High – 7250

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.
Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of DannyS712 (talk) at 19:17, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Case studies section on Dopamine Transporter Deficiency Syndrome

Hey! Thanks for watching out for me as I start editing the Wiki, I see your name come up a lot.

Just wanted to get clarity - you removed where I had put some "case studies" under the diagnosis on the DTDS page. If I found a review article somewhere that mentioned them, would I be able to add them back in?

All the best! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brsmith19 (talk • contribs)

@Brsmith19:. Hi! thanks for your note.

From WP:MEDMOS:

In addition to the above, I would add excessive detail. If the case studies are supported by reliable secondary sources, it should be OK to include them, but my preference would to summarize the most important findings and leave out the details. Boghog (talk) 03:53, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 

 PDBe-KB (pdbe-kb.org) is a new community driven EMBL-EBI resource. The PDBe-KB resources brings together many structural bioinformatics resources that provide structural and/or functional annotations. More information is available on the PDBe-KB pages.

Earlier this year we have launched a new way of aggregating all structural data from the PDB and provide an overview based on UniProt accessions e.g. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/pdbe-kb/proteins/Q92793 These pages are also linked based on PDB id e.g. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/pdbe/pdbe-kb/proteins/3bow I was wondering if you think these pages are useful for wikipedia users for accessing structure data and can be integrated in the various info-boxes. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by A2-25 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

Akane Yamaguchi

Hello. Help copy edit for article. Thanks you. 58.187.77.36 (talk) 09:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Mitochondrial DNA

Hello,

On the mitochondrial DNA page under the Structure section the identification of the light and heavy chains seems to be mixed up. According to my checking, all the genes that are marked as being on the light chain should be marked as the heavy chain. Since this is a major problem on the page requiring many changes I thought of contacting you to cross check before I make a change. Also, please note that the text contradicts the map shown on the right-hand side.Genewiki1 (talk) 14:00, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

@Genewiki1: It appears that you are quite right. Nice catch. As always, we need a reliable source to back up that claim. The following tertiary source might work:
  • Rédei GP (2008). "mtDNA (mitochondrial DNA)". Encyclopedia of Genetics, Genomics, Proteomics, and Informatics (3rd ed.). Springer. pp. 1277–8. ISBN 978-1- 4020-6753-2. In animals the heavy strand codes for 2 rRNAs, for 14 tRNAs, and for 12 polypeptides of the respiratory chain (ATP synthase, cytochrome b, cytochrome oxidase, 7 subunits of NADH dehydro- genase) [a total of 28]. ... The light DNA strands of vertebrates are transcribed into eight tRNAs and into one NADH dehydrogenase subunit. [a total of 9]
Boghog (talk) 19:24, 18 June 2019 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your prompt reply. I corrected the errors and reorganized some of the sections. You can see the list of changes I made by looking at the History of editing.
Genewiki1 (talk) 14:00, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter July-August 2019

Hello Boghog,

WMF at work on NPP Improvements

More new features are being added to the feed, including the important red alert for previously deleted pages. This will only work if it is selected in your filters. Best is to 'select all'. Do take a moment to check out all the new features if you have not already done so. If anything is not working as it should, please let us know at NPR. There is now also a live queue of AfC submissions in the New Pages Feed. Feel free to review AfCs, but bear in mind that NPP is an official process and policy and is more important.

QUALITY of REVIEWING

Articles are still not always being checked thoroughly enough. If you are not sure what to do, leave the article for a more experienced reviewer. Please be on the alert for any incongruities in patrolling and help your colleagues where possible; report patrollers and autopatrolled article creators who are ostensibly undeclared paid editors. The displayed ORES alerts offer a greater 'at-a-glance' overview, but the new challenges in detecting unwanted new content and sub-standard reviewing do not necessarily make patrolling any easier, nevertheless the work may have a renewed interest factor of a different kind. A vibrant community of reviewers is always ready to help at NPR.

Backlog

The backlog is still far too high at between 7,000 and 8,000. Of around 700 user rights holders, 80% of the reviewing is being done by just TWO users. In the light of more and more subtle advertising and undeclared paid editing, New Page Reviewing is becoming more critical than ever.

Move to draft

NPR is triage, it is not a clean up clinic. This move feature is not limited to bios so you may have to slightly re-edit the text in the template before you save the move. Anything that is not fit for mainspace but which might have some promise can be draftified - particularly very poor English and machine and other low quality translations.

Notifying users

Remember to use the message feature if you are just tagging an article for maintenance rather than deletion. Otherwise articles are likely to remain perma-tagged. Many creators are SPA and have no intention of returning to Wikipedia. Use the feature too for leaving a friendly note note for the author of a first article you found well made or interesting. Many have told us they find such comments particularly welcoming and encouraging.

PERM

Admins are now taking advantage of the new time-limited user rights feature. If you have recently been accorded NPR, do check your user rights to see if this affects you. Depending on your user account preferences, you may receive automated notifications of your rights changes. Requests for permissions are not mini-RfAs. Helpful comments are welcome if absolutely necessary, but the bot does a lot of the work and the final decision is reserved for admins who do thorough research anyway.

Other news

School and academic holidays will begin soon in various places around the Western world. Be on the lookout for the usual increase in hoax, attack, and other junk pages.

Our next newsletter might be announcing details of a possible election for co-ordinators of NPR. If you think you have what it takes to micro manage NPR, take a look at New Page Review Coordinators - it's a job that requires a lot of time and dedication.

Stay up to date with even more news – subscribe to The Signpost.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:38, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

Cite tools broken

Hi Boghog, thanks for fixing the refs in the long QT article. What are you using at the moment - the citation tools that I would normally use seem to be broken (neither the tool built in the visual editor nor Diberri's tool seem to work for me). Thanks, PeaBrainC (talk) 16:01, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

The problem is that the Wikimedia tool server has been blocked from accessing the PubMed site. A bug report has been filed, but still no adequate response for the NIH. I maintain Diberri's tool and have a local copy that is still functional. However installing it is somewhat involved. The best solution is for the NIH to remove the block. If they don't do that in the next couple of weeks, then we will need to figure out another solution (move to another server). Boghog (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. PeaBrainC (talk) 18:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Original Barnstar
Thanks for removing the passive voice on the Urine-diverting Dry Toilet page. Bio-CLC (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
Thanks, but the contribution I think you are referring to was from 96.67.126.34, not me. Boghog (talk) 12:59, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation filling tool

Boghog, Any new on repairing the Wiki T connection? I am stuck editing a very much needed update on Follicular lymphoma in my sandbox because of my inability to give new citations. I have placed PMD numbers in bold to identify the citations that belong there. Is there any alternative to Wiki T that I can use to make these citations? Thank you for all of your help in this matter. User:toflaher (talk) 12:38, 1 July 20, 2019 (UTC)

@Joflaher: I have had several e-mail exchanges over the last weeks with the National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI) which manages PubMed. They stated that they were not responsible for the block. Apparently the block originate with the the NIH name server, and not NCBI. Just today, the NCBI confirmed they have forwarded my report to the name server administrators. Hopefully we get the tool server functional soon. In the mean time, I will try to help with the cites in your sandbox. Boghog (talk) 17:58, 8 July 2019 (UTC)
Boghog, thank you for all your efforts. joflaher (talk) 8:5o, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Citation formatting

I don't understand how this is an improvement in citation formatting. There must be a way to get consistent formatting without removing the first names of authors. I don't have the answer but wanted to flag it with you. Notgain (talk) 13:54, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

The only other way to make the author format completely consistent is to add full first names for all the authors in all the citations, which would be difficult because even in some of the original journal articles, only first initials are listed. More is not necessarily better. The advantage of |vauthors= is that it has error checking and therefore it is guaranteed to be consistent whereas with |first= anything can be entered (first full names, initials with or without periods and/or spaces). Boghog (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Your help requested

Your opinion would be useful at the noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 17:52, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Please fix the citation of GLP-1R as it was

You may think you may be doing a positive contribution to Wikipedia. However, rather than adding new valuable content to the page of Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor, you have gone berzerk worrying for formatting styles and have left the page with an error on the citations. A citation that was not easy to add and fix in first place as there were some editorial errors. Can you please fix the citation with an error, or at least leave the page how it was before? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.255.236.32 (talk) 21:06, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

The cite error is easily fixed. Why didn't you fix it yourself? Your tone also suggests that you have a conflict of interest concerning this source. Please read WP:REFSPAM and {{Uw-refspam}}. Boghog (talk) 03:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Thanks for your recent support :)

Ethel the aardvark (talk) 06:22, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Nice to meet you and thanks for the kitten! I find it a shame that solid contributions like yours are being deleted by blind adherence to Wikipedia policies and guidelines. I hope you don't feel discouraged and I really hope that you stick around. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:45, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

PXE page

Thank you so much for the clean up - so amazing! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sfterry (talk • contribs) 16:35, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

More amazing and valuable is your addition of content. I am just doing house cleaning. Please note that per WP:MEDRS, secondary sources (review articles) are strongly preferred. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

About Nuclear receptor

I think it's hard to differentiate which 48 are human genes, there are 49 with template PPARG including one pseudogene NR1H5P and 50 with External Link Corner including AKG49571.

With research progresses, more non-human nuclear receptor subfamilies/groups will emerge. So I think it is time to differ human genes.

But I think yellow is ugly. Maybe it has a better color.

--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note and I agree with you. This table has been bothering me for a long time. It originally just listed human genes and in its present form, it not clear which are human. What I propose is to split the table into two tables, the first containing only human genes (and their orthologs in other species), and a second table with nuclear receptors that do not have a human ortholog. Sound reasonable? Boghog (talk) 13:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
But I think if we split the table into two tables, it's hard to form a complete understanding of nuclear receptors. Such as NR1H5P which is duplicated in 2R events but became a pseudogene in Primates.--Htmlzycq (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)
OK, I changed my mind again. So I agree it is better not to split the table. However to reduce the number of highlighted genes, I highlighted only those family members that do not contain human orthologs (11/59) instead of those that do (48/59) and moved the highlighting from the gene to the family member symbol (for non-human genes, it there is ambiguity which gene symbol to display). I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 10:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Boghog/Archive 13,

The Wikimedia Foundation is asking for your feedback in a survey about your experience with Wikipedia and Wikimedia. The purpose of this survey is to learn how well the Foundation is supporting your work on wiki and how we can change or improve things in the future. The opinions you share will directly affect the current and future work of the Wikimedia Foundation.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 16:38, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter September-October 2019

Hello Boghog,

Backlog

Instead of reaching a magic 300 as it once did last year, the backlog approaching 6,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.

Coordinator

A proposal is taking place here to confirm a nominated user as Coordinator of NPR.

This month's refresher course

Why I Hate Speedy Deleters, a 2008 essay by long since retired Ballonman, is still as valid today. Those of us who patrol large numbers of new pages can be forgiven for making the occasional mistake while others can learn from their 'beginner' errors. Worth reading.

Deletion tags

Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon (you will need to have 'Nominated for deletion' enabled for this in your filters) may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders using Twinkle. They require your further verification.

Paid editing

Please be sure to look for the tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. WMF policy requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.

Subject-specific notability guidelines' (SNG). Alternatives to deletion
  • Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves once more with notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
  • Blank-and-Redirect is a solution anchored in policy. Please consider this alternative before PRODing or CSD. Note however, that users will often revert or usurp redirects to re-create deleted articles. Do regularly patrol the redirects in the feed.
Not English
  • A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, and if they do have potential, tag as required, then move to draft. Modify the text of the template as appropriate before sending it.
Tools

Regular reviewers will appreciate the most recent enhancements to the New Pages Feed and features in the Curation tool, and there are still more to come. Due to the wealth of information now displayed by ORES, reviewers are strongly encouraged to use the system now rather than Twinkle; it will also correctly populate the logs.

Stub sorting, by SD0001: A new script is available for adding/removing stub tags. See User:SD0001/StubSorter.js, It features a simple HotCat-style dynamic search field. Many of the reviewers who are using it are finding it an improvement upon other available tools.

Assessment: The script at User:Evad37/rater makes the addition of Wikiproject templates extremely easy. New page creators rarely do this. Reviewers are not obliged to make these edits but they only take a few seconds. They can use the Curation message system to let the creator know what they have done.

DannyS712 bot III is now patrolling certain categories of uncontroversial redirects. Curious? Check out its patrol log.

Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:15, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Boghog/Archive 13,

A couple of weeks ago, we invited you to take the Community Insights Survey. It is the Wikimedia Foundation’s annual survey of our global communities. We want to learn how well we support your work on wiki. We are 10% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! Your voice matters to us.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 15:39, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Folate GA

I've asked the GA reviewer to wait until after Friday before restarting the GA review of Folate. Please look over the sections you worked on and see if there are minor tweaks needed. Thank you for your participation. David notMD (talk) 13:05, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey

Share your experience in this survey

Hi Boghog/Archive 13,

There are only a few weeks left to take the Community Insights Survey! We are 30% towards our goal for participation. If you have not already taken the survey, you can help us reach our goal! With this poll, the Wikimedia Foundation gathers feedback on how well we support your work on wiki. It only takes 15-25 minutes to complete, and it has a direct impact on the support we provide.

Please take 15 to 25 minutes to give your feedback through this survey. It is available in various languages.

This survey is hosted by a third-party and governed by this privacy statement (in English).

Find more information about this project. Email us if you have any questions, or if you don't want to receive future messages about taking this survey.

Sincerely,

RMaung (WMF) 20:40, 3 October 2019 (UTC)

Hold it.

Please stop editing the TM7x article for about 10 minutes. You've already edit-conflicted me twice. DS (talk) 04:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Go ahead; I'm fairly sure I've incorporated all your other edits into mine. DS (talk) 04:33, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Mistakes in a recent edit

In a recent edit you made to Evolution in Four Dimensions, you replaced some of the papers with different, unrelated ones, which was clearly an accident. [1] I appreciate your formatting fixing edits like this, but only when they are done correctly, so try to be more careful in the future. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:35, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about that. This is a rare example of an PMC article that does not have a corresponding PMID and there was a bug in my script that that did not properly handle this situation. The bug has now been fixed. Boghog (talk) 05:46, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Choline review

Hello! Would you like to review this choline draft article and suggest/make improvements to it? I was thinking that this draft could replace the current choline article. See also the talk page, if you are interested. 5-HT2AR (talk) 23:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi, sorry that wasn’t me! Someone must have hacked used my account! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.199.7.55 (talk) 01:24, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter November 2019

Hello Boghog,

This newsletter comes a little earlier than usual because the backlog is rising again and the holidays are coming very soon.

Getting the queue to 0

There are now 803 holders of the New Page Reviewer flag! Most of you requested the user right to be able to do something about the huge backlog but it's still roughly less than 10% doing 90% of the work. Now it's time for action.
Exactly one year ago there were 'only' 3,650 unreviewed articles, now we will soon be approaching 7,000 despite the growing number of requests for the NPR user right. If each reviewer soon does only 2 reviews a day over five days, the backlog will be down to zero and the daily input can then be processed by every reviewer doing only 1 review every 2 days - that's only a few minutes work on the bus on the way to the office or to class! Let's get this over and done with in time to relax for the holidays.
Want to join? Consider adding the NPP Pledge userbox.
Our next newsletter will announce the winners of some really cool awards.

Coordinator

Admin Barkeep49 has been officially invested as NPP/NPR coordinator by a unanimous consensus of the community. This is a complex role and he will need all the help he can get from other experienced reviewers.

This month's refresher course

Paid editing is still causing headaches for even our most experienced reviewers: This official Wikipedia article will be an eye-opener to anyone who joined Wikipedia or obtained the NPR right since 2015. See The Hallmarks to know exactly what to look for and take time to examine all the sources.

Tools
  • It is now possible to select new pages by date range. This was requested by reviewers who want to patrol from the middle of the list.
  • It is now also possible for accredited reviewers to put any article back into the New Pages Feed for re-review. The link is under 'Tools' in the side bar.
Reviewer Feedback

Would you like feedback on your reviews? Are you an experienced reviewer who can give feedback to other reviewers? If so there are two new feedback pilot programs. New Reviewer mentorship will match newer reviewers with an experienced reviewer with a new reviewer. The other program will be an occasional peer review cohort for moderate or experienced reviewers to give feedback to each other. The first cohort will launch November 13.

Second set of eyes
  • Not only are New Page Reviewers the guardians of quality of new articles, they are also in a position to ensure that pages are being correctly tagged for deletion and maintenance and that new authors are not being bitten. This is an important feature of your work, especially while some routine tagging for deletion can still be carried out by non NPR holders and inexperienced users. Read about it at the Monitoring the system section in the tutorial. If you come across such editors doing good work, don't hesitate to encourage them to apply for NPR.
  • Do be sure to have our talk page on your watchlist. There are often items that require reviewers' special attention, such as to watch out for pages by known socks or disruptive editors, technical issues and new developments, and of course to provide advice for other reviewers.
Arbitration Committee

The annual ArbCom election will be coming up soon. All eligible users will be invited to vote. While not directly concerned with NPR, Arbcom cases often lead back to notability and deletion issues and/or actions by holders of advanced user rights.

Community Wish list

There is to be no wish list for WMF encyclopedias this year. We thank Community Tech for their hard work addressing our long list of requirements which somewhat overwhelmed them last year, and we look forward to a successful completion.

To opt-out of future mailings, you can remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:33, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

DS alert

This is a standard message to notify contributors about an administrative ruling in effect. It does not imply that there are any issues with your contributions to date.

You have shown interest in the Electronic cigarette topic area. Due to past disruption in this topic area, a more stringent set of rules called discretionary sanctions is in effect. Any administrator may impose sanctions on editors who do not strictly follow Wikipedia's policies, or the page-specific restrictions, when making edits related to the topic.

For additional information, please see the guidance on discretionary sanctions and the Arbitration Committee's decision here. If you have any questions, or any doubts regarding what edits are appropriate, you are welcome to discuss them with me or any other editor.

QuackGuru (talk) 20:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Actinium-225 citations

Hello, I saw that you heavily modified the citations in actinium-225 with the edit summary "consistent citation formatting". I undid this change because, per WP:CITEVAR, there is no reason to change an article's citation style when a consistent format is already established (and to consistently use the first-used format unless there is consensus to change). There already was a consistent format, and I am not aware of any discussion against this style or in favor of another, so this change is unnecessary regardless of any external factors. If you feel this change is justified, please explain why. ComplexRational (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 election voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2019 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 on Monday, 2 December 2019. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2019 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:08, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Google Code-In 2019 is coming - please mentor some documentation tasks!

Hello,

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

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

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

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

Thank you!

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

Proposed deletion of File:Q9NWH2 ProteinDomains SMART.png

Notice

The file File:Q9NWH2 ProteinDomains SMART.png has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

unused, low-res, no obvious use

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated files}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated files}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

New Page Review newsletter December 2019

A graph showing the number of articles in the page curation feed from 12/21/18 - 12/20/19

Reviewer of the Year

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

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

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

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

Top 10 Reviewers over the last 365 days
Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 Rosguill (talk) 47,395 Patrol Page Curation
2 Onel5969 (talk) 41,883 Patrol Page Curation
3 JTtheOG (talk) 11,493 Patrol Page Curation
4 Arthistorian1977 (talk) 5,562 Patrol Page Curation
5 DannyS712 (talk) 4,866 Patrol Page Curation
6 CAPTAIN MEDUSA (talk) 3,995 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 3,812 Patrol Page Curation
8 Boleyn (talk) 3,655 Patrol Page Curation
9 Ymblanter (talk) 3,553 Patrol Page Curation
10 Cwmhiraeth (talk) 3,522 Patrol Page Curation

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

Redirect autopatrol

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

Source Guide Discussion

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

This month's refresher course

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

Delivered by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) at 16:10, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boghog/Archive_13&oldid=1066984738"