User talk:Bryochemist
Some stroopwafels for you!
[edit]
|
What exactly if a stroopwafel? Does anyone actually like them? I don't know, but enjoy! GreenMacaw (talk) 19:57, 21 February 2017 (UTC) |
Welcome!
[edit]Hello, Bryochemist, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.
I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing.
Handouts
|
|---|
Additional Resources
|
|
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 23:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]
|
Peer Review |
| Hi! I took a look at our group's peer review, and I'll be peer reviewing your page and Greysweater's pages. Let me know if that is an issue! Geochem8 (talk) 19:41, 12 April 2017 (UTC) |
Peer Review
[edit]Hi, I will be reviewing your and Geochem8's page. It will be either by tonight or early tomorrow morning. Bananabread7 (talk) 18:33, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
Peer Review
[edit]Dear Bryochemist,
The wikipedia article on nanopore sequencing has a logical heading structure that is generally easy to follow. However, I find that the original introduction section with a "principle of nanopore sequencing" section is more palpable to the Wikipedia audience. The introduction in your sandbox is immediately filled with technical terms that should come later after explaining an overview of the concept in laymen's terms. This theme is pervasive throughout the article. Often times, words are too technical and sentence structures are overly complicated. For instance, the first sentence of the advantages and disadvantages section is four lines. This could be reduced to a single line that says, "The proteins used in biological nanopore sequencing are advantageous". Similarly, the first sentence of the Biological section could be split into two sentences.
The article makes a big effort to have smooth transitions to new sections; however, this is not necessary or preferable. The first sentences of the solid state and fluoresence sections could be completely removed, leaving the second sentence to start the paragraph. There should be minimal explanation of "proof of principle" studies including the methods of these studies. The Wikipedia audience simply wants the results of these studies, the facts.
There are many extraneous clauses throughout the article. In the sentence, "The use of proteins in biological nanopore sequencing systems, despite the various benefits, also brings with it some negative characteristics.", the clause "despite the various benefits" can be eliminated.
When doing final edits, pay special attention to the vocabulary as it becomes confusing even with my chemistry background. Otherwise, linking to additional articles is a good way of including technical details.
This is a difficult article to edit and improve as it is already a C-Class article; however, there are some great contributions, such as the structural changes and the addition of relevant images.
Hope this helps!
-Geochem8
Peer Review
[edit]Dear Bryochemist, As mentioned by Geochem8, the introduction contains a lot of technical information that is overbearing for the introduction of an article. Although the information is great it could be moved elsewhere into the article.
I think that the advantages and disadvantages section between the biological and solid state nanopore sequencing could be left to its own section as this is what I would expect from a just-the-facts reference like Wikipedia. In addition, this could also make it easier to compare and contrast between the two.
I believe the sentence under the “commercialization” section could be instead added into the background section instead of having its own section.
For the most part, the text is engaging and understandable. However, some sentences are rather wordy and have redundant language. For example, the third sentence of the third paragraph under Alpha hemolysin could be broken down into two or even three sentences. In addition, “so as to” under the Biological section seems redundant.
The pictures help to visualize difficult concepts, which is great.
Bananabread7 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
cernovich
[edit]
Your recent editing history at Mike Cernovich shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
Also, this is long standing and well sourced text that you're trying to remove. You need to go to the talk page and try to convince other active editors that it should be removed. See WP:CONSENSUS.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:50, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
And now you went and broke the WP:3RR rule. This in addition to the consensus against your edits on talk. Since you appear to be new, I'm going to ask you to self revert your last edit.Volunteer Marek (talk) 07:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
I already posted on the Talk page some time ago and was following the advice of a dissenting editor.. it may help you to read the section in question before reverting in haste. (Bryochemist (talk) 07:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC))
- Bryochemist, whatever advice you followed, you are clearly edit warring in a dangerous area. It may help you to read the links in the templates below, and tread lightly. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 12:49, 29 July 2017 (UTC)
Please carefully read this information:
The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding all edits about, and all pages related to post-1932 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.
Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you that sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.Your sandbox Comment Fixing style/layout errors
[edit]User:Bryochemist/sandbox holds what looks like a nearly complete article. If it is ready to go, please transfer it to the article namespace. If not, please hide the category tags to prevent your user page from showing up in the categories, per Wikipedia:So you made a userspace draft#Style and layout.
It is good to identify relevant categories to which your draft article could belong. To add a category to a user space draft, edit the article and add the category using the syntax [[:Category:Category name]] at the bottom of the article, e.g. [[:Category:Mind-body interventions]]. The colon syntax will not add your draft to the listing of articles in the category, but will list the categories as links at the bottom of the article. When your draft is ready to be transferred to article space, remove the colons from the category links.