User talk:Reveldrummond

Welcome!

Hello Reveldrummond, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Vsmith 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - I just fixed a bit in your Magnesium in biological systems article. Please provide a list of references, full citations, for the sources you used. I assume you have access to them, so please provide a list, don't make the reader or another editor look them up. If you need help formatting them for Wikipedia, just ask :-) Thanks, Vsmith 03:31, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - How should I reference the articles? I can dump a list from my reference manager but it will not link to the original article, or even the PUBMED page without significant manual editing. Possible but it will take a while. Note that this page is a work in progress.Reveldrummond 20:52, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, dump your list and format per wiki style. Can first place it in the article talk page and we'll work it in to the article. Links to the orig article or Pubmed aren't essential at this stage. Yes, I know it is a work in progress. Get the refs there and we'll help the progress. Thanks, Vsmith 21:37, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

References for the first two sections are in. They are in a fairly explict style, ie lots of info. I would like to add the article to physiology as a category, and maybe some others, but I don't know where to get a list of these. Can you tell me where I can get the list of acceptable categories? You might have guessed that this page is part of a larger doc. That larger doc begins to lean towards transport of magnesium at this point and gets quite long and involved, too much for the wiki? Reveldrummond 22:39, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, I've added the Category:Physiology for you and formatted the refs a bit. That's an impressive ref section - more than most wiki articles. Many wiki articles are woefully lacking in references as I'm sure you have noticed. To find more categories go to Category:Biology and surf around the subcats at the top. My background is in geology and inorganic chemistry so I'll see if I can get a wiki biologist to look at this and give you some input. Vsmith 01:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

transport

Thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. I have a special interest in ion transport, so I added a few references to Magnesium in biological systems. Please let me know if you have any quesions about how to get things done using the Mediawiki software. --JWSchmidt 04:06, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"adding quite a bit more stuff.....perhaps a bit over the top for an encylopedia entry. What do you think of the detail too far?" <-- The fun thing about Wikipedia is that "we" (the whole community) get to decide these issues. I think it is important that there be a full range of articles from the more basic to the more involved. A good rule of thumb is to write for an undergraduate who is interested in the topic. This does not mean that you have to avoid certain topics, it means that you do not want to write just for other experts in the field. What is useful is to have some non-experts read a science article and provide some feedback. For an article where you know that you are getting into a lot of details, it is good to have a general introduction that describes in simple terms what is most important about the topic, then following sections can get increasingly technical. If this is done well, the reader can go as deep into the article as they need to go. I'm not sure that I am the best judge of biology articles, since I like to see the details. Wikipedia does have a system by which you can request comments (Wikipedia:Requests for comment), but it is designed for disputes. I have in the past seen people complain that certain mathematics and physical science articles are too technical. Maybe there should be a formal system to request that non-experts look at an article. Maybe there already is and I just do not know about it. Here are some places to go for ideas: Wikipedia:Technical_terms_and_definitions | Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles | Wikipedia:Explain jargon

"I have a very long section covering the transport of magnesium. To give you an idea it is divided in to sections based on the type of organism bacteria, yeast, plants, animals. Quite a lot of molecular biology." Sounds great! There is much work to be done on all of the ion transport articles in Wikipedia. Warning: ease into the task and do not burn yourself out. Wikipedia is meant to be fun. When I want some fun I do things like make diagrams and add illustrations to articles. --JWSchmidt 04:41, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:TRPM6-7 topology.png

Thanks for uploading Image:TRPM6-7 topology.png. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Wikipedia because of copyright law (see Wikipedia's Copyright policy).

The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Wikipedia are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Wikipedia:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.

Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me. Thank you. -SCEhard T 23:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please claim your upload(s): File:ATMHX topology.png

Hi, This image was seemingly uploaded prior to current image polices, Thank you.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm, that it was your own work, by marking it as {{own}}, amending the {{information}} added by a third party, and by changing the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{Media by uploader}} or {{Presumed self}} tag(s) if present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

IF you have other uploads, please consider "claiming" them in a similar manner, You can find a list of files you have created here.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]