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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C-Met, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clear cell carcinoma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi - Yesterday I created a new page on Obeticholic acid which was in the news. I wanted to add a Drugbox (and further chemical details) but couldn't find Help on doing this. Are there template /bots to help with this? The CAS number is 459789-99-2. Thanks for any help. Jrfw51 ( talk) 10:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Boghog, I work for NCBI, and as discussed here on WP:NIH, I would like to get started working on a way to make it easier for editors to cite PubMed sources. I've read some of your discussions above, and I think you could probably help me scope out the task. I see that you are partial to Diberri's tool, and I'm thinking that maybe that among the things we might do is to host that at NCBI (no promises -- it's just brainstorming at this point). Maybe we could also hook it in with the ref toolbar, although I'm not familiar at all with how that works. I have a bad tendency to try to fix everything at once, and then never get anything done, so if we could scope out something reasonable, I think we could make some real progress. Let me know if you have ideas about this. Klortho ( talk) 07:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, I don't usually edit pages and don't really know what's customary, but aren't readers of an article like this interested in knowing funders' agendas? I was thinking that people who are concerned about their health would want to know that a study was funded by an organization whose mission is to make sure people keep eating soy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.43.96 ( talk) 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation.
— WP:MEDMOS
If you're not too busy, could I ask you to look through my reply to Hamiltonstone (the 3 indented bullets) in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1#Boghog) really quickly to make sure I didn't say something stupid in my explanation on the chemistry? I'd appreciate it if you can! Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey again Boghog, I'm making a trace amine biosynthesis image that I plan to annotate like template:amphetamine pharmacokinetics, but I have no idea how to construct/label adrenaline consistently with the format I used for the structures - it wasn't included in the papers I used as a reference. Would you be able to give me some guidance on that? Best, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 09:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh alright, I'll update it accordingly. I was confused by the structure difference between the paper I was using as a reference (Fig 2) and wikipedia's articles on the compounds. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 11:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done annotating the figure or tweaking the image yet, but did I address the all the chem issues with my changes?
Last year (13May2003) I heard from a student who was editing the c10orf76 gene page as a project in my bioinformatics analysis course that you would like me to contact you so that I could give my students formatting instructions for the Wikipedia pages on human genes of unknown function that they work on. He suggested that my class (of 44 students) was giving you and others a lot of extra work due to formatting errors in student pages. He forwarded to me some common issues you'd observed, which I'll put into my assignment for this year. If there were other formatting resources you had in mind, please let me know.
Each student wants to make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia even if it is not a notable one. Our goal is to find sources of information where there are few obvious ones (that is their challenge) so contributing to the page on beta-globin, for instance, wouldn't work.
I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid25 ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I noticed recently while looking up information on alpha-methylated biogenic amines that there's been some new developments in research on TAARs and their ligands - specifically TAAR5 and TAAR2. I'll probably update the stubs for those articles within the next week or so, but I'm not entirely sure what can be concluded about TAAR2 based upon that paper (its paywalled, but downloadable here). I get that the paper is asserting that TAAR1/TAAR2 are co-expressed in white blood cells and they're "involved" in chemotaxic trafficking of those cells to amines, but does that just suggest or did it actually show that PEA/TYR are hTAAR2 agonists?
My other question is on N-methylhistamine and alpha-methylhistamine. I noticed some databases, like Pubchem,
list the two terms together in the synonyms, but
IUPHAR's HRH4 ligand list contains a mention of N, alpha, and 2 methylhistamine (see agonists section) around 10 times and none are indicated as being endogenouus. Aren't these different enantiomers/racemic forms of the same endogenous compound (the one made by
histamine N-methyltransferase)? Sorry for all the questions; I'm
working on something related that I'm considering on moving to article space at some point.
No rush in responding to this - I know you're busy, so take your time. Regards,
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Warning, do not remove useful information from articles, like the months of date parameters. See my revert. Debresser ( talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this will teach him a lessonis incredibly arrogant. Editors are supposed to resolve conflicts through discussion, not scolding. Boghog ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. Seppi is being pretty aggressive again, reverting edits solely because I made them. He chopped the entire toxicity section down to two short sentences (which is far too short for the nuanced topic) just to piss me off. He's also strangely, subtly vandalizing a talk page section I added. I correctly guessed the reason for his (admittedly mild) POV, which can be seen in a section of my talk page. He seems to have gone off the deep end, though, and we may need mediation. Exercisephys ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you check the above article - a complete section has been blanked - is it ok? Regards Denisarona ( talk) 16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited.
— Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections
For generally continuous high-level editing of articles in the medical and pharmaceutical science area. Keep it up! JFW | T@lk 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hello, User:Wikid77 here. I noticed you have been discussing ways to correct cite parameters. I am currently writing extra Lua script to autofix (auto-correct) typos when using the wp:CS1 cite templates. When I helped to develop those Lua-based cite templates, during October 2012 to April 2013, the intent was to auto-correct for typos, not issue numerous error messages, and I never imagined Lua would be used to issue thousands of red-error messages when simple auto-correction would have been quite easy. Well, after waiting all year, I have returned to re-focus on autofixing typos in cite templates, and suppress most of the red-error messages. Across Wikipedia editing, many editors are just too busy to nitpick the details and so, autofixing of cite parameters provides a rapid way to solve the problems and make many cite templates almost trivial to use. Last year, I estimated the hand-correction of cites to require over 3 years of manual, hand-crafted edits, and now after another whole year, the backlog is still about 3-5 years if hand-fixed. Although several users are diligently hand-editing the pages to fix cites, many other users are actively inserting invalid cite parameters into almost as many dozens of pages each week. The past year (of tedious cite work) has proven how autofixing is the only hope to rapidly correct the 10,000 pages in the backlog categories. For example:
During early 2014, the unsupported parameters have been fixed at only 100-200 pages per month, as meaning more years of backlog work. I wrote new essay, " wp:Autofixing cites" to explain some simple ways to autofix the major cite parameters and hope people might discuss issues about the autofixing in the talk-page there, " WT:Autofixing cites" where all the complex tactics of fixing URLs and dates could be discussed, in more detail. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. Would you be interested in making this bot [1]? Would be happy to send you the reward :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay it appears we may have consensus. Do you want to start the bot request or should I? What we proposing to do, if I understand correctly is:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there is agreement for both. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I get it trying to save index.cgi rather than running the script. Does it need to be authorized again or something? RDBrown ( talk) 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you mean by "trying to save index.cgi". I just got the citation template filling tool working today by following these instructions, and in particular this solution. Boghog ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is the data stored in a db for citePMID and citeISBN? Or is it a bunch of templates that somehow get polled by the individual articles when they use the cite-call? Ian Furst ( talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Found my way to some documentation on it and you're right (sorry - should have looked for the solution myself, thought it would be a simple question). It says that it's transcluded from the template. I've done lots of db work but never used a page to act as a record source like this. My suspicion is that the parameter fields in the template are easier to screw up than a source field in a db (not to mention the performance hit). I wonder what causes problems across languages? Also, if a wiki solution is appropriate for data like this with discrete fields. It might be better managed in a db. 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I found this information of a toxicity data site: http://www.acutetox.eu/ (PDF: http://www.acutetox.eu/pdf_human_short/35-Amphetamine%20revised.pdf)
Metabolism and excretion
Metabolism of amphetamine generally includes aromatic hydroxylation, aliphatic hydroxylation, and n-dealkylation, resulting in inactive and active metabolites.
Main metabolites of amphetamine are: hippuric acid (16 to 28%), phenylacetone (0.9%), benzoylglucuronide (4%), norephedrine (2%), conjugated p-hydroxyamphetamine (2-4%) and conjugated p-hydroxynorephedrine (0.3%). One of metabolites, p-hydroxyamphetamine is a potent hallucinogen implicated in the development of amphetamine-induced psychosis [1].
The excretion of unchanged amphetamine is dependent on the urine pH. In an acidic urine (pH less than 6.6) 67 to 73% of an ingested dose is excreted as amphetamine. When pH is higher than 6.7, 17 to 43% is excreted unchanged in the urine [1].
Do you think its worth updating the metabolic pathway diagram to include "conjugated p-hydroxyamphetamine"?
Also, what program do you use to generate SVG structure diagrams? I think I may end up redoing the ones I made in that format.
Best, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
On the myostatin article. The article was from Nasdaq.com. If youre going to revert someone's edit, please tell why.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Editors using
this tool are creating references containing the
deprecated |month=
parameter (e.g. in PMID, maybe others).
Are there any plans to amend the output to instead use the |date=
parameter? This parameter can take a variety of complete and partial dates. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk)
18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
--- WWW/Wikipedia/TemplateFiller/Source/PubmedId.pm.orig 2009-05-15 11:48:47.000000000 +1000
+++ WWW/Wikipedia/TemplateFiller/Source/PubmedId.pm 2014-04-07 22:10:10.203585151 +1000
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ sub template_basic_fields {
my $month = Decode_Month( $self->{month} ) if $self->{month};
$month = Month_to_Text( $month ) if $month;
+ if (defined($month) && defined($self->{year})) {
+ $month = $month . ' ' . $self->{year};
+ $self->{year} = undef;
+ }
tie( my %fields, 'Tie::IxHash' );
%fields = (
@@ -89,8 +93,8 @@ sub template_basic_fields {
volume => { value => $self->{volume} },
issue => { value => $self->{issue} },
pages => { value => $pages },
- year => { value => $self->{year} },
- month => { value => $month, show => 'if-filled' },
+ year => { value => $self->{year}, show => 'if-filled' },
+ date => { value => $month, show => 'if-filled' },
pmid => { value => $self->{pmid} },
pmc => { value => $self->{pmc_id}, show => 'if-filled' },
doi => { value => $self->{doi} },
|day=
|month=
|year=
(or |month=
|year=
) are valid and then merges them into |date=
. If month data is available in your tool it may be better to return both month and year in |date=
. I don't think there's any format other than |date=March 2014
available for this. When day is also present, that's when the fun begins! My preference is 28 March 2014 for publication date (e.g. newspapers), and 2014-03-28 for archivedate. Likewise the latter for accessdate, but only when the publication date is not available. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk)
22:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)|date=
". Also IMHO, including the day on which an article was published is excessive and completely unnecessary. Finally it makes no sense to include an accessdate in a journal citation. Articles that are published in journals must by definition have been published on a specific date. If an article does not have a publication date (e.g., year + volume + issue), it wasn't published in a journal.
Boghog (
talk)
23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
. Many other editor tools blindly shove accessdate into every reference. Whenever |date=
is present I remove accessdate. As for full dates, I agree they are not needed in journal references. I should have clarified my latter comments about Monkbot and dates were meant to be more general, i.e. used for newspaper references and other such things, and not specifically to do with journals. Glad to hear you're considering updating the tools at some point. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk)
23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Sorry, I made a mistake deleting this paragraph. Thank you for correcting it. Humpath ( talk) 09:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! In this Boghog edit of the Bipolar disorder page, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bipolar_disorder&curid=4531&diff=603896185&oldid=603893399 Bipolar disorder (Latest revision as of 11:38, 12 April 2014) the bot just permuted the author list of a "cite journal." It also didn't put them in numeric order so it seems a little pointless.
The request for approval appears to say that it only would affect 'cite doi' 'cite pmid' and 'cite isbn.' Is the Bipolar disorder change an accident or mistake? SesquiZed ( talk) 02:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. I've tried to contact you before but don't see a reply here -- so maybe didn't get through. I'm the professor at U of M who has students write Wikipedia articles on little-known genes and have heard through my students that we should talk. I've given a formatting guide to my students based on what you sent a few of them last year but if there is more I can do to make things easier on your end, please let me know. My userID is Wikid25 and though I know you've made clear that I should come back here for a response to a question asked here, would you consider pasting any answer you might make at my talk page this once? Thanks! By the way, the following is what I give students based on what I've heard from you before:
• Please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. • For consistency with other Gene Wiki articles, the An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox infobox should normally not be included directly in the article but rather transcluded using the template. User:ProteinBoxBot is setup to maintain transcluded templates, but not templates directly contained in articles. The GeneWikiGenerator will automatically create both the template and the article that transcludes the template. • Concerning the lead sentence, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these Gene Wiki articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise: • <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene. The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. • Per WP:HEAD, sentence case should be used for section headings. • Per WP:REFPUNC, punctuation before citations.
Thanks. I'll shift all future projects to genes/proteins that have at least one article in which they gene is the primary subject of the article. I'm thinking of the situation of a recently characterized gene such as SARAF/TMEM66. I will also make it clear to students that synthesis and other forms of original research are not permitted. I have discussed at length with them how all their sources must be provided such that any reasonably informed person could verify claims made. Hopefully this addresses the majority of the issues that have created work or concern for you in your editing role in the past years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid25 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FGF4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SHH ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
About the article on Setdb1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETDB1
"Model organisms have been used in the study of SETDB1 function" I found no article using this knock out mice.
The "abnormalities" have never been investigated and you can't conclude that there is a lymphocyte or bone issue in these mice on only one test carried out. Furthermore, this have never been reported in the literature yet. Saying that SETDB1 is implicated in bone strength and lymphocyte biology only according to the data obtained from a pre-phenotyping of a KO mice is (to my opinion) non scientifical comments. The links provided on this subject all leads to the "Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute" (that's half of the citation). It looks like more an advertisement from Eucomm that is selling the mice.
This article should be enriched with the already known roles of SETDB1 in the literature and not be an excuse reason for private companies to get a free advertisement.
I don't doubt that animal models are being widely used in research as I am a researcher myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.129.220 ( talk) 08:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Boghog:
Just wanted to let you know that I am working on the Rictor page for a class assignment. I would really appreciate it if you would hold off on your edits (especially the stylistic ones) until I submit this assignment for grading.
Thanks for your interest in the page and your current contributions.
kldextraze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kldextraze ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Where are we at? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For fixing the refs you have :-) Looking forwards to the larger run. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks, but I am not quite done. I should be able to finish this soon after I fix a few bugs in the bot script. BTW, it turns out that there are only about ~300 of the 1500 MED articles that have transcluded cite pmid/doi/isbn templates. Boghog ( talk) 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO we should have refereces for the preg cat listed in the info boxes. Could we get a bot to add these? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
{{
subst:WP Physiology–invite}}
~~~~{{
subst:WP Physiology–welcome}}
~~~~Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu Talk 12:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding that edit disagreements are best discussed on the talk page of the site where the edits are occurring. Are you OK with that approach? If so I'll leave you a note on the Ghrelin talk page for your response. Thanks.
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit appears to use some kind of automation to "fix" citations. However, it does not follow Help: Citation Style 1 (CS1). At least one difference is that CS1 separates authors with a semicolon, while you separated them with a comma. Please repair your automation before using it again. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed another error; authors who apparently have western European names have their names given in the format "Doe J" when it should be "Doe, J". Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
dead link"| last1=Nelson |first1=G.K. |last2=Lombardi |first2=M.A. |last3=Okayama |first3=D.T."
The results are last names separated from first names with commas, and authors separated by semicolons. You must follow this format or you are in violation of
WP:CITEVAR.
Jc3s5h (
talk)
14:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Consider this
older version of the article which show a clear preference for the
Vancouver system. What
WP:CITEVAR says is defer to the style used by the first major contributor
. Your revert of my edit is in clear violation of
WP:CITEVAR.
Boghog (
talk)
14:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Also I repeat, this was not a bot edit. Boghog ( talk) 14:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, before my edit, there was a mixture of citation styles and many included in the Vancouver system. Your reversion re-introduced a mixture of styles as well as undone a number of other fixes. Boghog ( talk) 14:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally per WP:CITEVAR there are no fixed "citation rules". Boghog ( talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style).
I have started a thread at WT:CITE#"When citation style guides are updated" to confirm that others agree that citation templates in articles should be copy edited to conform to current template function and documentation. I would think the same principle would apply if a new edition of a printed publication guide is published. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steroid may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
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!
— Anne Delong ( talk) 03:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)I looked at homoloGene and Blast. It seemed to me that the Blast comparison of proteins was easier to read, and, perhaps, easier for a broader audience to interpret quickly. I was going to suggest that a direct link to protein Blast in the box would be useful. But I did not want to bother your infobox. Even though the page is about the DTX2 gene, I was looking at the human protein.
Also, I look at the page and see one sentence, and a bunch of "further readings". The page cries out for some explanation for the general user. What do all those references "mean"?
The experts are already using the specific databases and tools, they hardly need an encyclopedia article.
What could you say about specific proteins that would help a general user of Wikipedia, not an expert? Or, how does expert explain the importance and relevance of DTX2?
I think Wikipedia has a responsibility to make every page accessible to everyone.
Kind regards, RC711 ( talk) 19:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick update on DTX2. It is much clearer now. I could not have done it myself; those few extra words of explanation make it much better. I appreciate your hard work. RC711 ( talk) 20:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog,
mw:User:Mvolz is a new community developer whose project is coding a citation auto-filler system for VisualEditor. You can see what she's planning at mw:Cite-from-id. I'm hoping to get Diberri-style PMID (etc.) filling in this as well, because I think it's important to our science-related editors. If you're interested in this, I'm sure she'd be happy to hear from you or to have someone else to bounce ideas off of. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
While looking at new edits to Melanopsin I noticed that the addition of info about researcher Samer Hattar was added by user:Shattar. Glancing down the history, I saw your edit summary: "enough history, return the focus back to the protein, not the researchers", Diff. The new edits are similar to the one(s) you reverted way back when. Perhaps you'd like to check this out. -- Hordaland ( talk) 01:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BogBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Thank you for your kind assistance with improving and clarifying the AEBP2 article. Your help is most appreciated. PEGLEG3 ( talk) 12:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Circadian clock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering if there is some reason for the various appearances: BMAL1, Bmal1 and Bmal1. I'm tempted to change them all to BMAL1, but there might be some reason for the variation. (?) Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
…not synthesis or anything, until the matter of the "course of the ship" is settled. And I heard and acknowledged Smoke, both halves of what he said. I see one ambiguous statement, leaning as much my way as yours. So there is no decision possible based on it. You are the one that wants to run with half a vote, in your prescribed direction. That, my friend defines self-serving. I am staying put until (given summer, and busy life) others have time to respond. The WP standard seems (with merger proposals, and other higher order proposed changes), to allow 30 days. That is at least what I am looking at. And sorry, no longer playing your WP:THIS and WP:THAT game. You do not seem to care to hear that you, perhaps unconsciously but nevertheless self-servingly, limit your purview when you do this, so I've ceased arguing in such ways with you. Good news, no more walls of text. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
but I will do it to avoid confusion when folks start responding. I would appreciate it if you would, in good faith, sandbox the last three edits that you did, since they directly bear on the questions of the discussion that were ongoing, and then revert to the version that I linked to and discussed (immediately prior to your last three edits). If you are confident in your case, you should be confident without any changes, with the form that stood for the 6 mos. of your absence. Reverting will ensure that people see what I was describing at the time, and not some muddle of old and new. Don't expect it, but in integrity, and to give you the chance, I have to ask. If you do not, say by end of day Saturday, I will have to review my opening description of the history and argument, and make sure it still makes sense (fixing links and anything else that your edit will have muddied). But as I said, the simplest is to return the matter, in good faith, to what I was talking about before those three edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I figured it wouldn't hurt to put this in the pharmacokinetics section of the amph page, but I'm not sure what the common abbreviations are for these enzymes. I'd rather not put the full names in the drugbox.
Benzoic acid is metabolized by butyrate-CoA ligase into an intermediate product, benzoyl-CoA, [1] which is then metabolized by glycine N-acyltransferase into hippuric acid. [2]
I'm guessing the 2nd is GLYAT, but I have no clue about the ligase. Would you happen to know of a contraction or where to find one for it? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
Hey again Boghog. I've been off Wikipedia for nearly 2 weeks due to a broken laptop; I have a working one now though, so I intend to renominate the article at FAC very soon. Are you still interested in being a co-nominator? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Not engaging with you further at NP, sorry. In your most recent spate of unscrupulous actions, you have shredded any last basis here for AGF from me. I will work around you, if possible alongside you, but any chance for real discourse or collegiality is gone. Please do not post to me, or refer to me anywhere that you can help it. Cheers, best of fortunes in our shared, difficult day to day, as we try to do something real. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 05:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Boghog. Some time ago you made some improvements to the draft article above, and it turned out that it was a copy-paste remnant. Was there anything that you wanted to move over to the mainspace article before the draft is deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog,
In April of 2011 I updated the the section on NFkB in neurons and I see that user Neuroglider has made substantial changes to the section that I don't agree with. Neuroglider states that s/he talked with you on 11/23/2013, though I couldn't find the talk on either of your talk pages, about removal of synaptic components as gene targets of NFkB. Could you fill me in, or point me to the correct talk page? I feel that these should be in the article as the support the idea that NFkB is important in neurons, not just glia. Which brings me to my main point. I believe that the NFkB field in neuroscience does not hold to Neuroglider's views that NFkB is primarily important in glia and not in neurons. In 2011 I specificially removed sections stating these points as I believed them to not be representative of the thoughts of the field. Specifically Meffert et.al. 2003 (citation #7 in NFkB article) [1] demonstrated that NFkB could be activated in biochemically isolated synapses (synaptoneurosomes) and was unlikely to be confounded by glia. Additionally, there are many studies that support the idea that NFkB function is important in neurons, such as studies that show cell autonomous roles for NFkB in neurons related to synaptic function and regulation of genes that are also important to synaptic function. While Neuroglider does make a good point that we should all think about heterogeneity in our systems, I believe s/he has given too much weight to this idea and the paragraph is now larger than the rest of the section. I would like to rebut Neuroglider's addition to the section, but do not wish to turn the article into a discussion of the merits of Neuroglider's v.s. other perspective. While I do not agree with Neuroglider, I'd be okay with his/her opinions to remain, but with more balance. If you have any thoughts on the best way to proceed, please let me know.
P.S. Thank you for your time and effort looking after these wikipedia articles.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
16:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Aventre3
For you to consider. Colleague looked at WP steroids on an iphone, and said the article opened with three structures in a row, and it seemed off-putting as a way to open an article for general readers. I checked his report, and it is true. Because of the way the image markups are inserted relative to the lede, the article opens on small screen handhelds with the three images appearing 1-2-3 that show up to the right of the lede for a standard laptop or PC viewing. Your call, but perhaps the markups could be moved down a bit, with no change of appearance for computer viewing, but resolving the negative reported by this handheld user. No RSVP necessary. Completely your call. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 02:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You also changed my words in several of MY TALK ENTRIES.
If you want to revert something in particular, it is YOUR responsibility to do it selectively, and not change my words. You have no right to change my words.
And if you had a modicum of decency, you would also leave the shading in place, as it is intended to call attention to the words of individual other than ours.
If you revert again, I will ask an admin to adjudicate.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
first, no problem about it being the weekend before a response to the outline. But, did it not strike you that I might find a bit odd, so many Talk edits fitting schedule, but no "the outline looks fine, go get started"? And, for all that, in future, don't presume regarding your refactoring either (or whatever it's called). Whatever my sins, your rejiggering the whole of the Talk — appearance, order of entries, what appears on the current page, etc.—was not appreciated mate. For one, I've several incoming links, now broken, to the archived Talk. (For another, your perceived "I'm in charge here" persona is still an issue.) Effectively reading one another's minds—a point we're clearly not at yet. Nor is empathy a natural product between us. Ask first, still. (And so, to be clear, I expect to see Talk about the NP outline/changes, before any editing starts.) No reply, please. Respectful actions, enough. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 03:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.
— WP:TALKCOND
here are some ketone-containing drugs: acetohexamide, befunolol, daunorubicin, ethacrynic acid, haloperidol, ketoprofen, metyrapone, loxoprofen, naloxone, and naltrexone. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that the IL-23 subunit alpha page needs to be reduced. Right now it is a mixture of pages about IL-23 subunit alpha and the IL-23 heterodimeric cytokine. There should be a separate page for IL-23 subunit alpha, and for the cytokine itself. The page re the subunit will by definition be shorter because little is known about its function, outside of functioning as a heterodimer. What do you think? That's how it is now set up for IL-12, you can read about the cytokine IL-12 and then about each of the subunits separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exiledscientist ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interleukin 23, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IL-12 ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You removed a lot of my entries from this page. /info/en/?search=CASK This information is critical for children (like mine) who suffer from CASK gene defects. How can we manage that this information reaches the general public and the parents of the children affected with this rare disease. Can you provide me with some tips on how to integrate this information more wisely into the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachme A ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
…no questioning, just your large scale reversion and so significant further wasted time trying to interact with you. The point of my edit, as stated, was to leave in place an actual outline that we both and others can view and discuss—and not an amalgam of one editor's writing, and the remainder a partial outline it overlays.
By reverting, you nullified/broke a link in Talk to this common outline, so I and others could easily find it. IF THIS POSTED AMALGAM OF TEXT AND OUTLINE WAS INTENDED AS YOUR SANDBOX, YOU SHOULD HAVE LEFT IT IN YOUR SANDBOXES. My edit was a good faith effort to create the joint outline I have asked you for, for weeks. IF MY DERIVATION OF OUTLINE BULLET POINTS FROM YOUR TEXT, THERE, WAS NOT PERFECT, YOU COULD HAVE EDITED IT. ONCE AGAIN, WITH SWEEP OF HAND YOU SET ASIDE AN HOUR OF WORK WITHOUT REGARD. (Note, I moved your text to talk, carefully, so nothing in terms of time or effort would be lost.)
If you simply cannot work collegially, allowing others to make changes, in this case, leaving somewhere an outline of the NP article that all can see and work from—if it always has to be entirely your way, then count me out on any collaborative editing with you.
I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you cannot meet halfway, if you cannot leave an outline in place, we will proceed fully independently, and contentiously as necessary, with adjudication at every turn, to continue working on the article we each deem important. No more wasted time with you, or blatant disrespect from you. Last straw. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 05:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, later full sections of information cannot be subsumed into the brief, early, organizational, bullet-style Classes section
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TAS1R2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I noticed a small typo in an image you uploaded: File:Inverse_agonist_2.png (activty - in blue text). It's not really a big deal since the intended word is obvious, but I figured I should point it out. Best, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
References
[Psychostimulants] increase cAMP levels in striatum, which activates protein kinase A (PKA) and leads to phosphorylation of its targets. This includes the cAMP response element binding protein (CREB), the phosphorylation of which induces its association with the histone acetyltransferase, CREB binding protein (CBP) to acetylate histones and facilitate gene activation. This is known to occur on many genes including fosB and c-fos in response to psychostimulant exposure. ΔFosB is also upregulated by chronic psychostimulant treatments, and is known to activate certain genes (eg, cdk5) and repress others (eg, c-fos) where it recruits HDAC1 as a corepressor. ... Chronic exposure to psychostimulants increases glutamatergic [signaling] from the prefrontal cortex to the NAc. Glutamatergic signaling elevates Ca2+ levels in NAc postsynaptic elements where it activates CaMK (calcium/calmodulin protein kinases) signaling, which, in addition to phosphorylating CREB, also phosphorylates HDAC5.
Coincident and convergent input often induces plasticity on a postsynaptic neuron. The NAc integrates processed information about the environment from basolateral amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (PFC), as well as projections from midbrain dopamine neurons. Previous studies have demonstrated how dopamine modulates this integrative process. For example, high frequency stimulation potentiates hippocampal inputs to the NAc while simultaneously depressing PFC synapses (Goto and Grace, 2005). The converse was also shown to be true; stimulation at PFC potentiates PFC–NAc synapses but depresses hippocampal–NAc synapses. In light of the new functional evidence of midbrain dopamine/glutamate co-transmission (references above), new experiments of NAc function will have to test whether midbrain glutamatergic inputs bias or filter either limbic or cortical inputs to guide goal-directed behavior.
Most addictive drugs increase extracellular concentrations of dopamine (DA) in nucleus accumbens (NAc) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), projection areas of mesocorticolimbic DA neurons and key components of the "brain reward circuit". Amphetamine achieves this elevation in extracellular levels of DA by promoting efflux from synaptic terminals. ... Chronic exposure to amphetamine induces a unique transcription factor delta FosB, which plays an essential role in long-term adaptive changes in the brain.
ΔFosB serves as one of the master control proteins governing this structural plasticity. ... ΔFosB also represses G9a expression, leading to reduced repressive histone methylation at the cdk5 gene. The net result is gene activation and increased CDK5 expression. ... In contrast, ΔFosB binds to the c-fos gene and recruits several co-repressors, including HDAC1 (histone deacetylase 1) and SIRT 1 (sirtuin 1). ... The net result is c-fos gene repression.
The 35-37 kD ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure due to their extraordinarily long half-lives. ... As a result of its stability, the ΔFosB protein persists in neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug exposure. ... ΔFosB overexpression in nucleus accumbens induces NFκB ... In contrast, the ability of ΔFosB to repress the c-Fos gene occurs in concert with the recruitment of a histone deacetylase and presumably several other repressive proteins such as a repressive histone methyltransferase
Recent evidence has shown that ΔFosB also represses the c-fos gene that helps create the molecular switch—from the induction of several short-lived Fos family proteins after acute drug exposure to the predominant accumulation of ΔFosB after chronic drug exposure
Hey Boghog. I was wondering if you'd happen to know of any any information resources (e.g., databases) that would have content on on signaling cascades / communication networks between receptors and gene transcription factors.
I'm working on an image ( File:ΔFosB.svg - a DA neuron/synapse in the nucleus accumbens) for the addiction section in amphetamine at the moment to illustrate how the NDMA receptors, calcium channels, and ΔFosB are related, since it's not entirely apparent in the text. This KEGG diagram (the bottom pathway) and my molecular neuropharmacology textbook are the only 2 resources I'm working off of at the moment. Unlike the KEGG pathway, I'm just doing the synaptic cleft and postsynaptic neuron since the schematic for the presynaptic half is exactly what's shown in pharmacodynamics. I know all 5 DA receptors are present in accumbens DA neurons, so I'm planning to add the 4 other DA receptors into the KEGG schematic that I recreate in order to show their influence on the cAMP cascade. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Boghog: I've revised the image; I believe it's now consistent with the two KEGG diagrams and two literature reviews that I've listed in the description on the file page - File:ΔFosB.svg. The image legend is the same as KEGG's, with exception for the "+exp" and "-exp" terms which I use to denote gene expression and gene repression respectively. I'm hoping that I can make it more accessible to the average reader by removing all the SVG text and replacing it with annotated wikilinks in the finished version (similar to the amphetamine metabolites diagram). I'm also going to get some external feedback on the image's accessibility once I've finished drawing and annotating it. Consequently, it'll probably be at least another two weeks before I put it in an article.
In any event, you're more the expert in this area than I, so if there's anything you think I should add, edit, or remove from the current version of the image, please let me know! – Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried a variety of color combinations with this image to see how things looked. I think I'd want to use at most 1 additional background color in the boxes (4 color groups total); it just looks too busy/complicated with more than that. Should I just identify the transcript factors, GPCRs, and ion channels, or is there a better grouping? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited REG1B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regeneration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I figured I should probably run this by you before doing it. Is there any reason the latter article shouldn't be merged into the former? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morphogen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Posterior and Smad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, and thank you for your contributions. I am referring to your edit to the Lactase article, which you edited on March 3rd 2010. You changed the optimal temperature to 25 degrees Celcius, and added a reference for this claim. However, I cannot find this in the referenced paper, and a friend who is more used to chemistry publications also could not help me with that. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I kindly ask you to re-check the reference, and if possible hint me at where the temperature optimum of 25 degrees Celcius is mentioned in it. Thank you C-Otto ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Appreciate the template work you do :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Boghog. Thanks for the message. Until yesterday, the page regarding PCP4 was totally empty, and I have tryied to add relevant information to it. However, I saw no editions of yours previous to that in this page. Would you possibly be more interested in deleting than adding value? About original research, that would mean research that has never been published. And the immunohistochemistry of Purkinje cell protein 4 in Purkinje cells, as well as the Western blot of PCP4 in H295R cells are well known and have been previously published. If you have access to the actual scientific journals you will be able to check that out yourself. But hey, why not just Google it? Google images id great finding scientific material of that sort sometimes. I know deleting apparently irrelevant material and adding tags to new pages can help adding up a badge of honor as a cure something-something award of Wikipedia to one's user talk page. But I see no reason to hide scientific information that has been published (and therefore does no longer constitute original research) from the public. About the content being too complex for featuring in an encyclopaedia, may I ask what would you mean by that? What I see in Wikipedia right now is some articles containing medical information that is wrong, although those are about topics that are well known since the 50's. Nevertheless, no one with a badge goes there to fix them. And no, I am not going to list these articles. I am sure you can do a good job looking for and fixing all of them. By the way, why don't you add some information about PCP4 to its page? You seem to know the topic well, I mean, you seem to know what you are talking about, right? Please do make sure to add your contribution. I will be looking forward to read it. Cheers. Herizora ( talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I have performed the immunohistochemical analysis of PCP4 in 3 human cerebellum specimens
I have performed Western blotting of PCP4 and beta-actin
after 6h of angiotensin-II treatment in H295R cells) is almost never appropriate. Boghog ( talk) 14:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
peer review for several months from 4 independent peers, which makes it a secondary source– No, it is still primary. Please read secondary.
Thanks very much for your comments at the Chemistry project in response to my query. I hope that you will also comment on my follow-up question. In many cases, say an article about a chemical compound or a drug etc, there are hundreds or thousands of papers. Your insights/opinions about how to select from these? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I saw you delate my contribution to the article of the pancreatic elastase because it was too much exprimental, I agree with you, but I did it for a university project. The project is due on Wenesday, after that I will delate it. So can you leave it just for now. I will really apreciate it.
Thank you so much. Have a nice week end.
BQUB14 Vmourre — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB14 Vmourre ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Boghog, I would really appreciate it if you stopped deleting my work from Wikipedia. The article on FERMT3 is an unfinished university assignment. We are in the process of adding online citations and references but it doesn't help that every time we work on it something has been deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinabuene ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. We're new in Wikipedia so we don't know how it really works. Some of our references are repeated and I don't know how to delete one (there are two equal references, the same article). I would be glad if you show me how. Our work is almost done. In your opinion, is it good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB14-pdelamata ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no form named "frmconvert" at /data/project/citation-template-filling/perl5/lib/perl5/WWW/Mechanize.pm line 1930.
at
[5]
Ihaveacatonmydesk (
talk)
14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Boghog, sorry for any inconvenience. The deadline for the project is today, therefore we won't be making any more modifications. Thanks a lot for your kindness and for helping us with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB14-pdelamata ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Am I correct in thinking the Cite doi and cite pmid templates have been deprecated? They don't seem to work any more and I saw that you added full references to some I'd done as cite doi, and had linked to some discussion about the citation templates. I understand you have resurrected that old template filler tool that works with pmid, but do you know if there is an equivalent for doi? Just as these days I often find myself editing on a mobile device and copy pasting the full citation is much more fiddly than just the doi. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Meodipt ( talk) 08:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me over here, I didn't realize that NCBI stuff was public domain. Knowing that will help in the future, so I appreciate it :) Kyle Barbour 00:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In my view Nulkear is WP:NOTHERE and WP:DISRUPTIVE - it is not clear to me what your point is with the comments you are making at the SPI discussion. You seem to be trying to lay the ground for unblocking him. Is that your goal? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit reverted my fix of displayauthors errors along with the Citation bot edits to which you are objecting. You should have been able to undo just the Citation bot edits while leaving my fixes in place. Please reinstate my fixes and be more selective next time. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The new Lua-based templates cannot know if editors created citations with exactly nine authors because there were only nine authors or, because old-style citations were limited to nine authors– huh ??? This seems like a made up problem. In short, there is no problem. Boghog ( talk) 00:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
9) There were exactly 9 authors, not 8.
Boghog (
talk)
00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)|displayauthors=8
is added to match the old citation format. From a total of over 10,000 articles, we are down to 175. Once these 175 are fixed, the error category and error message can be eliminated from the citation template system, and the number of authors displayed will be controlled by the number in the citation, unless |displayauthors=
is added intentionally by an editor. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
06:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Boghog. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HRG (gene), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosette. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Boghog -- thanks for your feedback on my Quercetin edits. Respectfully, however, biochemistry is not a natural science but rather is a major field of health science at every medical school. On the WP:SCIRS page is stated "The scope of this page is limited to the natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdiscliplinary fields. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)."
Is it a matter of interpretation or definition? The edits I removed were made on the topic of mechanisms of action of quercetin in vitro. By my experience, I'd say this is biochemistry, so WP:MEDRS applies. All Best. -- Zefr ( talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
Your Talk page is yours to do with as you please. Message was intended just for you, in any case. Sad that you can see only nonsense, and nothing worth your consideration, but that is the state of things. Cheers. Le Prof
I have no clue as to who Flyer22 is in relation to the question of highlighting Talk text to make minority voices clearer, or what "refactoring" or "archiving" are, and what they have to do with highlighting. Here, brevity is your enemy; I am not chasing possible meanings down for you. This you need to clarify, significantly, to simply be understood. As for Padillah's statement, I have asked him to make clear what he wants, and when he does, I will act. As for your "protest", you can assuredly speak to what I do with your comments, but—as far as I see in the WPs, and as far as I have been counseled—not about what I do with other others' comments. I have highlighted none of your comments. I have queried all others, and will respond to their requests. It is, I understand, up to them, individually. (There is no overriding, firm policy, whatever you might think; this is what I am told.) So for now, I will await Padillah et al's replies, and yours if you care to say more. (But no action taken until.) Cheers. Le Prof
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IGFBP3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esophageal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Boghog, I hope you remember speaking to me in the summer of 2012 about your motivations for contributing to the health-related pages on Wikipedia. The great news is that the study got published this Wednesday in JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research). You can read it here: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 This would not have been possible without your contributions so once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences with me. I also wrote an entry about my own experience with the study, about additional observations and how I plan to further extend my research - published in the WMF blog today: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/12/who-writes-wikipedias-health-and-medical-pages-and-why/If you have any comments or questions please get in touch.Perhaps see you at the next Wikimania conference in Mexico! Best Wishes Hydra Rain ( talk) 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. I noticed in the recently updated KEGG pathway as well as in a recently published paper that presynaptic CaMKIIα signaling plays a role in amphetamine-induced dopamine efflux. Unfortunately, the mechanism of this isn't published because the KEGG and the DAT researchers working on this somehow have never heard of trace amine-associated receptors...
Notes from my sandbox
|
---|
–Amphetamine causes
EAAT3 endocytosis (presynaptic, possibly also postsynaptic) and presynaptic CaMKIIα signaling in DA neurons -
KEGG pathway and
PMID
25033183
References
|
|
After reading all the papers, it seems intuitive to me how this works, but I wanted to run these steps by you before I update the diagram:
In a nutshell, I'd basically be drawing the following connections: TAAR1 → IP3R → CaM → CaMKIIα → DAT (I'd need to draw IP3R). That said, is there anything missing, or does that sound right?
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
02:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
References
VMAT2 is the CNS vesicular transporter for not only the biogenic amines DA, NE, EPI, 5-HT, and HIS, but likely also for the trace amines TYR, PEA, and thyronamine (THYR) ... [Trace aminergic] neurons in mammalian CNS would be identifiable as neurons expressing VMAT2 for storage, and the biosynthetic enzyme aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC). ... AMPH release of DA from synapses requires both an action at VMAT2 to release DA to the cytoplasm and a concerted release of DA from the cytoplasm via "reverse transport" through DAT.
Despite the challenges in determining synaptic vesicle pH, the proton gradient across the vesicle membrane is of fundamental importance for its function. Exposure of isolated catecholamine vesicles to protonophores collapses the pH gradient and rapidly redistributes transmitter from inside to outside the vesicle. ... Amphetamine and its derivatives like methamphetamine are weak base compounds that are the only widely used class of drugs known to elicit transmitter release by a non-exocytic mechanism. As substrates for both DAT and VMAT, amphetamines can be taken up to the cytosol and then sequestered in vesicles, where they act to collapse the vesicular pH gradient.
Three important new aspects of TAs action have recently emerged: (a) inhibition of firing due to increased release of dopamine; (b) reduction of D2 and GABAB receptor-mediated inhibitory responses (excitatory effects due to disinhibition); and (c) a direct TA1 receptor-mediated activation of GIRK channels which produce cell membrane hyperpolarization.
• tonically activates inwardly rectifying K(+) channels, which reduces the basal firing frequency of dopamine (DA) neurons of the ventral tegmental area (VTA)
AMPH also increases intracellular calcium (Gnegy et al., 2004) that is associated with calmodulin/CamKII activation (Wei et al., 2007) and modulation and trafficking of the DAT (Fog et al., 2006; Sakrikar et al., 2012). ... For example, AMPH increases extracellular glutamate in various brain regions including the striatum, VTA and NAc (Del Arco et al., 1999; Kim et al., 1981; Mora and Porras, 1993; Xue et al., 1996), but it has not been established whether this change can be explained by increased synaptic release or by reduced clearance of glutamate. ... DHK-sensitive, EAAT2 uptake was not altered by AMPH (Figure 1A). The remaining glutamate transport in these midbrain cultures is likely mediated by EAAT3 and this component was significantly decreased by AMPH
AMPH and METH also stimulate DA efflux, which is thought to be a crucial element in their addictive properties [80], although the mechanisms do not appear to be identical for each drug [81]. These processes are PKCβ– and CaMK–dependent [72, 82], and PKCβ knock-out mice display decreased AMPH-induced efflux that correlates with reduced AMPH-induced locomotion [72].
You have proposed that Environmental fate of TNT be merged to TNT#Bio-degradation, but you have not opened a discussion regarding said merger. I have an opinion on the matter, but in the interest of maintaining a proper chronolgy of the discussion, I'd like you to open a discussion first. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BCAR1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input.
As you may have gathered, this article has a new anonymous editor, who posted a question today...
Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help:Cite_errors.2FCite_error_ref_no_input. I didn’t want to frighten her off right at the start by mentioning COI (she is one of the authors of the paper she posted). However, as she first was trying to place it in Further Reading, then later included it in Ref 8, the former is now superfluous. Do you suggest I delete it now or wait till she comes back? I'm thinking that it can be off-putting for a any new editor to have loads of other editors making changes before one has had a chance to get a hang of our wiki-ways. She appears to have in depth knowledge of this subject so I welcomed her
here.--
Aspro (
talk)
00:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
did you ever read this? Jytdog ( talk) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Further [medical] progress requires that the entire front of medicine and the underlying sciences of chemistry, physics, anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, bacteriology, pathology, parasitology, etc., be broadly developed.
Boghog (
talk)
02:31, 30 December 2014 (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 6 | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | → | Archive 15 |
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited C-Met, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Clear cell carcinoma ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi - Yesterday I created a new page on Obeticholic acid which was in the news. I wanted to add a Drugbox (and further chemical details) but couldn't find Help on doing this. Are there template /bots to help with this? The CAS number is 459789-99-2. Thanks for any help. Jrfw51 ( talk) 10:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi, Boghog, I work for NCBI, and as discussed here on WP:NIH, I would like to get started working on a way to make it easier for editors to cite PubMed sources. I've read some of your discussions above, and I think you could probably help me scope out the task. I see that you are partial to Diberri's tool, and I'm thinking that maybe that among the things we might do is to host that at NCBI (no promises -- it's just brainstorming at this point). Maybe we could also hook it in with the ref toolbar, although I'm not familiar at all with how that works. I have a bad tendency to try to fix everything at once, and then never get anything done, so if we could scope out something reasonable, I think we could make some real progress. Let me know if you have ideas about this. Klortho ( talk) 07:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, I don't usually edit pages and don't really know what's customary, but aren't readers of an article like this interested in knowing funders' agendas? I was thinking that people who are concerned about their health would want to know that a study was funded by an organization whose mission is to make sure people keep eating soy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.43.96 ( talk) 18:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation.
— WP:MEDMOS
If you're not too busy, could I ask you to look through my reply to Hamiltonstone (the 3 indented bullets) in Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Amphetamine/archive1#Boghog) really quickly to make sure I didn't say something stupid in my explanation on the chemistry? I'd appreciate it if you can! Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 17:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey again Boghog, I'm making a trace amine biosynthesis image that I plan to annotate like template:amphetamine pharmacokinetics, but I have no idea how to construct/label adrenaline consistently with the format I used for the structures - it wasn't included in the papers I used as a reference. Would you be able to give me some guidance on that? Best, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 09:38, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahh alright, I'll update it accordingly. I was confused by the structure difference between the paper I was using as a reference (Fig 2) and wikipedia's articles on the compounds. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢) 11:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Not done annotating the figure or tweaking the image yet, but did I address the all the chem issues with my changes?
Last year (13May2003) I heard from a student who was editing the c10orf76 gene page as a project in my bioinformatics analysis course that you would like me to contact you so that I could give my students formatting instructions for the Wikipedia pages on human genes of unknown function that they work on. He suggested that my class (of 44 students) was giving you and others a lot of extra work due to formatting errors in student pages. He forwarded to me some common issues you'd observed, which I'll put into my assignment for this year. If there were other formatting resources you had in mind, please let me know.
Each student wants to make a meaningful contribution to Wikipedia even if it is not a notable one. Our goal is to find sources of information where there are few obvious ones (that is their challenge) so contributing to the page on beta-globin, for instance, wouldn't work.
I look forward to hearing from you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid25 ( talk • contribs) 20:35, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I noticed recently while looking up information on alpha-methylated biogenic amines that there's been some new developments in research on TAARs and their ligands - specifically TAAR5 and TAAR2. I'll probably update the stubs for those articles within the next week or so, but I'm not entirely sure what can be concluded about TAAR2 based upon that paper (its paywalled, but downloadable here). I get that the paper is asserting that TAAR1/TAAR2 are co-expressed in white blood cells and they're "involved" in chemotaxic trafficking of those cells to amines, but does that just suggest or did it actually show that PEA/TYR are hTAAR2 agonists?
My other question is on N-methylhistamine and alpha-methylhistamine. I noticed some databases, like Pubchem,
list the two terms together in the synonyms, but
IUPHAR's HRH4 ligand list contains a mention of N, alpha, and 2 methylhistamine (see agonists section) around 10 times and none are indicated as being endogenouus. Aren't these different enantiomers/racemic forms of the same endogenous compound (the one made by
histamine N-methyltransferase)? Sorry for all the questions; I'm
working on something related that I'm considering on moving to article space at some point.
No rush in responding to this - I know you're busy, so take your time. Regards,
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
03:56, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Warning, do not remove useful information from articles, like the months of date parameters. See my revert. Debresser ( talk) 16:58, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Perhaps this will teach him a lessonis incredibly arrogant. Editors are supposed to resolve conflicts through discussion, not scolding. Boghog ( talk) 19:35, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. Seppi is being pretty aggressive again, reverting edits solely because I made them. He chopped the entire toxicity section down to two short sentences (which is far too short for the nuanced topic) just to piss me off. He's also strangely, subtly vandalizing a talk page section I added. I correctly guessed the reason for his (admittedly mild) POV, which can be seen in a section of my talk page. He seems to have gone off the deep end, though, and we may need mediation. Exercisephys ( talk) 00:51, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi, can you check the above article - a complete section has been blanked - is it ok? Regards Denisarona ( talk) 16:10, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Some editors list sources that they hope to use in the future to build the article in Further reading. This is neither encouraged nor prohibited.
— Wikipedia:Further_reading#Relation_to_reference_sections
For generally continuous high-level editing of articles in the medical and pharmaceutical science area. Keep it up! JFW | T@lk 17:50, 9 March 2014 (UTC) |
Hello, User:Wikid77 here. I noticed you have been discussing ways to correct cite parameters. I am currently writing extra Lua script to autofix (auto-correct) typos when using the wp:CS1 cite templates. When I helped to develop those Lua-based cite templates, during October 2012 to April 2013, the intent was to auto-correct for typos, not issue numerous error messages, and I never imagined Lua would be used to issue thousands of red-error messages when simple auto-correction would have been quite easy. Well, after waiting all year, I have returned to re-focus on autofixing typos in cite templates, and suppress most of the red-error messages. Across Wikipedia editing, many editors are just too busy to nitpick the details and so, autofixing of cite parameters provides a rapid way to solve the problems and make many cite templates almost trivial to use. Last year, I estimated the hand-correction of cites to require over 3 years of manual, hand-crafted edits, and now after another whole year, the backlog is still about 3-5 years if hand-fixed. Although several users are diligently hand-editing the pages to fix cites, many other users are actively inserting invalid cite parameters into almost as many dozens of pages each week. The past year (of tedious cite work) has proven how autofixing is the only hope to rapidly correct the 10,000 pages in the backlog categories. For example:
During early 2014, the unsupported parameters have been fixed at only 100-200 pages per month, as meaning more years of backlog work. I wrote new essay, " wp:Autofixing cites" to explain some simple ways to autofix the major cite parameters and hope people might discuss issues about the autofixing in the talk-page there, " WT:Autofixing cites" where all the complex tactics of fixing URLs and dates could be discussed, in more detail. - Wikid77 ( talk) 21:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. Would you be interested in making this bot [1]? Would be happy to send you the reward :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:33, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay it appears we may have consensus. Do you want to start the bot request or should I? What we proposing to do, if I understand correctly is:
Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:17, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
Looks like there is agreement for both. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:07, 20 March 2014 (UTC)
I get it trying to save index.cgi rather than running the script. Does it need to be authorized again or something? RDBrown ( talk) 12:26, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
I am not quite sure what you mean by "trying to save index.cgi". I just got the citation template filling tool working today by following these instructions, and in particular this solution. Boghog ( talk) 18:53, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Is the data stored in a db for citePMID and citeISBN? Or is it a bunch of templates that somehow get polled by the individual articles when they use the cite-call? Ian Furst ( talk) 18:06, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Found my way to some documentation on it and you're right (sorry - should have looked for the solution myself, thought it would be a simple question). It says that it's transcluded from the template. I've done lots of db work but never used a page to act as a record source like this. My suspicion is that the parameter fields in the template are easier to screw up than a source field in a db (not to mention the performance hit). I wonder what causes problems across languages? Also, if a wiki solution is appropriate for data like this with discrete fields. It might be better managed in a db. 19:29, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I found this information of a toxicity data site: http://www.acutetox.eu/ (PDF: http://www.acutetox.eu/pdf_human_short/35-Amphetamine%20revised.pdf)
Metabolism and excretion
Metabolism of amphetamine generally includes aromatic hydroxylation, aliphatic hydroxylation, and n-dealkylation, resulting in inactive and active metabolites.
Main metabolites of amphetamine are: hippuric acid (16 to 28%), phenylacetone (0.9%), benzoylglucuronide (4%), norephedrine (2%), conjugated p-hydroxyamphetamine (2-4%) and conjugated p-hydroxynorephedrine (0.3%). One of metabolites, p-hydroxyamphetamine is a potent hallucinogen implicated in the development of amphetamine-induced psychosis [1].
The excretion of unchanged amphetamine is dependent on the urine pH. In an acidic urine (pH less than 6.6) 67 to 73% of an ingested dose is excreted as amphetamine. When pH is higher than 6.7, 17 to 43% is excreted unchanged in the urine [1].
Do you think its worth updating the metabolic pathway diagram to include "conjugated p-hydroxyamphetamine"?
Also, what program do you use to generate SVG structure diagrams? I think I may end up redoing the ones I made in that format.
Best, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:35, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
On the myostatin article. The article was from Nasdaq.com. If youre going to revert someone's edit, please tell why.-- Wyn.junior ( talk) 15:04, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
Editors using
this tool are creating references containing the
deprecated |month=
parameter (e.g. in PMID, maybe others).
Are there any plans to amend the output to instead use the |date=
parameter? This parameter can take a variety of complete and partial dates. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk)
18:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)
--- WWW/Wikipedia/TemplateFiller/Source/PubmedId.pm.orig 2009-05-15 11:48:47.000000000 +1000
+++ WWW/Wikipedia/TemplateFiller/Source/PubmedId.pm 2014-04-07 22:10:10.203585151 +1000
@@ -79,6 +79,10 @@ sub template_basic_fields {
my $month = Decode_Month( $self->{month} ) if $self->{month};
$month = Month_to_Text( $month ) if $month;
+ if (defined($month) && defined($self->{year})) {
+ $month = $month . ' ' . $self->{year};
+ $self->{year} = undef;
+ }
tie( my %fields, 'Tie::IxHash' );
%fields = (
@@ -89,8 +93,8 @@ sub template_basic_fields {
volume => { value => $self->{volume} },
issue => { value => $self->{issue} },
pages => { value => $pages },
- year => { value => $self->{year} },
- month => { value => $month, show => 'if-filled' },
+ year => { value => $self->{year}, show => 'if-filled' },
+ date => { value => $month, show => 'if-filled' },
pmid => { value => $self->{pmid} },
pmc => { value => $self->{pmc_id}, show => 'if-filled' },
doi => { value => $self->{doi} },
|day=
|month=
|year=
(or |month=
|year=
) are valid and then merges them into |date=
. If month data is available in your tool it may be better to return both month and year in |date=
. I don't think there's any format other than |date=March 2014
available for this. When day is also present, that's when the fun begins! My preference is 28 March 2014 for publication date (e.g. newspapers), and 2014-03-28 for archivedate. Likewise the latter for accessdate, but only when the publication date is not available. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk)
22:48, 28 March 2014 (UTC)|date=
". Also IMHO, including the day on which an article was published is excessive and completely unnecessary. Finally it makes no sense to include an accessdate in a journal citation. Articles that are published in journals must by definition have been published on a specific date. If an article does not have a publication date (e.g., year + volume + issue), it wasn't published in a journal.
Boghog (
talk)
23:28, 28 March 2014 (UTC)|accessdate=
. Many other editor tools blindly shove accessdate into every reference. Whenever |date=
is present I remove accessdate. As for full dates, I agree they are not needed in journal references. I should have clarified my latter comments about Monkbot and dates were meant to be more general, i.e. used for newspaper references and other such things, and not specifically to do with journals. Glad to hear you're considering updating the tools at some point. --
79.67.241.76 (
talk)
23:53, 28 March 2014 (UTC)Sorry, I made a mistake deleting this paragraph. Thank you for correcting it. Humpath ( talk) 09:15, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! In this Boghog edit of the Bipolar disorder page, https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bipolar_disorder&curid=4531&diff=603896185&oldid=603893399 Bipolar disorder (Latest revision as of 11:38, 12 April 2014) the bot just permuted the author list of a "cite journal." It also didn't put them in numeric order so it seems a little pointless.
The request for approval appears to say that it only would affect 'cite doi' 'cite pmid' and 'cite isbn.' Is the Bipolar disorder change an accident or mistake? SesquiZed ( talk) 02:31, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. I've tried to contact you before but don't see a reply here -- so maybe didn't get through. I'm the professor at U of M who has students write Wikipedia articles on little-known genes and have heard through my students that we should talk. I've given a formatting guide to my students based on what you sent a few of them last year but if there is more I can do to make things easier on your end, please let me know. My userID is Wikid25 and though I know you've made clear that I should come back here for a response to a question asked here, would you consider pasting any answer you might make at my talk page this once? Thanks! By the way, the following is what I give students based on what I've heard from you before:
• Please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. • For consistency with other Gene Wiki articles, the An Error has occurred retrieving Wikidata item for infobox infobox should normally not be included directly in the article but rather transcluded using the template. User:ProteinBoxBot is setup to maintain transcluded templates, but not templates directly contained in articles. The GeneWikiGenerator will automatically create both the template and the article that transcludes the template. • Concerning the lead sentence, as discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear that these Gene Wiki articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise: • <recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene. The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. • Per WP:HEAD, sentence case should be used for section headings. • Per WP:REFPUNC, punctuation before citations.
Thanks. I'll shift all future projects to genes/proteins that have at least one article in which they gene is the primary subject of the article. I'm thinking of the situation of a recently characterized gene such as SARAF/TMEM66. I will also make it clear to students that synthesis and other forms of original research are not permitted. I have discussed at length with them how all their sources must be provided such that any reasonably informed person could verify claims made. Hopefully this addresses the majority of the issues that have created work or concern for you in your editing role in the past years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikid25 ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited FGF4, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page SHH ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:53, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
About the article on Setdb1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SETDB1
"Model organisms have been used in the study of SETDB1 function" I found no article using this knock out mice.
The "abnormalities" have never been investigated and you can't conclude that there is a lymphocyte or bone issue in these mice on only one test carried out. Furthermore, this have never been reported in the literature yet. Saying that SETDB1 is implicated in bone strength and lymphocyte biology only according to the data obtained from a pre-phenotyping of a KO mice is (to my opinion) non scientifical comments. The links provided on this subject all leads to the "Wellcome Trust Sanger Institute" (that's half of the citation). It looks like more an advertisement from Eucomm that is selling the mice.
This article should be enriched with the already known roles of SETDB1 in the literature and not be an excuse reason for private companies to get a free advertisement.
I don't doubt that animal models are being widely used in research as I am a researcher myself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.221.129.220 ( talk) 08:28, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Boghog:
Just wanted to let you know that I am working on the Rictor page for a class assignment. I would really appreciate it if you would hold off on your edits (especially the stylistic ones) until I submit this assignment for grading.
Thanks for your interest in the page and your current contributions.
kldextraze — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kldextraze ( talk • contribs) 16:43, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Genetics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot ( talk) 18:53, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Where are we at? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:31, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
The Technical Barnstar | |
For fixing the refs you have :-) Looking forwards to the larger run. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC) |
Thanks, but I am not quite done. I should be able to finish this soon after I fix a few bugs in the bot script. BTW, it turns out that there are only about ~300 of the 1500 MED articles that have transcluded cite pmid/doi/isbn templates. Boghog ( talk) 19:42, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
IMO we should have refereces for the preg cat listed in the info boxes. Could we get a bot to add these? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:22, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.
{{
subst:WP Physiology–invite}}
~~~~{{
subst:WP Physiology–welcome}}
~~~~Hoping for your cooperation! Diptanshu Talk 12:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
It's my understanding that edit disagreements are best discussed on the talk page of the site where the edits are occurring. Are you OK with that approach? If so I'll leave you a note on the Ghrelin talk page for your response. Thanks.
Regards -
IiKkEe ( talk) 05:57, 5 May 2014 (UTC)
This edit appears to use some kind of automation to "fix" citations. However, it does not follow Help: Citation Style 1 (CS1). At least one difference is that CS1 separates authors with a semicolon, while you separated them with a comma. Please repair your automation before using it again. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
I noticed another error; authors who apparently have western European names have their names given in the format "Doe J" when it should be "Doe, J". Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:30, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
dead link"| last1=Nelson |first1=G.K. |last2=Lombardi |first2=M.A. |last3=Okayama |first3=D.T."
The results are last names separated from first names with commas, and authors separated by semicolons. You must follow this format or you are in violation of
WP:CITEVAR.
Jc3s5h (
talk)
14:37, 8 May 2014 (UTC)Consider this
older version of the article which show a clear preference for the
Vancouver system. What
WP:CITEVAR says is defer to the style used by the first major contributor
. Your revert of my edit is in clear violation of
WP:CITEVAR.
Boghog (
talk)
14:51, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Also I repeat, this was not a bot edit. Boghog ( talk) 14:52, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
In addition, before my edit, there was a mixture of citation styles and many included in the Vancouver system. Your reversion re-introduced a mixture of styles as well as undone a number of other fixes. Boghog ( talk) 14:56, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Finally per WP:CITEVAR there are no fixed "citation rules". Boghog ( talk) 15:00, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
If citation templates are used in an article, the parameters should be accurate. It is inappropriate to set parameters to false values in order that the template will be rendered to the reader as if it were written in some style other than the style normally produced by the template (e.g., MLA style).
I have started a thread at WT:CITE#"When citation style guides are updated" to confirm that others agree that citation templates in articles should be copy edited to conform to current template function and documentation. I would think the same principle would apply if a new edition of a printed publication guide is published. Jc3s5h ( talk) 15:20, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Steroid may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 06:18, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
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!
— Anne Delong ( talk) 03:25, 18 May 2014 (UTC)I looked at homoloGene and Blast. It seemed to me that the Blast comparison of proteins was easier to read, and, perhaps, easier for a broader audience to interpret quickly. I was going to suggest that a direct link to protein Blast in the box would be useful. But I did not want to bother your infobox. Even though the page is about the DTX2 gene, I was looking at the human protein.
Also, I look at the page and see one sentence, and a bunch of "further readings". The page cries out for some explanation for the general user. What do all those references "mean"?
The experts are already using the specific databases and tools, they hardly need an encyclopedia article.
What could you say about specific proteins that would help a general user of Wikipedia, not an expert? Or, how does expert explain the importance and relevance of DTX2?
I think Wikipedia has a responsibility to make every page accessible to everyone.
Kind regards, RC711 ( talk) 19:08, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the quick update on DTX2. It is much clearer now. I could not have done it myself; those few extra words of explanation make it much better. I appreciate your hard work. RC711 ( talk) 20:01, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog,
mw:User:Mvolz is a new community developer whose project is coding a citation auto-filler system for VisualEditor. You can see what she's planning at mw:Cite-from-id. I'm hoping to get Diberri-style PMID (etc.) filling in this as well, because I think it's important to our science-related editors. If you're interested in this, I'm sure she'd be happy to hear from you or to have someone else to bounce ideas off of. Whatamidoing (WMF) ( talk) 21:25, 20 May 2014 (UTC)
While looking at new edits to Melanopsin I noticed that the addition of info about researcher Samer Hattar was added by user:Shattar. Glancing down the history, I saw your edit summary: "enough history, return the focus back to the protein, not the researchers", Diff. The new edits are similar to the one(s) you reverted way back when. Perhaps you'd like to check this out. -- Hordaland ( talk) 01:30, 23 May 2014 (UTC)
Someone has marked Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/BogBot 5 as needing your input. Please visit that page to reply to the requests. Thanks! AnomieBOT ⚡ 00:12, 26 May 2014 (UTC) To opt out of these notifications, place {{bots|optout=operatorassistanceneeded}} anywhere on this page.
Thank you for your kind assistance with improving and clarifying the AEBP2 article. Your help is most appreciated. PEGLEG3 ( talk) 12:09, 27 May 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Circadian clock, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:51, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I'm wondering if there is some reason for the various appearances: BMAL1, Bmal1 and Bmal1. I'm tempted to change them all to BMAL1, but there might be some reason for the variation. (?) Thanks, Hordaland ( talk) 16:46, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
…not synthesis or anything, until the matter of the "course of the ship" is settled. And I heard and acknowledged Smoke, both halves of what he said. I see one ambiguous statement, leaning as much my way as yours. So there is no decision possible based on it. You are the one that wants to run with half a vote, in your prescribed direction. That, my friend defines self-serving. I am staying put until (given summer, and busy life) others have time to respond. The WP standard seems (with merger proposals, and other higher order proposed changes), to allow 30 days. That is at least what I am looking at. And sorry, no longer playing your WP:THIS and WP:THAT game. You do not seem to care to hear that you, perhaps unconsciously but nevertheless self-servingly, limit your purview when you do this, so I've ceased arguing in such ways with you. Good news, no more walls of text. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:45, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
but I will do it to avoid confusion when folks start responding. I would appreciate it if you would, in good faith, sandbox the last three edits that you did, since they directly bear on the questions of the discussion that were ongoing, and then revert to the version that I linked to and discussed (immediately prior to your last three edits). If you are confident in your case, you should be confident without any changes, with the form that stood for the 6 mos. of your absence. Reverting will ensure that people see what I was describing at the time, and not some muddle of old and new. Don't expect it, but in integrity, and to give you the chance, I have to ask. If you do not, say by end of day Saturday, I will have to review my opening description of the history and argument, and make sure it still makes sense (fixing links and anything else that your edit will have muddied). But as I said, the simplest is to return the matter, in good faith, to what I was talking about before those three edits. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 08:56, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I figured it wouldn't hurt to put this in the pharmacokinetics section of the amph page, but I'm not sure what the common abbreviations are for these enzymes. I'd rather not put the full names in the drugbox.
Benzoic acid is metabolized by butyrate-CoA ligase into an intermediate product, benzoyl-CoA, [1] which is then metabolized by glycine N-acyltransferase into hippuric acid. [2]
I'm guessing the 2nd is GLYAT, but I have no clue about the ligase. Would you happen to know of a contraction or where to find one for it? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:21, 8 May 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
{{
cite web}}
: |section=
ignored (
help)
Hey again Boghog. I've been off Wikipedia for nearly 2 weeks due to a broken laptop; I have a working one now though, so I intend to renominate the article at FAC very soon. Are you still interested in being a co-nominator? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 22:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)
Not engaging with you further at NP, sorry. In your most recent spate of unscrupulous actions, you have shredded any last basis here for AGF from me. I will work around you, if possible alongside you, but any chance for real discourse or collegiality is gone. Please do not post to me, or refer to me anywhere that you can help it. Cheers, best of fortunes in our shared, difficult day to day, as we try to do something real. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 05:37, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
Hello, Boghog. Some time ago you made some improvements to the draft article above, and it turned out that it was a copy-paste remnant. Was there anything that you wanted to move over to the mainspace article before the draft is deleted? — Anne Delong ( talk) 01:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog,
In April of 2011 I updated the the section on NFkB in neurons and I see that user Neuroglider has made substantial changes to the section that I don't agree with. Neuroglider states that s/he talked with you on 11/23/2013, though I couldn't find the talk on either of your talk pages, about removal of synaptic components as gene targets of NFkB. Could you fill me in, or point me to the correct talk page? I feel that these should be in the article as the support the idea that NFkB is important in neurons, not just glia. Which brings me to my main point. I believe that the NFkB field in neuroscience does not hold to Neuroglider's views that NFkB is primarily important in glia and not in neurons. In 2011 I specificially removed sections stating these points as I believed them to not be representative of the thoughts of the field. Specifically Meffert et.al. 2003 (citation #7 in NFkB article) [1] demonstrated that NFkB could be activated in biochemically isolated synapses (synaptoneurosomes) and was unlikely to be confounded by glia. Additionally, there are many studies that support the idea that NFkB function is important in neurons, such as studies that show cell autonomous roles for NFkB in neurons related to synaptic function and regulation of genes that are also important to synaptic function. While Neuroglider does make a good point that we should all think about heterogeneity in our systems, I believe s/he has given too much weight to this idea and the paragraph is now larger than the rest of the section. I would like to rebut Neuroglider's addition to the section, but do not wish to turn the article into a discussion of the merits of Neuroglider's v.s. other perspective. While I do not agree with Neuroglider, I'd be okay with his/her opinions to remain, but with more balance. If you have any thoughts on the best way to proceed, please let me know.
P.S. Thank you for your time and effort looking after these wikipedia articles.
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
16:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)Aventre3
For you to consider. Colleague looked at WP steroids on an iphone, and said the article opened with three structures in a row, and it seemed off-putting as a way to open an article for general readers. I checked his report, and it is true. Because of the way the image markups are inserted relative to the lede, the article opens on small screen handhelds with the three images appearing 1-2-3 that show up to the right of the lede for a standard laptop or PC viewing. Your call, but perhaps the markups could be moved down a bit, with no change of appearance for computer viewing, but resolving the negative reported by this handheld user. No RSVP necessary. Completely your call. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 02:10, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
You also changed my words in several of MY TALK ENTRIES.
If you want to revert something in particular, it is YOUR responsibility to do it selectively, and not change my words. You have no right to change my words.
And if you had a modicum of decency, you would also leave the shading in place, as it is intended to call attention to the words of individual other than ours.
If you revert again, I will ask an admin to adjudicate.
Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 15:03, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
first, no problem about it being the weekend before a response to the outline. But, did it not strike you that I might find a bit odd, so many Talk edits fitting schedule, but no "the outline looks fine, go get started"? And, for all that, in future, don't presume regarding your refactoring either (or whatever it's called). Whatever my sins, your rejiggering the whole of the Talk — appearance, order of entries, what appears on the current page, etc.—was not appreciated mate. For one, I've several incoming links, now broken, to the archived Talk. (For another, your perceived "I'm in charge here" persona is still an issue.) Effectively reading one another's minds—a point we're clearly not at yet. Nor is empathy a natural product between us. Ask first, still. (And so, to be clear, I expect to see Talk about the NP outline/changes, before any editing starts.) No reply, please. Respectful actions, enough. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 03:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
It is recommended to archive or refactor a page either when it exceeds 75 KB, or has more than 10 main sections.
— WP:TALKCOND
here are some ketone-containing drugs: acetohexamide, befunolol, daunorubicin, ethacrynic acid, haloperidol, ketoprofen, metyrapone, loxoprofen, naloxone, and naltrexone. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 04:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
I think that the IL-23 subunit alpha page needs to be reduced. Right now it is a mixture of pages about IL-23 subunit alpha and the IL-23 heterodimeric cytokine. There should be a separate page for IL-23 subunit alpha, and for the cytokine itself. The page re the subunit will by definition be shorter because little is known about its function, outside of functioning as a heterodimer. What do you think? That's how it is now set up for IL-12, you can read about the cytokine IL-12 and then about each of the subunits separately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Exiledscientist ( talk • contribs) 19:33, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Interleukin 23, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page IL-12 ( check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:49, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
Hi, You removed a lot of my entries from this page. /info/en/?search=CASK This information is critical for children (like mine) who suffer from CASK gene defects. How can we manage that this information reaches the general public and the parents of the children affected with this rare disease. Can you provide me with some tips on how to integrate this information more wisely into the article ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reachme A ( talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 July 2014 (UTC)
…no questioning, just your large scale reversion and so significant further wasted time trying to interact with you. The point of my edit, as stated, was to leave in place an actual outline that we both and others can view and discuss—and not an amalgam of one editor's writing, and the remainder a partial outline it overlays.
By reverting, you nullified/broke a link in Talk to this common outline, so I and others could easily find it. IF THIS POSTED AMALGAM OF TEXT AND OUTLINE WAS INTENDED AS YOUR SANDBOX, YOU SHOULD HAVE LEFT IT IN YOUR SANDBOXES. My edit was a good faith effort to create the joint outline I have asked you for, for weeks. IF MY DERIVATION OF OUTLINE BULLET POINTS FROM YOUR TEXT, THERE, WAS NOT PERFECT, YOU COULD HAVE EDITED IT. ONCE AGAIN, WITH SWEEP OF HAND YOU SET ASIDE AN HOUR OF WORK WITHOUT REGARD. (Note, I moved your text to talk, carefully, so nothing in terms of time or effort would be lost.)
If you simply cannot work collegially, allowing others to make changes, in this case, leaving somewhere an outline of the NP article that all can see and work from—if it always has to be entirely your way, then count me out on any collaborative editing with you.
I have nothing more to say on the subject. If you cannot meet halfway, if you cannot leave an outline in place, we will proceed fully independently, and contentiously as necessary, with adjudication at every turn, to continue working on the article we each deem important. No more wasted time with you, or blatant disrespect from you. Last straw. Le Prof Leprof 7272 ( talk) 05:06, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
Clearly, later full sections of information cannot be subsumed into the brief, early, organizational, bullet-style Classes section
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to TAS1R2 may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot ( talk) 09:20, 3 August 2014 (UTC)
Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:25, 4 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I noticed a small typo in an image you uploaded: File:Inverse_agonist_2.png (activty - in blue text). It's not really a big deal since the intended word is obvious, but I figured I should point it out. Best, Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 18:28, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
References
[Psychostimulants] increase cAMP levels in striatum, which activates protein kinase A (PKA) and leads to phosphorylation of its targets. This includes the cAMP response element binding protein (CREB), the phosphorylation of which induces its association with the histone acetyltransferase, CREB binding protein (CBP) to acetylate histones and facilitate gene activation. This is known to occur on many genes including fosB and c-fos in response to psychostimulant exposure. ΔFosB is also upregulated by chronic psychostimulant treatments, and is known to activate certain genes (eg, cdk5) and repress others (eg, c-fos) where it recruits HDAC1 as a corepressor. ... Chronic exposure to psychostimulants increases glutamatergic [signaling] from the prefrontal cortex to the NAc. Glutamatergic signaling elevates Ca2+ levels in NAc postsynaptic elements where it activates CaMK (calcium/calmodulin protein kinases) signaling, which, in addition to phosphorylating CREB, also phosphorylates HDAC5.
Coincident and convergent input often induces plasticity on a postsynaptic neuron. The NAc integrates processed information about the environment from basolateral amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex (PFC), as well as projections from midbrain dopamine neurons. Previous studies have demonstrated how dopamine modulates this integrative process. For example, high frequency stimulation potentiates hippocampal inputs to the NAc while simultaneously depressing PFC synapses (Goto and Grace, 2005). The converse was also shown to be true; stimulation at PFC potentiates PFC–NAc synapses but depresses hippocampal–NAc synapses. In light of the new functional evidence of midbrain dopamine/glutamate co-transmission (references above), new experiments of NAc function will have to test whether midbrain glutamatergic inputs bias or filter either limbic or cortical inputs to guide goal-directed behavior.
Most addictive drugs increase extracellular concentrations of dopamine (DA) in nucleus accumbens (NAc) and medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), projection areas of mesocorticolimbic DA neurons and key components of the "brain reward circuit". Amphetamine achieves this elevation in extracellular levels of DA by promoting efflux from synaptic terminals. ... Chronic exposure to amphetamine induces a unique transcription factor delta FosB, which plays an essential role in long-term adaptive changes in the brain.
ΔFosB serves as one of the master control proteins governing this structural plasticity. ... ΔFosB also represses G9a expression, leading to reduced repressive histone methylation at the cdk5 gene. The net result is gene activation and increased CDK5 expression. ... In contrast, ΔFosB binds to the c-fos gene and recruits several co-repressors, including HDAC1 (histone deacetylase 1) and SIRT 1 (sirtuin 1). ... The net result is c-fos gene repression.
The 35-37 kD ΔFosB isoforms accumulate with chronic drug exposure due to their extraordinarily long half-lives. ... As a result of its stability, the ΔFosB protein persists in neurons for at least several weeks after cessation of drug exposure. ... ΔFosB overexpression in nucleus accumbens induces NFκB ... In contrast, the ability of ΔFosB to repress the c-Fos gene occurs in concert with the recruitment of a histone deacetylase and presumably several other repressive proteins such as a repressive histone methyltransferase
Recent evidence has shown that ΔFosB also represses the c-fos gene that helps create the molecular switch—from the induction of several short-lived Fos family proteins after acute drug exposure to the predominant accumulation of ΔFosB after chronic drug exposure
Hey Boghog. I was wondering if you'd happen to know of any any information resources (e.g., databases) that would have content on on signaling cascades / communication networks between receptors and gene transcription factors.
I'm working on an image ( File:ΔFosB.svg - a DA neuron/synapse in the nucleus accumbens) for the addiction section in amphetamine at the moment to illustrate how the NDMA receptors, calcium channels, and ΔFosB are related, since it's not entirely apparent in the text. This KEGG diagram (the bottom pathway) and my molecular neuropharmacology textbook are the only 2 resources I'm working off of at the moment. Unlike the KEGG pathway, I'm just doing the synaptic cleft and postsynaptic neuron since the schematic for the presynaptic half is exactly what's shown in pharmacodynamics. I know all 5 DA receptors are present in accumbens DA neurons, so I'm planning to add the 4 other DA receptors into the KEGG schematic that I recreate in order to show their influence on the cAMP cascade. Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:50, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
@ Boghog: I've revised the image; I believe it's now consistent with the two KEGG diagrams and two literature reviews that I've listed in the description on the file page - File:ΔFosB.svg. The image legend is the same as KEGG's, with exception for the "+exp" and "-exp" terms which I use to denote gene expression and gene repression respectively. I'm hoping that I can make it more accessible to the average reader by removing all the SVG text and replacing it with annotated wikilinks in the finished version (similar to the amphetamine metabolites diagram). I'm also going to get some external feedback on the image's accessibility once I've finished drawing and annotating it. Consequently, it'll probably be at least another two weeks before I put it in an article.
In any event, you're more the expert in this area than I, so if there's anything you think I should add, edit, or remove from the current version of the image, please let me know! – Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:07, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I tried a variety of color combinations with this image to see how things looked. I think I'd want to use at most 1 additional background color in the boxes (4 color groups total); it just looks too busy/complicated with more than that. Should I just identify the transcript factors, GPCRs, and ion channels, or is there a better grouping? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 01:11, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited REG1B, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Regeneration. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:17, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog, I figured I should probably run this by you before doing it. Is there any reason the latter article shouldn't be merged into the former? Seppi333 ( Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 00:36, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Morphogen, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Posterior and Smad. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:12, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
Greetings, and thank you for your contributions. I am referring to your edit to the Lactase article, which you edited on March 3rd 2010. You changed the optimal temperature to 25 degrees Celcius, and added a reference for this claim. However, I cannot find this in the referenced paper, and a friend who is more used to chemistry publications also could not help me with that. I'm not saying you are wrong, but I kindly ask you to re-check the reference, and if possible hint me at where the temperature optimum of 25 degrees Celcius is mentioned in it. Thank you C-Otto ( talk) 21:57, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
The Original Barnstar | |
Appreciate the template work you do :-) Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 09:34, 12 October 2014 (UTC) |
Hi Boghog. Thanks for the message. Until yesterday, the page regarding PCP4 was totally empty, and I have tryied to add relevant information to it. However, I saw no editions of yours previous to that in this page. Would you possibly be more interested in deleting than adding value? About original research, that would mean research that has never been published. And the immunohistochemistry of Purkinje cell protein 4 in Purkinje cells, as well as the Western blot of PCP4 in H295R cells are well known and have been previously published. If you have access to the actual scientific journals you will be able to check that out yourself. But hey, why not just Google it? Google images id great finding scientific material of that sort sometimes. I know deleting apparently irrelevant material and adding tags to new pages can help adding up a badge of honor as a cure something-something award of Wikipedia to one's user talk page. But I see no reason to hide scientific information that has been published (and therefore does no longer constitute original research) from the public. About the content being too complex for featuring in an encyclopaedia, may I ask what would you mean by that? What I see in Wikipedia right now is some articles containing medical information that is wrong, although those are about topics that are well known since the 50's. Nevertheless, no one with a badge goes there to fix them. And no, I am not going to list these articles. I am sure you can do a good job looking for and fixing all of them. By the way, why don't you add some information about PCP4 to its page? You seem to know the topic well, I mean, you seem to know what you are talking about, right? Please do make sure to add your contribution. I will be looking forward to read it. Cheers. Herizora ( talk) 22:30, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
I have performed the immunohistochemical analysis of PCP4 in 3 human cerebellum specimens
I have performed Western blotting of PCP4 and beta-actin
after 6h of angiotensin-II treatment in H295R cells) is almost never appropriate. Boghog ( talk) 14:26, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
peer review for several months from 4 independent peers, which makes it a secondary source– No, it is still primary. Please read secondary.
Thanks very much for your comments at the Chemistry project in response to my query. I hope that you will also comment on my follow-up question. In many cases, say an article about a chemical compound or a drug etc, there are hundreds or thousands of papers. Your insights/opinions about how to select from these? -- Smokefoot ( talk) 22:53, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Good afternoon, I saw you delate my contribution to the article of the pancreatic elastase because it was too much exprimental, I agree with you, but I did it for a university project. The project is due on Wenesday, after that I will delate it. So can you leave it just for now. I will really apreciate it.
Thank you so much. Have a nice week end.
BQUB14 Vmourre — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB14 Vmourre ( talk • contribs) 14:47, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Boghog, I would really appreciate it if you stopped deleting my work from Wikipedia. The article on FERMT3 is an unfinished university assignment. We are in the process of adding online citations and references but it doesn't help that every time we work on it something has been deleted. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marinabuene ( talk • contribs) 10:20, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for your help. We're new in Wikipedia so we don't know how it really works. Some of our references are repeated and I don't know how to delete one (there are two equal references, the same article). I would be glad if you show me how. Our work is almost done. In your opinion, is it good? — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB14-pdelamata ( talk • contribs) 11:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
There is no form named "frmconvert" at /data/project/citation-template-filling/perl5/lib/perl5/WWW/Mechanize.pm line 1930.
at
[5]
Ihaveacatonmydesk (
talk)
14:10, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Dear Boghog, sorry for any inconvenience. The deadline for the project is today, therefore we won't be making any more modifications. Thanks a lot for your kindness and for helping us with this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQUB14-pdelamata ( talk • contribs) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi Boghog. Am I correct in thinking the Cite doi and cite pmid templates have been deprecated? They don't seem to work any more and I saw that you added full references to some I'd done as cite doi, and had linked to some discussion about the citation templates. I understand you have resurrected that old template filler tool that works with pmid, but do you know if there is an equivalent for doi? Just as these days I often find myself editing on a mobile device and copy pasting the full citation is much more fiddly than just the doi. Any suggestions would be appreciated. Meodipt ( talk) 08:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for correcting me over here, I didn't realize that NCBI stuff was public domain. Knowing that will help in the future, so I appreciate it :) Kyle Barbour 00:19, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
In my view Nulkear is WP:NOTHERE and WP:DISRUPTIVE - it is not clear to me what your point is with the comments you are making at the SPI discussion. You seem to be trying to lay the ground for unblocking him. Is that your goal? Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 13:49, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
This edit reverted my fix of displayauthors errors along with the Citation bot edits to which you are objecting. You should have been able to undo just the Citation bot edits while leaving my fixes in place. Please reinstate my fixes and be more selective next time. Thanks. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 00:17, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
The new Lua-based templates cannot know if editors created citations with exactly nine authors because there were only nine authors or, because old-style citations were limited to nine authors– huh ??? This seems like a made up problem. In short, there is no problem. Boghog ( talk) 00:37, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
|displayauthors=
9) There were exactly 9 authors, not 8.
Boghog (
talk)
00:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)|displayauthors=8
is added to match the old citation format. From a total of over 10,000 articles, we are down to 175. Once these 175 are fixed, the error category and error message can be eliminated from the citation template system, and the number of authors displayed will be controlled by the number in the citation, unless |displayauthors=
is added intentionally by an editor. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
06:31, 15 November 2014 (UTC)Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:
Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot ( talk) 00:39, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello Boghog. This message is part of a mass mailing to people who appear active in reviewing articles for creation submissions. First of all, thank you for taking part in this important work! I'm sorry this message is a form letter – it really was the only way I could think of to covey the issue economically. Of course, this also means that I have not looked to see whether the matter is applicable to you in particular.
The issue is in rather large numbers of copyright violations ("copyvios") making their way through AfC reviews without being detected (even when easy to check, and even when hallmarks of copyvios in the text that should have invited a check, were glaring). A second issue is the correct method of dealing with them when discovered.
If you don't do so already, I'd like to ask for your to help with this problem by taking on the practice of performing a copyvio check as the first step in any AfC review. The most basic method is to simply copy a unique but small portion of text from the draft body and run it through a search engine in quotation marks. Trying this from two different paragraphs is recommended. (If you have any question about whether the text was copied from the draft, rather than the other way around (a "backwards copyvio"), the Wayback Machine is very useful for sussing that out.)
If you do find a copyright violation, please do not decline the draft on that basis. Copyright violations need to be dealt with immediately as they may harm those whose content is being used and expose Wikipedia to potential legal liability. If the draft is substantially a copyvio, and there's no non-infringing version to revert to, please mark the page for speedy deletion right away using {{db-g12|url=URL of source}}. If there is an assertion of permission, please replace the draft article's content with {{subst:copyvio|url=URL of source}}.
Some of the more obvious indicia of a copyvio are use of the first person ("we/our/us..."), phrases like "this site", or apparent artifacts of content written for somewhere else ("top", "go to top", "next page", "click here", use of smartquotes, etc.); inappropriate tone of voice, such as an overly informal tone or a very slanted marketing voice with weasel words; including intellectual property symbols (™,®); and blocks of text being added all at once in a finished form with no misspellings or other errors.
I hope this message finds you well and thanks again you for your efforts in this area. Best regards-- Fuhghettaboutit ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC).
Sent via-- MediaWiki message delivery ( talk) 02:20, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited HRG (gene), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Rosette. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 14:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Boghog -- thanks for your feedback on my Quercetin edits. Respectfully, however, biochemistry is not a natural science but rather is a major field of health science at every medical school. On the WP:SCIRS page is stated "The scope of this page is limited to the natural sciences, including astronomy, biology, chemistry, geoscience, physics, and interdiscliplinary fields. For articles about medicine, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)."
Is it a matter of interpretation or definition? The edits I removed were made on the topic of mechanisms of action of quercetin in vitro. By my experience, I'd say this is biochemistry, so WP:MEDRS applies. All Best. -- Zefr ( talk) 23:41, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The Cure Award | |
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! |
We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)
Thanks again :) -- Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation
Your Talk page is yours to do with as you please. Message was intended just for you, in any case. Sad that you can see only nonsense, and nothing worth your consideration, but that is the state of things. Cheers. Le Prof
I have no clue as to who Flyer22 is in relation to the question of highlighting Talk text to make minority voices clearer, or what "refactoring" or "archiving" are, and what they have to do with highlighting. Here, brevity is your enemy; I am not chasing possible meanings down for you. This you need to clarify, significantly, to simply be understood. As for Padillah's statement, I have asked him to make clear what he wants, and when he does, I will act. As for your "protest", you can assuredly speak to what I do with your comments, but—as far as I see in the WPs, and as far as I have been counseled—not about what I do with other others' comments. I have highlighted none of your comments. I have queried all others, and will respond to their requests. It is, I understand, up to them, individually. (There is no overriding, firm policy, whatever you might think; this is what I am told.) So for now, I will await Padillah et al's replies, and yours if you care to say more. (But no action taken until.) Cheers. Le Prof
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited IGFBP3, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Esophageal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:57, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hello Boghog, I hope you remember speaking to me in the summer of 2012 about your motivations for contributing to the health-related pages on Wikipedia. The great news is that the study got published this Wednesday in JMIR (Journal of Medical Internet Research). You can read it here: http://www.jmir.org/2014/12/e260 This would not have been possible without your contributions so once again, I would like to thank you for taking the time and sharing your experiences with me. I also wrote an entry about my own experience with the study, about additional observations and how I plan to further extend my research - published in the WMF blog today: https://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/2014/12/who-writes-wikipedias-health-and-medical-pages-and-why/If you have any comments or questions please get in touch.Perhaps see you at the next Wikimania conference in Mexico! Best Wishes Hydra Rain ( talk) 21:03, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Hey Boghog. I noticed in the recently updated KEGG pathway as well as in a recently published paper that presynaptic CaMKIIα signaling plays a role in amphetamine-induced dopamine efflux. Unfortunately, the mechanism of this isn't published because the KEGG and the DAT researchers working on this somehow have never heard of trace amine-associated receptors...
Notes from my sandbox
|
---|
–Amphetamine causes
EAAT3 endocytosis (presynaptic, possibly also postsynaptic) and presynaptic CaMKIIα signaling in DA neurons -
KEGG pathway and
PMID
25033183
References
|
|
After reading all the papers, it seems intuitive to me how this works, but I wanted to run these steps by you before I update the diagram:
In a nutshell, I'd basically be drawing the following connections: TAAR1 → IP3R → CaM → CaMKIIα → DAT (I'd need to draw IP3R). That said, is there anything missing, or does that sound right?
Seppi333 (
Insert 2¢ |
Maintained)
02:55, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
References
VMAT2 is the CNS vesicular transporter for not only the biogenic amines DA, NE, EPI, 5-HT, and HIS, but likely also for the trace amines TYR, PEA, and thyronamine (THYR) ... [Trace aminergic] neurons in mammalian CNS would be identifiable as neurons expressing VMAT2 for storage, and the biosynthetic enzyme aromatic amino acid decarboxylase (AADC). ... AMPH release of DA from synapses requires both an action at VMAT2 to release DA to the cytoplasm and a concerted release of DA from the cytoplasm via "reverse transport" through DAT.
Despite the challenges in determining synaptic vesicle pH, the proton gradient across the vesicle membrane is of fundamental importance for its function. Exposure of isolated catecholamine vesicles to protonophores collapses the pH gradient and rapidly redistributes transmitter from inside to outside the vesicle. ... Amphetamine and its derivatives like methamphetamine are weak base compounds that are the only widely used class of drugs known to elicit transmitter release by a non-exocytic mechanism. As substrates for both DAT and VMAT, amphetamines can be taken up to the cytosol and then sequestered in vesicles, where they act to collapse the vesicular pH gradient.
Three important new aspects of TAs action have recently emerged: (a) inhibition of firing due to increased release of dopamine; (b) reduction of D2 and GABAB receptor-mediated inhibitory responses (excitatory effects due to disinhibition); and (c) a direct TA1 receptor-mediated activation of GIRK channels which produce cell membrane hyperpolarization.
• tonically activates inwardly rectifying K(+) channels, which reduces the basal firing frequency of dopamine (DA) neurons of the ventral tegmental area (VTA)
AMPH also increases intracellular calcium (Gnegy et al., 2004) that is associated with calmodulin/CamKII activation (Wei et al., 2007) and modulation and trafficking of the DAT (Fog et al., 2006; Sakrikar et al., 2012). ... For example, AMPH increases extracellular glutamate in various brain regions including the striatum, VTA and NAc (Del Arco et al., 1999; Kim et al., 1981; Mora and Porras, 1993; Xue et al., 1996), but it has not been established whether this change can be explained by increased synaptic release or by reduced clearance of glutamate. ... DHK-sensitive, EAAT2 uptake was not altered by AMPH (Figure 1A). The remaining glutamate transport in these midbrain cultures is likely mediated by EAAT3 and this component was significantly decreased by AMPH
AMPH and METH also stimulate DA efflux, which is thought to be a crucial element in their addictive properties [80], although the mechanisms do not appear to be identical for each drug [81]. These processes are PKCβ– and CaMK–dependent [72, 82], and PKCβ knock-out mice display decreased AMPH-induced efflux that correlates with reduced AMPH-induced locomotion [72].
You have proposed that Environmental fate of TNT be merged to TNT#Bio-degradation, but you have not opened a discussion regarding said merger. I have an opinion on the matter, but in the interest of maintaining a proper chronolgy of the discussion, I'd like you to open a discussion first. WikiDan61 ChatMe! ReadMe!! 21:48, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited BCAR1, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 08:56, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for your input.
As you may have gathered, this article has a new anonymous editor, who posted a question today...
Wikipedia:Help_desk#Help:Cite_errors.2FCite_error_ref_no_input. I didn’t want to frighten her off right at the start by mentioning COI (she is one of the authors of the paper she posted). However, as she first was trying to place it in Further Reading, then later included it in Ref 8, the former is now superfluous. Do you suggest I delete it now or wait till she comes back? I'm thinking that it can be off-putting for a any new editor to have loads of other editors making changes before one has had a chance to get a hang of our wiki-ways. She appears to have in depth knowledge of this subject so I welcomed her
here.--
Aspro (
talk)
00:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 09:32, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
did you ever read this? Jytdog ( talk) 15:24, 29 December 2014 (UTC)
Further [medical] progress requires that the entire front of medicine and the underlying sciences of chemistry, physics, anatomy, biochemistry, physiology, pharmacology, bacteriology, pathology, parasitology, etc., be broadly developed.
Boghog (
talk)
02:31, 30 December 2014 (UTC)