![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Boghog ( talk) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Sorry about the inconsistent citations in Wonderland. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.
Let's put this article on the air.
http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/
http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html
http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841
http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278
http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/
https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
![]() Metadata on the MarchFrom the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. ![]() ![]() Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, new article. scope_creep ( talk) 11:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that it's finally a GA, I'm going to nominate HMB at FAC again within the next 2 weeks. I need to add 2 or 3 medical reviews and 1 primary pharmacology/cell biology source first though.
Are you still interested in working with me at FAC as a co-nominator? I'd be pretty screwed without you if I encountered another chemistry reviewer like Nergaal, hehe. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
On 22 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in healthy adults, HMB has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce muscle damage, and speed recovery from exercise? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass ( talk) 13:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
My apologies about the edit conflict at Phase precession. I went back and looked at your edit, and much of it just isn't important enough to me to reconstruct it. If you want to do it again, please feel free to. In any case, sorry! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. I figured it'd be prudent to let you know about this issue since it seems like there's a bug in the script for the citation tool that you fixed a while back. A reviewer at the HMB FAC pointed out this formatting inconsistency: when the citation for PMID 27897391 is generated, the first author's first name in the citation template isn't initialized, but it is for all of the other authors. I haven't paid much attention to how the authors list is formatted when I use this tool (which is almost daily), so I'm not sure how frequently this problem occurs. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
![]()
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.
Wikidata as HubOne way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. ![]() Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed the title Cooperative antigen transfer to more proper one: Antigen transfer in the thymus which could be find in refferences. Is it like this ok? Thank you for your answer. ( BrezinaJiri ( talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
This is a good paper to cite here. Thanks for your contribution, is it somehow possible to take back the suggestion for deletion? I understand that it needs to be improved, but the references i cite here are really related to this topic and are relevant. Thanks for your answer. ( BrezinaJiri ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
Thanks Boghog, I will re-write it. Cheers. ( BrezinaJiri ( talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
Sigh. Another Wikipedia "editor" who doesn't see the forest for the trees. Crazy that you'd delete a Stanford University research project as unworthy of Wikipedia. And one that fights HIV, cancer and Alzheimers. Repeat: you're lame. Davieinspain ( talk) 10:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Dave
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pseudokinase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I’ve noticed recently that there seems to be a date / year conflict in the cite journal template where only one of them is allowed. The solution I have adopted is to remove date= and leave the year, with the rationale that the Wikipedia template filling tool populates the year parameter. I generally try to align my edits with your consistent formatting policy and wondered what your thoughts are on this. Regards CV9933 ( talk) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
|month=
parameter. I was lazy and just removed the deprecated month parameter from the tool. I can modify the tool so that |year=
is replaced with |date=
and include the month in the date if returned by Entrez esearch. This should be compatible with the other citation tools and the script that I am currently using. Would this be OK?
Boghog (
talk)
19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
|year=
with |date=month+year
in the output of the WTF tool. I should have done this a long time ago. Sorry about that. Let me know if there are any problems.
Boghog (
talk)
11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
|author=
parameter at the end of the template, which I initially ignored, but I put some data in for a test and it overides the |vauthor=
parameter, so maybe we could lose that? Regards
CV9933 (
talk)
17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
|date=August 2016
for
PMID
27229733 is returned.
Boghog (
talk)
09:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
support. However {{
cite journal}} now also supports |vauthors=
, so again, the primary reason for using {{
vcite2 journal}} no longer exists. Is there some special reason that you would like to use {{
vcite journal}} or {{
vcite2 journal}}?
Boghog (
talk)
11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The 32em is no longer needed. The template now adds this automatically. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I was editing the Tumor_necrosis_factor_superfamily page for two hours, but when I wanted to save it it said I can't save it because you made a change in the meanwhile. I am still on that page but the new content seem to be already lost. Pleeeeease help me to get it back it was so much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Kuzmik ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, something seems to have gone awry with this edit. The translation section looks as if it has been moved to the middle of the conservation section and placed in the middle of a reference, causing the angry red error message. I'm not sure what your intentions were so I have not attempted to correct it, so if you could have another look at the page it would be appreciated. Thanks, regards, Eagleash ( talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't make changes that only substitute one valid template parameter for another; if it was okay before, the change does not improve the article, nor is it relevant to consistent citation style.
If you mix valid improvements to the article, as you did here to Transfeminism with invalid ones, there's an increased risk that the bundled changes will be reverted, as happened in this case. By separating out unrelated content and doing a series of incremental edits, you lessen the risk that the good edits will be removed. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 10:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not change authors from last/first to vauthorsis not what Citevar says. What Citevar does says is
imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation stylesis
Generally considered helpful. Boghog ( talk) 22:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@
Boghog,
Jonesey95, and
Mathglot:
Boghog recently
made many changes to references in
Psychotherapy,
many of which I have reverted: per
Wikipedia:Citation templates, the last1, first1, last2, first2, ... fields are correct; removing information such as first names and journal wikilinks from citation templates is unhelpful, and removing such info from only a few references is inconsistent. I am commenting here because the subject of this section, "Not broken", is apropos, as is
Mathglot's advice above: All I can say, is, then don't use a script
. Or make your script much more sophisticated so that it is not stripping valuable information from citations (and doing it inconsistently)! You are wasting the time of editors like us who have to manually clean up after your script. I have also noted this at
Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 2#Citation style.
Biogeographist (
talk)
14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
name-list-format
field of the citation template to set the display format of the names, rather than to strip the first names from the citation template. Another important reason to keep full names in citation templates is because citation templates generate
COinS data for automated citation harvesting by
reference management software; with full names included, the data harvested from Wikipedia will be more complete. Think of citation templates as database records: we want the most complete database record possible, and fields such as name-list-format
(and the other
display options parameters) control how the data is displayed in the rendered page.Hi Boghog,
I have been looking at the article on HMB and noticed the File:HMB_synthesis_2.svg, which you created. I was wondering if you could correct a small mistake? In the Fenton's reagent approach from tert-butanol and carbon monoxide, you have drawn CO as having a double carbon–oxygen bond when it should be a triple bond. Would you please either change it to show a triple bond or to just show CO?
Thanks,
EdChem ( talk) 00:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Also, could you italicise the "tert" of tert-butanol so that it appears as tert-butanol? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it a script that does this; particularly converts:
{{Cite journal|last=Zhao|first=Yi|last2=Long|first2=Marcus J. C.|last3=Wang|first3=Yiran|last4=Zhang|first4=Sheng|last5=Aye|first5=Yimon|date=2018-02-28|title=Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5833000/|journal=ACS Central Science|volume=4|issue=2|pages=246–259|doi=10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556|issn=2374-7943|pmc=PMC5833000|pmid=29532025}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)to:
{{cite journal | vauthors = Zhao Y, Long MJC, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y | title = Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses | journal = ACS Central Science | volume = 4 | issue = 2 | pages = 246–259 | date = February 2018 | pmid = 29532025 | pmc = 5833000 | doi = 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556 }}
{{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 2 (
help)I find myself following behind you when cleaning up entries in Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
|first2=MJC
.
Boghog (
talk)
11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
[:2]
) to the first/middle initials string variable.
Boghog (
talk)
18:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Hi, Boghog.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the
New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to
PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (
per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at
the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers, —
Insertcleverphrasehere (
or here)
06:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you think a redirect like this appropriate? Before today, that page redirected to Sweet Tooth (disambiguation). Wikipedia doesn't have any other pages that actually cover what a "sweet tooth" is, although there is wikt:sweet tooth. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/nrendo.2017.62
) indicated that people with that SNP of the FGF21 gene were in the highest tertileHello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2017 Cure Award |
In 2017 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 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you please stop making reference edits that do not improve the encyclopedia, by merely changing author style around from last/first to vauthors (or vice-versa)? This is a violation of WP:CITEVAR: "[Do] not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If the script you are using cannot avoid doing this, then please stop using the script.
I noticed this happening again while checking a student editor working on Zatypota percontatoria, where I saw this edit of yours with summary consistent citation formatting. This has made things worse, not better. Complicating matters further, the two follow-up edits of yours means that one cannot use the Undo link to revert the first one.
You were advised of this issue a week ago, at the discussion now archived here. This is starting to feel disruptive to me. Can you please manually undo edit 838239555 of 19:52, April 25, 2018 at Zatypota percontatoria (the other two are already taken care of) and assure us that you won't continue this type of edit anymore? It's not helpful, and it's increasing my workload. And, it's giving students the wrong idea. Thanks. @ Biogeographist and Jonesey95: Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 08:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not helpful– precisely why isn't it helpful?
it's giving students the wrong idea– what is wrong about it? Also your reversion has removed information. Before my edits, several of the citations were incomplete and/or were not templated. Your revisions are not helpful. Boghog ( talk) 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
in some citations and |name-list-format=vanc
in other citations. Some pedantic editors would say that is a violation of CITEVAR, and in any event, removing useful citation information from the article by using |vauthors=
is probably not helpful. Perhaps |name-list-format=vanc
is a better option than removing information from the article. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
|name-list-format=vanc
in book and web citations because the full authors information is harder to come by. It is trivial to regenerate full authors information for journal articles that are indexed in PubMed. Why do we need to replicate PubMed in Wikipedia? And why are full first names essential? To the average reader, this is superfluous information.
Boghog (
talk)
15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
is that it much more efficient and doesn't clutter up the raw wiki text with long templates. The advantage of |name-list-format=vanc
is that it insures the authors are formatted in a consistent way.
Before I started editing this article, the citations were an inconsistent mess. Some of the first names were spelled out in full, some were abbreviated, some were in all caps, and some were missing altogether.
After my edits, the formatting was completely consistent.
Boghog (
talk)
16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Boghog, Thank you for fixing some citations for the FMT page. As a question from a newer user: I am using the citation function above the edit box by entering PMID/doi/etc., is there a way to have this automatically change to the standard citation for a page? I didn't see a standard format list in the MedMOS/RS sections and I see this as possibly saving people time in the future. Thanks in advance. AverageleveledIQ ( talk) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
as an option. I requested this functionality
here, but didn't get too far. The only tool that I know of that generates citations in this format is the
Diberri Template builder. I hope this helps.
Boghog (
talk)
18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neuroepigenetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
In these edits you changed: [1]
van Geffen, Wouter; Hajian, Bita; Vos, Wim; De Backer, Jan; Cahn, Anthony; Usmani, Omar; Van Holsbeke, Cedric; Pistolesi, Massimo; Kerstjens, Huib (2018-05).
"Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Volume 13: 1783–1792.
doi:
10.2147/copd.s152463.
ISSN
1178-2005.
PMC
5985851. {{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
to
Bergamasco B, Bergamini L, Doriguzzi T, Sacerdote I (June 1966).
"[The nyctohemeral cycle in coma. Prognostic possibilities]". Rivista Di Patologia Nervosa E Mentale. 87 (3): 312–8.
doi:
10.2147/copd.s152463.
PMC
5985851.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)I think you have to take a look at WP:CITEVAR. I have seen you do this before and would suggest that this is not a good use of editor time. Also, see WP:BOLD. Your edit was challenged. Take it to talk instead of re-reverting. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Granulin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inflammatory ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You are deleting factual, cited information from the Brain Balance Wikipedia page. If you continue to do so I will have to report your account.
Your recent editing history 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.
A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.My three consecutive edits were to different portions of the article. I could have done all this in one edit, but I split this into three edits so that the justification for each edit could be more clearly stated in the edit summary. I agree with you that the information that you added is factual, but as I have stated here, I dispute its relevance. I would appreciate if you would continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Boghog ( talk) 05:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beta-2 adrenergic receptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for having a listen to my thoughts about the receptor infoboxes, your openness to discussion is really commendable :). I'm keeping abreast of the discussions and will contribute when I've got something to add. Thanks again, Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
And thank you for raising the issue in the first place and for your constructive feedback! Concerning readability, we can and must do better. It has been difficult to please everyone, but I am confident that we can eventually arrive at a consensus. Boghog ( talk) 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please stop put FBXL2 content into FBXW7. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztj0420 ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Does this reach you? Julia Edgar ( talk) 09:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog I don't know how to leave a message on my talk page - perhaps you can advise.
Regarding the opening section on 'Myelin' being too long, that's fine. I am new to Wiki and I am learning. I agree with the edits you made.
At least now the info (as far as I know) is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Edgar ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, Thanks for moving content created by my students on Ginger to a draft space. As they are learning with me on how to contribute to Wikipedia, they are (so am I) are constantly making different kinds of mistakes and violating many netiquettes/rules. Thanks for moving the pages elsewhere instead of simply deleting their hardwork. JudyCChan ( talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I just had an instance where CC stripped out five of 92 refs in such a way that a bot follows, restoring the ref but in a different format. As I wrote on CC's Talk, this was annoying in extreme, as for my effort to bring the article to GA status, the reviewer had asked that all journal citations be in same format. I have reversed the CC/bot edits. I see from looking back in CC's archives, that this has been a consistent (annoying) practice for many years. In fact, I quoted one of your comments from years back. Thank you for allowing me to vent here, as I did not want to be uncivil toward CC. David notMD ( talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Estradiol metabolism}}
I don't feel like posting this at Talk:Estrogen since it'd inevitably resurrect an old discussion ( Talk:Estrogen#WP:Lead_sentence), so I'm just going to ask you.
Do you think this template's compound highlighting in these articles (view the diagram in Estrogen#Metabolism and Estrogen (medication)#Pharmacokinetics) is appropriate/accurate? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 03:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
AI4}}
is designed to be scrollable when the image renders on a page with a viewing width that's smaller than the image width (e.g., open
Template:Metabolic metro on your phone).
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
19:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Estradiol metabolism|align=right|header=XYZ}}
). Also, I can reduce the arrow width easily enough since the start and end coordinates remain the same when the arrow width setting is changed in Inkscape.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
20:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Lol. I agree with you on that, but both the current diagram and sandbox diagram have faults. So long as you both agree on a change, I'll go ahead and do it; I'd rather not put myself in a position where I have to go back and forth making changes that I end up reverting. I've already spent over 12 hours working on this diagram during the past week. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
In any event, I emailed her about shrinking it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
thanks for having a look at the MST article. However, I have to disagree about the citations labeled by you as "spammy". The citations I added link to applications notes provided by that company, which are well-suited references for the kinds of applications listed on the MST "Applications" section. So I see no reason why they should be removed.
Best!
Hello, I noticed you removed C. albicans from the list with organisms that have been edited in vivo. How come? Just curious to know what the reason is. Also: for one of the organisms there is no reference anymore now. Not sure you deleted it by accident or it was not there from the start. (talking about this article: /info/en/?search=CRISPR) Garnhami ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, you changed the word "Jamaica" to "JAMAica". If you're using a script to do these edits or something along those lines, you should probably adjust it so it only capitalizes JAMA when it's a stand-alone word. - Apocheir ( talk) 01:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Outside my area of expertise, but the editor Ketoacids appears to be exceptionally BOLD in editing carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, and more recently heme oxygenase. I had some interactions on the first topic because parts were being inserted into nutrient articles, but let it drop. Since August the heme oxygenase article has been increased nearly 5X in length, with a lot of the content apparently copied over from the editor's additions to the carbon monoxide article. (There is a "See also" to the carbon monoxide-releasing molecules article.) I saw that you have been a past editor on both articles, so thought to bring it to your attention. David notMD ( talk) 17:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Derpablonachos as an editor appears to have been created only to delete large amounts of this article and from Heme oxygenase, which led me to believe it was a second account opened by Ketoacids, or perhaps a friend of. Anyway, I restored the references that were cut from Heme oxygenase, as they looked to be appropriate. You did a reversal of cuts for Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, but then reversed the reversal. Is the article really better for the massive cuts? Were any worth a second third look? David notMD ( talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion? I see that you have removed a citation from an article (don't remember which one, toxic effects of local anesthesia maybe?) and I want to learn from your example. I have cited a reference to online content that is only accessible through a paid subscription (ISACA, Screened subnet. In the reference citation I included a quote from the source.
If you like, will you send me a notification or bump on my talk page so I will see your response? This is important to me because in the information security domain I often have to rely on authoritative standards that are not free. Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 20:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[2] - what do you think? My very best wishes ( talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, please do not attempt to change the author format in established articles, that is contrary to the MoS, which states directly:
There is no mandate to change author format from Doe, John (or Doe, J. R.) to Vauthor-style Doe JR as you have done in several cases that I've seen, and probably many others. The MoS states of such action:
I would be grateful if you could take note of this policy and desist from any further attempts to enforce Vauthor format. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
A lesson in assuming good faith methinks. I am convinced by the vanc rationale so keep up the good work Boghog, I believe you are doing a great job! CV9933 ( talk) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Boghog,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Boghog: For the page FGFR3 we are currently doing a project worth half of our credit for our genetic's class, about the gene and its functions on the human body. We have submitted the project to the teacher and the website wikiedu and both have been approved to be worked on. We have also submitted the work to a plagiarism check and its came back okay.I understand that you have a problem with the fact the we are adding disease causing traits with the FGFR3 gene but that is the agreed upon topic for me and my class mates and each of us has a specific disease we have to work on.The project itself is due in less than 24 hours so I would be very grateful if you could leave the text alone until it is approved by my professor. Brandon westmoreland ( talk) 04:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somatostatin receptor 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey boghog, me and my group for class were assigned an article to edit and you keep making adjustments and deleting our work that needs to be graded. For the sake of my group could you hold off on editing for a week so we can get our grades. It’s the twinkle protein article. Eda2y ( talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Boghog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Hard Worker's Barnstar |
I have seen you laboring and laboring to clean up as kindly as you could after the genetics classes. Thank you so much for that work! It is frustrating as hell i know. Please know that I (and am sure others) appreciate your time and effort. Jytdog ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template:You are here has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —
Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dermatopontin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stroma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (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 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Boghog ( talk) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Sorry about the inconsistent citations in Wonderland. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.
Let's put this article on the air.
http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/
http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html
http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841
http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278
http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/
https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor ( talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
![]() Metadata on the MarchFrom the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost. ![]() ![]() Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, new article. scope_creep ( talk) 11:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
Now that it's finally a GA, I'm going to nominate HMB at FAC again within the next 2 weeks. I need to add 2 or 3 medical reviews and 1 primary pharmacology/cell biology source first though.
Are you still interested in working with me at FAC as a co-nominator? I'd be pretty screwed without you if I encountered another chemistry reviewer like Nergaal, hehe. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
On 22 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in healthy adults, HMB has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce muscle damage, and speed recovery from exercise? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page ( here's how, Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass ( talk) 13:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
My apologies about the edit conflict at Phase precession. I went back and looked at your edit, and much of it just isn't important enough to me to reconstruct it. If you want to do it again, please feel free to. In any case, sorry! -- Tryptofish ( talk) 23:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. I figured it'd be prudent to let you know about this issue since it seems like there's a bug in the script for the citation tool that you fixed a while back. A reviewer at the HMB FAC pointed out this formatting inconsistency: when the citation for PMID 27897391 is generated, the first author's first name in the citation template isn't initialized, but it is for all of the other authors. I haven't paid much attention to how the authors list is formatted when I use this tool (which is almost daily), so I'm not sure how frequently this problem occurs. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 05:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
![]()
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.
Wikidata as HubOne way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites. ![]() Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to
Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from
our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all
massmessage mailings, you may add
Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I changed the title Cooperative antigen transfer to more proper one: Antigen transfer in the thymus which could be find in refferences. Is it like this ok? Thank you for your answer. ( BrezinaJiri ( talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
This is a good paper to cite here. Thanks for your contribution, is it somehow possible to take back the suggestion for deletion? I understand that it needs to be improved, but the references i cite here are really related to this topic and are relevant. Thanks for your answer. ( BrezinaJiri ( talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
Thanks Boghog, I will re-write it. Cheers. ( BrezinaJiri ( talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
Sigh. Another Wikipedia "editor" who doesn't see the forest for the trees. Crazy that you'd delete a Stanford University research project as unworthy of Wikipedia. And one that fights HIV, cancer and Alzheimers. Repeat: you're lame. Davieinspain ( talk) 10:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Dave
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pseudokinase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot ( talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I’ve noticed recently that there seems to be a date / year conflict in the cite journal template where only one of them is allowed. The solution I have adopted is to remove date= and leave the year, with the rationale that the Wikipedia template filling tool populates the year parameter. I generally try to align my edits with your consistent formatting policy and wondered what your thoughts are on this. Regards CV9933 ( talk) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
|month=
parameter. I was lazy and just removed the deprecated month parameter from the tool. I can modify the tool so that |year=
is replaced with |date=
and include the month in the date if returned by Entrez esearch. This should be compatible with the other citation tools and the script that I am currently using. Would this be OK?
Boghog (
talk)
19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
|year=
with |date=month+year
in the output of the WTF tool. I should have done this a long time ago. Sorry about that. Let me know if there are any problems.
Boghog (
talk)
11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
|author=
parameter at the end of the template, which I initially ignored, but I put some data in for a test and it overides the |vauthor=
parameter, so maybe we could lose that? Regards
CV9933 (
talk)
17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
|date=August 2016
for
PMID
27229733 is returned.
Boghog (
talk)
09:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
support. However {{
cite journal}} now also supports |vauthors=
, so again, the primary reason for using {{
vcite2 journal}} no longer exists. Is there some special reason that you would like to use {{
vcite journal}} or {{
vcite2 journal}}?
Boghog (
talk)
11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist ( talk) 06:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
The 32em is no longer needed. The template now adds this automatically. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
I was editing the Tumor_necrosis_factor_superfamily page for two hours, but when I wanted to save it it said I can't save it because you made a change in the meanwhile. I am still on that page but the new content seem to be already lost. Pleeeeease help me to get it back it was so much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Kuzmik ( talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, something seems to have gone awry with this edit. The translation section looks as if it has been moved to the middle of the conservation section and placed in the middle of a reference, causing the angry red error message. I'm not sure what your intentions were so I have not attempted to correct it, so if you could have another look at the page it would be appreciated. Thanks, regards, Eagleash ( talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Please don't make changes that only substitute one valid template parameter for another; if it was okay before, the change does not improve the article, nor is it relevant to consistent citation style.
If you mix valid improvements to the article, as you did here to Transfeminism with invalid ones, there's an increased risk that the bundled changes will be reverted, as happened in this case. By separating out unrelated content and doing a series of incremental edits, you lessen the risk that the good edits will be removed. Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 10:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
Do not change authors from last/first to vauthorsis not what Citevar says. What Citevar does says is
imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation stylesis
Generally considered helpful. Boghog ( talk) 22:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@
Boghog,
Jonesey95, and
Mathglot:
Boghog recently
made many changes to references in
Psychotherapy,
many of which I have reverted: per
Wikipedia:Citation templates, the last1, first1, last2, first2, ... fields are correct; removing information such as first names and journal wikilinks from citation templates is unhelpful, and removing such info from only a few references is inconsistent. I am commenting here because the subject of this section, "Not broken", is apropos, as is
Mathglot's advice above: All I can say, is, then don't use a script
. Or make your script much more sophisticated so that it is not stripping valuable information from citations (and doing it inconsistently)! You are wasting the time of editors like us who have to manually clean up after your script. I have also noted this at
Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 2#Citation style.
Biogeographist (
talk)
14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
name-list-format
field of the citation template to set the display format of the names, rather than to strip the first names from the citation template. Another important reason to keep full names in citation templates is because citation templates generate
COinS data for automated citation harvesting by
reference management software; with full names included, the data harvested from Wikipedia will be more complete. Think of citation templates as database records: we want the most complete database record possible, and fields such as name-list-format
(and the other
display options parameters) control how the data is displayed in the rendered page.Hi Boghog,
I have been looking at the article on HMB and noticed the File:HMB_synthesis_2.svg, which you created. I was wondering if you could correct a small mistake? In the Fenton's reagent approach from tert-butanol and carbon monoxide, you have drawn CO as having a double carbon–oxygen bond when it should be a triple bond. Would you please either change it to show a triple bond or to just show CO?
Thanks,
EdChem ( talk) 00:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Also, could you italicise the "tert" of tert-butanol so that it appears as tert-butanol? Thanks. EdChem ( talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
Is it a script that does this; particularly converts:
{{Cite journal|last=Zhao|first=Yi|last2=Long|first2=Marcus J. C.|last3=Wang|first3=Yiran|last4=Zhang|first4=Sheng|last5=Aye|first5=Yimon|date=2018-02-28|title=Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5833000/|journal=ACS Central Science|volume=4|issue=2|pages=246–259|doi=10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556|issn=2374-7943|pmc=PMC5833000|pmid=29532025}}
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: PMC format (
link)to:
{{cite journal | vauthors = Zhao Y, Long MJC, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y | title = Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses | journal = ACS Central Science | volume = 4 | issue = 2 | pages = 246–259 | date = February 2018 | pmid = 29532025 | pmc = 5833000 | doi = 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556 }}
{{
cite journal}}
: Vancouver style error: initials in name 2 (
help)I find myself following behind you when cleaning up entries in Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 11:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
|first2=MJC
.
Boghog (
talk)
11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
[:2]
) to the first/middle initials string variable.
Boghog (
talk)
18:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
References
Hi, Boghog.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the
New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to
PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (
per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at
the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers, —
Insertcleverphrasehere (
or here)
06:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers
" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as
patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the
New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at
New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various
deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at
page reviewer talk.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory ( u • t • c) 12:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you think a redirect like this appropriate? Before today, that page redirected to Sweet Tooth (disambiguation). Wikipedia doesn't have any other pages that actually cover what a "sweet tooth" is, although there is wikt:sweet tooth. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/nrendo.2017.62
) indicated that people with that SNP of the FGF21 gene were in the highest tertileHello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: /info/en/?search=Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{ infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
This is to let you know that Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The 2017 Cure Award |
In 2017 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 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Can you please stop making reference edits that do not improve the encyclopedia, by merely changing author style around from last/first to vauthors (or vice-versa)? This is a violation of WP:CITEVAR: "[Do] not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If the script you are using cannot avoid doing this, then please stop using the script.
I noticed this happening again while checking a student editor working on Zatypota percontatoria, where I saw this edit of yours with summary consistent citation formatting. This has made things worse, not better. Complicating matters further, the two follow-up edits of yours means that one cannot use the Undo link to revert the first one.
You were advised of this issue a week ago, at the discussion now archived here. This is starting to feel disruptive to me. Can you please manually undo edit 838239555 of 19:52, April 25, 2018 at Zatypota percontatoria (the other two are already taken care of) and assure us that you won't continue this type of edit anymore? It's not helpful, and it's increasing my workload. And, it's giving students the wrong idea. Thanks. @ Biogeographist and Jonesey95: Cordially, Mathglot ( talk) 08:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
It's not helpful– precisely why isn't it helpful?
it's giving students the wrong idea– what is wrong about it? Also your reversion has removed information. Before my edits, several of the citations were incomplete and/or were not templated. Your revisions are not helpful. Boghog ( talk) 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
in some citations and |name-list-format=vanc
in other citations. Some pedantic editors would say that is a violation of CITEVAR, and in any event, removing useful citation information from the article by using |vauthors=
is probably not helpful. Perhaps |name-list-format=vanc
is a better option than removing information from the article. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
|name-list-format=vanc
in book and web citations because the full authors information is harder to come by. It is trivial to regenerate full authors information for journal articles that are indexed in PubMed. Why do we need to replicate PubMed in Wikipedia? And why are full first names essential? To the average reader, this is superfluous information.
Boghog (
talk)
15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)|vauthors=
is that it much more efficient and doesn't clutter up the raw wiki text with long templates. The advantage of |name-list-format=vanc
is that it insures the authors are formatted in a consistent way.
Before I started editing this article, the citations were an inconsistent mess. Some of the first names were spelled out in full, some were abbreviated, some were in all caps, and some were missing altogether.
After my edits, the formatting was completely consistent.
Boghog (
talk)
16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)Boghog, Thank you for fixing some citations for the FMT page. As a question from a newer user: I am using the citation function above the edit box by entering PMID/doi/etc., is there a way to have this automatically change to the standard citation for a page? I didn't see a standard format list in the MedMOS/RS sections and I see this as possibly saving people time in the future. Thanks in advance. AverageleveledIQ ( talk) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
|vauthors=
as an option. I requested this functionality
here, but didn't get too far. The only tool that I know of that generates citations in this format is the
Diberri Template builder. I hope this helps.
Boghog (
talk)
18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neuroepigenetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
ACTRIAL:
Deletion tags
Backlog drive:
Editathons
Paid editing - new policy
Subject-specific notability guidelines
Not English
News
In these edits you changed: [1]
van Geffen, Wouter; Hajian, Bita; Vos, Wim; De Backer, Jan; Cahn, Anthony; Usmani, Omar; Van Holsbeke, Cedric; Pistolesi, Massimo; Kerstjens, Huib (2018-05).
"Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Volume 13: 1783–1792.
doi:
10.2147/copd.s152463.
ISSN
1178-2005.
PMC
5985851. {{
cite journal}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)CS1 maint: PMC format (
link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
to
Bergamasco B, Bergamini L, Doriguzzi T, Sacerdote I (June 1966).
"[The nyctohemeral cycle in coma. Prognostic possibilities]". Rivista Di Patologia Nervosa E Mentale. 87 (3): 312–8.
doi:
10.2147/copd.s152463.
PMC
5985851.{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (
link)I think you have to take a look at WP:CITEVAR. I have seen you do this before and would suggest that this is not a good use of editor time. Also, see WP:BOLD. Your edit was challenged. Take it to talk instead of re-reverting. -- Randykitty ( talk) 17:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Granulin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inflammatory ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
You are deleting factual, cited information from the Brain Balance Wikipedia page. If you continue to do so I will have to report your account.
Your recent editing history 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.
A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.My three consecutive edits were to different portions of the article. I could have done all this in one edit, but I split this into three edits so that the justification for each edit could be more clearly stated in the edit summary. I agree with you that the information that you added is factual, but as I have stated here, I dispute its relevance. I would appreciate if you would continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Boghog ( talk) 05:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beta-2 adrenergic receptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
Thanks for having a listen to my thoughts about the receptor infoboxes, your openness to discussion is really commendable :). I'm keeping abreast of the discussions and will contribute when I've got something to add. Thanks again, Tom (LT) ( talk) 11:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
And thank you for raising the issue in the first place and for your constructive feedback! Concerning readability, we can and must do better. It has been difficult to please everyone, but I am confident that we can eventually arrive at a consensus. Boghog ( talk) 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi, please stop put FBXL2 content into FBXW7. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztj0420 ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
Does this reach you? Julia Edgar ( talk) 09:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog I don't know how to leave a message on my talk page - perhaps you can advise.
Regarding the opening section on 'Myelin' being too long, that's fine. I am new to Wiki and I am learning. I agree with the edits you made.
At least now the info (as far as I know) is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Edgar ( talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, Thanks for moving content created by my students on Ginger to a draft space. As they are learning with me on how to contribute to Wikipedia, they are (so am I) are constantly making different kinds of mistakes and violating many netiquettes/rules. Thanks for moving the pages elsewhere instead of simply deleting their hardwork. JudyCChan ( talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
I just had an instance where CC stripped out five of 92 refs in such a way that a bot follows, restoring the ref but in a different format. As I wrote on CC's Talk, this was annoying in extreme, as for my effort to bring the article to GA status, the reviewer had asked that all journal citations be in same format. I have reversed the CC/bot edits. I see from looking back in CC's archives, that this has been a consistent (annoying) practice for many years. In fact, I quoted one of your comments from years back. Thank you for allowing me to vent here, as I did not want to be uncivil toward CC. David notMD ( talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Estradiol metabolism}}
I don't feel like posting this at Talk:Estrogen since it'd inevitably resurrect an old discussion ( Talk:Estrogen#WP:Lead_sentence), so I'm just going to ask you.
Do you think this template's compound highlighting in these articles (view the diagram in Estrogen#Metabolism and Estrogen (medication)#Pharmacokinetics) is appropriate/accurate? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 03:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
AI4}}
is designed to be scrollable when the image renders on a page with a viewing width that's smaller than the image width (e.g., open
Template:Metabolic metro on your phone).
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
19:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
{{
Estradiol metabolism|align=right|header=XYZ}}
). Also, I can reduce the arrow width easily enough since the start and end coordinates remain the same when the arrow width setting is changed in Inkscape.
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢)
20:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Lol. I agree with you on that, but both the current diagram and sandbox diagram have faults. So long as you both agree on a change, I'll go ahead and do it; I'd rather not put myself in a position where I have to go back and forth making changes that I end up reverting. I've already spent over 12 hours working on this diagram during the past week. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
In any event, I emailed her about shrinking it. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
Hi there,
thanks for having a look at the MST article. However, I have to disagree about the citations labeled by you as "spammy". The citations I added link to applications notes provided by that company, which are well-suited references for the kinds of applications listed on the MST "Applications" section. So I see no reason why they should be removed.
Best!
Hello, I noticed you removed C. albicans from the list with organisms that have been edited in vivo. How come? Just curious to know what the reason is. Also: for one of the organisms there is no reference anymore now. Not sure you deleted it by accident or it was not there from the start. (talking about this article: /info/en/?search=CRISPR) Garnhami ( talk) 14:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, you changed the word "Jamaica" to "JAMAica". If you're using a script to do these edits or something along those lines, you should probably adjust it so it only capitalizes JAMA when it's a stand-alone word. - Apocheir ( talk) 01:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Outside my area of expertise, but the editor Ketoacids appears to be exceptionally BOLD in editing carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, and more recently heme oxygenase. I had some interactions on the first topic because parts were being inserted into nutrient articles, but let it drop. Since August the heme oxygenase article has been increased nearly 5X in length, with a lot of the content apparently copied over from the editor's additions to the carbon monoxide article. (There is a "See also" to the carbon monoxide-releasing molecules article.) I saw that you have been a past editor on both articles, so thought to bring it to your attention. David notMD ( talk) 17:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
Derpablonachos as an editor appears to have been created only to delete large amounts of this article and from Heme oxygenase, which led me to believe it was a second account opened by Ketoacids, or perhaps a friend of. Anyway, I restored the references that were cut from Heme oxygenase, as they looked to be appropriate. You did a reversal of cuts for Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, but then reversed the reversal. Is the article really better for the massive cuts? Were any worth a second third look? David notMD ( talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
Can I get your opinion? I see that you have removed a citation from an article (don't remember which one, toxic effects of local anesthesia maybe?) and I want to learn from your example. I have cited a reference to online content that is only accessible through a paid subscription (ISACA, Screened subnet. In the reference citation I included a quote from the source.
If you like, will you send me a notification or bump on my talk page so I will see your response? This is important to me because in the information security domain I often have to rely on authoritative standards that are not free. Stephen Charles Thompson ( talk) 20:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
|
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
As of 21 October 2018 [update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
[2] - what do you think? My very best wishes ( talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, please do not attempt to change the author format in established articles, that is contrary to the MoS, which states directly:
There is no mandate to change author format from Doe, John (or Doe, J. R.) to Vauthor-style Doe JR as you have done in several cases that I've seen, and probably many others. The MoS states of such action:
I would be grateful if you could take note of this policy and desist from any further attempts to enforce Vauthor format. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 08:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
A lesson in assuming good faith methinks. I am convinced by the vanc rationale so keep up the good work Boghog, I believe you are doing a great job! CV9933 ( talk) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Boghog,
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere ( or here) 18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
@ Boghog: For the page FGFR3 we are currently doing a project worth half of our credit for our genetic's class, about the gene and its functions on the human body. We have submitted the project to the teacher and the website wikiedu and both have been approved to be worked on. We have also submitted the work to a plagiarism check and its came back okay.I understand that you have a problem with the fact the we are adding disease causing traits with the FGFR3 gene but that is the agreed upon topic for me and my class mates and each of us has a specific disease we have to work on.The project itself is due in less than 24 hours so I would be very grateful if you could leave the text alone until it is approved by my professor. Brandon westmoreland ( talk) 04:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somatostatin receptor 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 09:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hey boghog, me and my group for class were assigned an article to edit and you keep making adjustments and deleting our work that needs to be graded. For the sake of my group could you hold off on editing for a week so we can get our grades. It’s the twinkle protein article. Eda2y ( talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello, Boghog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
![]() |
The Hard Worker's Barnstar |
I have seen you laboring and laboring to clean up as kindly as you could after the genetics classes. Thank you so much for that work! It is frustrating as hell i know. Please know that I (and am sure others) appreciate your time and effort. Jytdog ( talk) 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC) |
Template:You are here has been
nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at
the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. —
Mr. Guye (
talk) (
contribs)
03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dermatopontin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stroma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
( Opt-out instructions.) -- DPL bot ( talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
Hello Boghog,
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)