![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm
Riana, and I noticed that you're new, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,857,685 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible.
Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-
You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~
; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the
sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.
I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a
Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind
what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on
my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, – Riana ऋ 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for classifying the Template:G protein-coupled receptors. Could you add a description of this classification at G protein-coupled receptor (preferably with a reference)? -- Arcadian 10:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the expansion at GABAC receptor! I took down the tootechnical template and left a note on the talk page. Peace, delldot talk 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
hey i just noticed the nuclear receptor figure! i guess it's been up for a while but i just wanted to say nice job! it really adds a lot of clarity to the page. Roadnottaken 14:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
NCurse work 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
To Boghog2, for contributions to scientific articles. Axl 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
It's not just for transcription factor but for all your valuable contributions to various articles. Axl 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Fatty acid-binding protein, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://scop.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/scop-1.69/data/scop.b.c.ja.b.c.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to MCB, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best Tim Vickers 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, why did you change the InChI, e.g. remove the breaks? Was the InChI not correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgonWillighagen ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi not to criticize but do you think that the standard template for references should have the full length name for the journal rather than an abbreviation? I try to use full length names where possible, as I know from experience that when trying to order a copy of a document from the library it is often helpful to have the full name as sometimes its hard to work out what an abbreviation means (especially in obscure foreign language journals that the library staff are not familiar with). Not sure if this is consistent with the wikipedia standard or not, just I noticed you had redone the reference for saripidem and abbreviated the journal name. Meodipt 12:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You're doing fantastic work -- keep it up. I'm particularly impressed by your diligence in finding appropriate journal references to support existing prose. -- Arcadian 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you listed "GPCRs" as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. These interests may intersect with WikiProject Cell Signaling, which I invite you to join. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Boghog2, I have a polite disagreement with you over the use of the Registration mark.
As we discussed in Talk:Zolpidem#Registration_mark_.28.C2.AE.29, all the standard medical and scientific style sheets of which I'm aware, including the AMA Style Sheet, MLA Style Sheet, Chicago Manual of Style, etc., tell you not to use the registration mark, and all the medical books and journals on my bookshelf don't use it -- except in the package inserts in the ads, and in press releases from the manufacturers.
I went through this once before in a newsletter I was editing, where we had a legal department to advise us.
The only purpose of a registration mark is for the owner of the mark to use it to indicate that it's a registered mark. Using the mark makes it easier for the owner to protect it in court against infringers. The only people who use the registered mark in their copy are working for the trademark holder. There's no purpose for anyone else to use it.
The standard way to distinguish generic names from trade names of drugs is to use the generic first in lower case, and to follow it with the trade name in initial caps (since it's a proper noun), like this: "doxorubicin (Adriamycin)".
Do you have any objection to using that? Nbauman 00:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). | ” |
“ | However, [MOS guidelines are] not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. | ” |
Wow, you were really on top of that ADRB2 structure, weren't you? Didn't that just come out this week? Anyway, just thought I'd come over to express how impressed I was. On that note, I think there was also a companion Nature paper, too, right? (found it, [1]. How these guys managed two Science and one Nature paper with very similar titles is beyond me...) Anyway, may be worth citing too, or maybe I'll add it to the further reading section... AndrewGNF 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You've probably already noticed, but your requests for PBB gene stubs is now complete. Enjoy! AndrewGNF ( talk) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. I have a small request—would you mind making the terminal carbons in this image skeletal (i.e., not show them)? The use of "me" labels for methyl groups is discouraged in our structure drawing guidelines. If it's too much trouble, no need to rush. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The nuclear receptors are done. It looks like a third to a half of them already had PBB pages which were updated. The rest were flagged for manual inspection to be placed in the right spot or integrated with an existing non-PBB article. I unfortunately am leaving soon for holiday for two weeks and am not sure if I'll be able to get to the "manual inspection" phase by the time I leave. Do you want to take a crack at it? The instructions are here, and Banus and Forluvoft seem to have caught on pretty quick. (The log files for your request are dated "03:35, 19 November 2007" and "04:05, 19 November 2007".) If not, I'll see what I can do before I leave and finish up when I get back... AndrewGNF ( talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You have recently been creating pages for various genes and proteins, such as, most recently, RAR-related orphan receptor gamma, Liver X receptor beta, Retinoic acid receptor beta, and Thyroid hormone receptor beta. These pages seem to be direct copy-pastes from here. While I appreciate your support of Wikipedia, I must point out that editors are discouraged from creating pages that are copy-pasted from other sources. Please go through the pages created in this manner, and rewrite them yourself. Thanks! — Insanity Incarnat e 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of MBTPS1, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=MBTPS1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 07:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Endothelin receptor type B, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ucsf.edu/pgdb/gene/104.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this ProteinBoxBot is that in some cases of RNA expression profiles (e.g., Avpr1a and Avpr2), the data are clearly wrong. Therefore, although you are referencing a serious effort, each gene's expression should be verifiable by peer-reviewed sources. Most scientists realize that these "production scale" databases are useful starting points but are not to be taken as gospel. The Wikipedia readers will not be consulting other peer-reviewed sources so it is incumbent upon us to provide reliable information. I have also added this to the site you suggested. Thanks. AlbertHall (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (Thanks for moving this!).
I see that you replaced the Protein template in Catalase with the GNF Protein bot version. Since the article is largely about Catalase in all organisms, the human gene box seems to be less appropriate. What was your rational for the change? Do you still think the human infobox is the way to go? AnteaterZot ( talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to say thanks for this effort! I'm sure it will be very useful. Have a good Christmas! Pseudomonas( talk) 11:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you’ll like this project: [2]. Also, I think you are writing very good stubs, but if you need to refresh your memory of how to create a stub or article, there are the links telling you how! Kannie | talk 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Good day. Just wanted to ask why there sometimes are multiple expression patterns for one and the same gene in many bot-generated articles? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I wanted to get something in there but I didn't know how to do it correctly.
Take care
Tombadog ( talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and one other thing -- thanks for the short lead which is nice except for one thing I'd like to eventually change. The original text for this article menthions SAGE and SUPERSAGE kind of like a commercial. It also implies that SUPERSAGE is routinely used in expression profiling. My guess from PubMed is it may have been used 20 times in the history of mankind (I saw 4 references, I am being generous..) But I know this whole SAGE thing is imprtant to somebody out there so I haven't the heart to rip it out because it isn't exactly incorrect, just misleading perhaps.
What's your advice? Cheers. Tombadog ( talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
I'm
Riana, and I noticed that you're new, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on 6,857,685 articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible.
Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-
You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ~~~~
; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the
sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.
I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.
I hope you enjoy editing and being a
Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind
what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on
my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the
New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}}
on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.
We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers, – Riana ऋ 15:01, 6 May 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for classifying the Template:G protein-coupled receptors. Could you add a description of this classification at G protein-coupled receptor (preferably with a reference)? -- Arcadian 10:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Hey, thanks for the expansion at GABAC receptor! I took down the tootechnical template and left a note on the talk page. Peace, delldot talk 18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
hey i just noticed the nuclear receptor figure! i guess it's been up for a while but i just wanted to say nice job! it really adds a lot of clarity to the page. Roadnottaken 14:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
NCurse work 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
![]() |
The E=mc² Barnstar | |
To Boghog2, for contributions to scientific articles. Axl 19:47, 7 August 2007 (UTC) |
It's not just for transcription factor but for all your valuable contributions to various articles. Axl 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Fatty acid-binding protein, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://scop.mrc-lmb.cam.ac.uk/scop-1.69/data/scop.b.c.ja.b.c.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to MCB, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best Tim Vickers 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi there, why did you change the InChI, e.g. remove the breaks? Was the InChI not correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgonWillighagen ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
Hi not to criticize but do you think that the standard template for references should have the full length name for the journal rather than an abbreviation? I try to use full length names where possible, as I know from experience that when trying to order a copy of a document from the library it is often helpful to have the full name as sometimes its hard to work out what an abbreviation means (especially in obscure foreign language journals that the library staff are not familiar with). Not sure if this is consistent with the wikipedia standard or not, just I noticed you had redone the reference for saripidem and abbreviated the journal name. Meodipt 12:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
You're doing fantastic work -- keep it up. I'm particularly impressed by your diligence in finding appropriate journal references to support existing prose. -- Arcadian 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed you listed "GPCRs" as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. These interests may intersect with WikiProject Cell Signaling, which I invite you to join. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
Boghog2, I have a polite disagreement with you over the use of the Registration mark.
As we discussed in Talk:Zolpidem#Registration_mark_.28.C2.AE.29, all the standard medical and scientific style sheets of which I'm aware, including the AMA Style Sheet, MLA Style Sheet, Chicago Manual of Style, etc., tell you not to use the registration mark, and all the medical books and journals on my bookshelf don't use it -- except in the package inserts in the ads, and in press releases from the manufacturers.
I went through this once before in a newsletter I was editing, where we had a legal department to advise us.
The only purpose of a registration mark is for the owner of the mark to use it to indicate that it's a registered mark. Using the mark makes it easier for the owner to protect it in court against infringers. The only people who use the registered mark in their copy are working for the trademark holder. There's no purpose for anyone else to use it.
The standard way to distinguish generic names from trade names of drugs is to use the generic first in lower case, and to follow it with the trade name in initial caps (since it's a proper noun), like this: "doxorubicin (Adriamycin)".
Do you have any objection to using that? Nbauman 00:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
“ | Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs). | ” |
“ | However, [MOS guidelines are] not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. | ” |
Wow, you were really on top of that ADRB2 structure, weren't you? Didn't that just come out this week? Anyway, just thought I'd come over to express how impressed I was. On that note, I think there was also a companion Nature paper, too, right? (found it, [1]. How these guys managed two Science and one Nature paper with very similar titles is beyond me...) Anyway, may be worth citing too, or maybe I'll add it to the further reading section... AndrewGNF 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
You've probably already noticed, but your requests for PBB gene stubs is now complete. Enjoy! AndrewGNF ( talk) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. I have a small request—would you mind making the terminal carbons in this image skeletal (i.e., not show them)? The use of "me" labels for methyl groups is discouraged in our structure drawing guidelines. If it's too much trouble, no need to rush. Best, Fvasconcellos ( t· c) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
The nuclear receptors are done. It looks like a third to a half of them already had PBB pages which were updated. The rest were flagged for manual inspection to be placed in the right spot or integrated with an existing non-PBB article. I unfortunately am leaving soon for holiday for two weeks and am not sure if I'll be able to get to the "manual inspection" phase by the time I leave. Do you want to take a crack at it? The instructions are here, and Banus and Forluvoft seem to have caught on pretty quick. (The log files for your request are dated "03:35, 19 November 2007" and "04:05, 19 November 2007".) If not, I'll see what I can do before I leave and finish up when I get back... AndrewGNF ( talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
You have recently been creating pages for various genes and proteins, such as, most recently, RAR-related orphan receptor gamma, Liver X receptor beta, Retinoic acid receptor beta, and Thyroid hormone receptor beta. These pages seem to be direct copy-pastes from here. While I appreciate your support of Wikipedia, I must point out that editors are discouraged from creating pages that are copy-pasted from other sources. Please go through the pages created in this manner, and rewrite them yourself. Thanks! — Insanity Incarnat e 01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of MBTPS1, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.genecards.org/cgi-bin/carddisp.pl?gene=MBTPS1. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 07:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Endothelin receptor type B, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.ucsf.edu/pgdb/gene/104.html. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot ( talk) 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
The problem with this ProteinBoxBot is that in some cases of RNA expression profiles (e.g., Avpr1a and Avpr2), the data are clearly wrong. Therefore, although you are referencing a serious effort, each gene's expression should be verifiable by peer-reviewed sources. Most scientists realize that these "production scale" databases are useful starting points but are not to be taken as gospel. The Wikipedia readers will not be consulting other peer-reviewed sources so it is incumbent upon us to provide reliable information. I have also added this to the site you suggested. Thanks. AlbertHall (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (Thanks for moving this!).
I see that you replaced the Protein template in Catalase with the GNF Protein bot version. Since the article is largely about Catalase in all organisms, the human gene box seems to be less appropriate. What was your rational for the change? Do you still think the human infobox is the way to go? AnteaterZot ( talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Just to say thanks for this effort! I'm sure it will be very useful. Have a good Christmas! Pseudomonas( talk) 11:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
I think you’ll like this project: [2]. Also, I think you are writing very good stubs, but if you need to refresh your memory of how to create a stub or article, there are the links telling you how! Kannie | talk 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Good day. Just wanted to ask why there sometimes are multiple expression patterns for one and the same gene in many bot-generated articles? Mikael Häggström ( talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks very much. I wanted to get something in there but I didn't know how to do it correctly.
Take care
Tombadog ( talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh and one other thing -- thanks for the short lead which is nice except for one thing I'd like to eventually change. The original text for this article menthions SAGE and SUPERSAGE kind of like a commercial. It also implies that SUPERSAGE is routinely used in expression profiling. My guess from PubMed is it may have been used 20 times in the history of mankind (I saw 4 references, I am being generous..) But I know this whole SAGE thing is imprtant to somebody out there so I haven't the heart to rip it out because it isn't exactly incorrect, just misleading perhaps.
What's your advice? Cheers. Tombadog ( talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)