User:Meodipt/2017 talk archive

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Nomination of 2-Isopropyl-5-methyl-1-(2,6-dihydroxy-4-nonylphenyl)cyclohex-1-ene for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2-Isopropyl-5-methyl-1-(2,6-dihydroxy-4-nonylphenyl)cyclohex-1-ene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2-Isopropyl-5-methyl-1-(2,6-dihydroxy-4-nonylphenyl)cyclohex-1-ene until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Leyo 22:51, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

RC/Wikipedia analysis

You might be interested in "How up to date is the knowledge about designer drugs on Wikipedia?", which draws heavily on RC WP articles you helped write. --Gwern (contribs) 00:56 28 April 2017 (GMT)

Very interesting, thanks for letting me know. Meodipt (talk) 02:22, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of 9b-Phosphaphenalene for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 9b-Phosphaphenalene is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9b-Phosphaphenalene until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. OrganoMetallurgy (talk) 19:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Do you have a source for the Components of Opium Template?

Hello,

We are submitting a paper to a peer-reviewed journal, about the use of metabolomics in opioid addiction research, and when I was researching opium components, I found a terrific table here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Components_of_opium. Unfortunately, the table has no source or references but the Wikipedia Information Team provided me with a link to your talk page.

This is my statement, based on the Template: "Opium contains many chemical constituents, which can be grouped by meconic acid, α-naphthaphenanthridines, tetrahydroprotoberberines, isoquinolones, phtalide isoquinolines, aporphines, protopines, alkaloids, and phenanthrenes."

I need a reference that will make it past peer review when we submit to the journal for publication. Unfortunately, a reference to an unsourced Wikipedia table won't be accepted.

Can you help me? Do you have a source that would work for the statement I am making? If you don't, I will have to take it out of the paper, but I thought I would check with you, just in case.

Thank you so much for any help you can provide.

WildIrish (talk) 02:07, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately the content of that table was not compiled by me - if my memory serves me correctly (bearing in mind this was nearly 10 years ago now) someone else had listed those on the main page for opium and I merely made them into a table to make it look neater, and separate it from the list of opiate compounds that actually have morphine-like activity. Some of the textbooks I have touch on the subject but not in so much detail as that table, the main focus is naturally on the most prevalent and pharmacologically useful components. A lot of the compounds listed in that table are only trace components which presumably have little influence on the overall action of opium. If you are writing articles for the peer reviewed literature I would have thought you should be able to find appropriate references through your university library, just from a quick search on Google Scholar I would point you towards this article [1] which in turn cites a 1995 book "Kapoor LD, Opium Poppy - Botany, Chemistry, and Pharmacology", as well as a number of similar works. I would suggest getting hold of some of those references and seeing what they say, and what references are in turn cited therein. Meodipt (talk) 19:13, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia-integrated academic journal

Hi,

I'm messaging to ask whether you might be interested in being an editor for the WikiJournal of Science (www.WikiJSci.org)? It's a journal modelled on the successful Wikipedia-integrated medical journal (www.WikiJMed.org). The editorial board is covers a range of fields and expertise.

It couples the rigour of academic peer review with the extreme reach of the encyclopedia. It is therefore an excellent way to achieve public engagement, outreach and impact public understanding of science (articles often get >100,000 views per year).

Peer-reviewed articles are dual-published both as standard academic PDFs, as well as directly into Wikipedia. This improves the scientific accuracy of the encyclopedia, and rewards academics with citable, indexed publications. It also provides much greater reach than is normally achieved through traditional scholarly publishing.

Based on my experiences, time commitment is pretty flexible. An editor would generally devote 2-10 hours per month to inviting suitable submissions and organise their external peer review:

  • Identify fully missing Wikipedia topics and invite academics to write broad review articles on them (e.g. this)
  • Identify important, but poorly covered topics and invite experts to update or overhaul them (e.g. this)
  • Invite authors of good Wikipedia pages to put their articles through external peer review (like this)
  • Possibly implement some figure or gallery review articles (e.g this and this)

Hopefully it will help to get experts, academics and professionals to contribute content to the encyclopedia via a more familiar and cv-rewarding academic journal format.

Anyway, let me know if it's the sort of thing that might interest you. PS. A relevant article in Science.

T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 04:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC), edited 11:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

Note: I realised I missed out some links in the message above, so I've taken the liberty of editing the previous message. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 11:03, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I'm flattered to be asked about this and in general peer review and getting Wikipedia articles up to a journal standard is the kind of thing I would be interested in being involved with. I'm not sure that I can really be of much help with the kind of tasks that you specify however, my academic colleagues are always very busy and probably wouldn't have that much time to be writing review articles on here by request. Several of them have Wikipedia accounts already but rarely edit on here aside from occasional minor corrections and so on. Also while I agree with the aims of trying to improve Wikipedia editorial standards, I'm unsure about the implementation; some editors seem to interpret this as meaning that no topic should be covered until it has been covered in multiple secondary or tertiary sources, and when it comes to the often novel and obscure topics I tend to write about on here this could mean waiting for many years for appropriate sources to arise. I have always felt one of the key strengths of Wikipedia is the ability for anyone to add articles about topics as soon as there is sufficient public interest and reliable sources to draw upon, without necessarily having to meet the same academic rigour as a traditional journal article. In my view it would be a great disservice to the project if improving editorial standards came at the expense of this flexibility and ability to cover topics while there is still current public interest in them. Meodipt (talk) 19:48, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Hi. I'm glad it's of interest, and you raise some good points. The aim is for it to be an additional entry route for content (a little like how AfC is optional, but geared to be more attractive to academics and other professionals). Similarly, it's an additional quality assurance mechanisms, in addition to featured article review. However, you're right that different articles will have different levels of compatibility with Wikipedia. Some will be on topics that will easily be able to prioritise secondary sources, whereas other articles (particularly those containing original research) will remain largely separate (Publication_formats). In practice, even Featured Article science pages cite primary sources where secondary aren't available (e.g. Serpin). Indeed there is some discussion going on about this at v:Talk:WikiJournal_of_Science.
There are a range of possible roles to play if you're interested, aside from inviting submissions and helping out with finding peer reviewers:
  1. Article invitations
    • Will be key to building the first issue
    • Detailed more below
  2. General strategy
    • Who to target (academic levels and fields)
    • Endorsements to aim for (e.g. unis and scientific societies)
    • Recruitment (additional expertise on the board)
    • Manuscript types (see below)
  3. Admin
    • The most glamorous option
    • E.g. typesetting, organising dois, index service applications, formatting, website improvements, updating ethics statements
    • Much of this won't come up until later
  4. Outreach
    • Contacting our own networks
    • Newsletters, mailing lists, posters
    • Advertising within our departments, unis, scientific societies, postdoc societies, PhD societies
    • Social media via FB and twitter
Even if you decide not to get involved in the editorial side of things, you're always welcome to submit an article if you'd be interested in having it peer reviewed. Also, just to note, there's a sister WikiJournal of Humanities to cover the arts, humanities, and socsci side of things.
T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:15, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Meodipt. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User:Meodipt/2017_talk_archive"