User talk:Boghog/Archive 12
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 5 | ← | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | Archive 12 | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 |
Your submission at Articles for creation: 50S ribosomal protein L25 has been accepted
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
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.
- If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
- If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider .
Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!
Boghog (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)Apologies
Sorry about the inconsistent citations in Wonderland. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ 21:38, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Draft: israel lucas gois
Good afternoon, I would like to ask for your help to edit a Draft: Israel Lucas Góis Monteiro, if I help? several references follow.
Let's put this article on the air.
http://blog.maxieduca.com.br/bolsa-valores-empreendedorismo/
http://www.jornalpontagrossa.com/2017/10/brasil-milionario-paranaense-esta.html
http://abvcap.com.br/sala-de-imprensa/noticias-imprensa.aspx?c=pt-BR&id=3841
http://www.jornalmeuparana.com/portal/ver_noticia.php?ver=14278
http://thebrazilianfinancial.com/entrevista/
https://www.folhageral.com/empresas-e-negocios/2017/12/investidor-milionario-cria-maior-empresa-de-relacoes-com-investidores-da-america-latina/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by WksBolteditor (talk • contribs) 13:39, 8 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
Facto Post – Issue 8 – 15 January 2018
 Metadata on the MarchFrom the days of hard-copy liner notes on music albums, metadata have stood outside a piece or file, while adding to understanding of where it comes from, and some of what needs to be appreciated about its content. In the GLAM sector, the accumulation of accurate metadata for objects is key to the mission of an institution, and its presentation in cataloguing. Today Wikipedia turns 17, with worlds still to conquer. Zooming out from the individual GLAM object to the ontology in which it is set, one such world becomes apparent: GLAMs use custom ontologies, and those introduce massive incompatibilities. From a recent article by sadads, we quote the observation that "vocabularies needed for many collections, topics and intellectual spaces defy the expectations of the larger professional communities." A job for the encyclopedist, certainly. But the data-minded Wikimedian has the advantages of Wikidata, starting with its multilingual data, and facility with aliases. The controlled vocabulary — sometimes referred to as a "thesaurus" as term of art — simplifies search: if a "spade" must be called that, rather than "shovel", it is easier to find all spade references. That control comes at a cost.   Case studies in that article show what can lie ahead. The schema crosswalk, in jargon, is a potential answer to the GLAM Babel of proliferating and expanding vocabularies. Even if you have no interest in Wikidata as such, simply vocabularies V and W, if both V and W are matched to Wikidata, then a "crosswalk" arises from term v in V to w in W, whenever v and w both match to the same item d in Wikidata. For metadata mobility, match to Wikidata. It's apparently that simple: infrastructure requirements have turned out, so far, to be challenges that can be met. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:38, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
Hi Boghog, new article. scope_creep (talk) 11:39, 16 January 2018 (UTC)
HMB FAC #4
Now that it's finally a GA, I'm going to nominate HMB at FAC again within the next 2 weeks. I need to add 2 or 3 medical reviews and 1 primary pharmacology/cell biology source first though.
Are you still interested in working with me at FAC as a co-nominator? I'd be pretty screwed without you if I encountered another chemistry reviewer like Nergaal, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
- Hi Seppi. Congratulations on getting HMB to GA. I am glad to help out with any chemistry related edits. I suspect there won't be too many, but you never know. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
- FYI, it's been renominated here: Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid/archive4. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 07:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
DYK for Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid
On 22 January 2018, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that in healthy adults, HMB has been shown to increase exercise-induced gains in muscle size, muscle strength, and lean body mass, reduce muscle damage, and speed recovery from exercise? You are welcome to check how many page hits the article got while on the front page (here's how, Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid), and it may be added to the statistics page if the total is over 5,000. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.
Gatoclass (talk) 13:32, 22 January 2018 (UTC)
- I was notified on my talk page that HMB's DYK entry attracted over 5000 visitors to the article (~8500 more relative to the average daily pageviews; link to HMB's redirectviews for comparison), so it's going to be listed in Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics.
On an unrelated note, I've notified Slashme that we've decided upon how to modify the leucine metabolism diagram when recreating it in svg (see Talk:Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid#SVG diagram of File:ISSN HMB statement Fig 1.jpg (Leucine metabolism in humans)). If he's no longer interested in redrawing it, I'm going to do it myself. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 06:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)
Edit conflict
My apologies about the edit conflict at Phase precession. I went back and looked at your edit, and much of it just isn't important enough to me to reconstruct it. If you want to do it again, please feel free to. In any case, sorry! --Tryptofish (talk) 23:45, 26 January 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about the edit conflict. Adding content is far more important than formatting. Formatting can be fixed later. Boghog (talk) 06:19, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks! I've been feeling badly about it, so I'm glad all is good now. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
Bug in the citation template filling tool
Hey Boghog. I figured it'd be prudent to let you know about this issue since it seems like there's a bug in the script for the citation tool that you fixed a while back. A reviewer at the HMB FAC pointed out this formatting inconsistency: when the citation for PMID 27897391 is generated, the first author's first name in the citation template isn't initialized, but it is for all of the other authors. I haven't paid much attention to how the authors list is formatted when I use this tool (which is almost daily), so I'm not sure how frequently this problem occurs. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 05:58, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Take a look at the original publication: doi:10.1002/jcsm.12127. The first author Mochamat doesn't seem to have a first (or last?) name, or at least chose not to use one. The citation tool pulls its information from PubMed which doesn't list a first name either. Hence this is not a citation tool bug, but the expected behavior. Boghog (talk) 06:08, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
- Digging into to this a bit further, it appears Mochamat is Indonesian. Apparently it is not unusual for Indonesian's to use only one name:
- "The Uniquely Indonesian Pains of Having Only One Name".
- Boghog (talk) 06:17, 31 January 2018 (UTC)
Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
| Facto Post – Issue 9 – 5 February 2018
m:Grants:Project/ScienceSource is the new ContentMine proposal: please take a look.
Wikidata as HubOne way of looking at Wikidata relates it to the semantic web concept, around for about as long as Wikipedia, and realised in dozens of distributed Web institutions. It sees Wikidata as supplying central, encyclopedic coverage of linked structured data, and looks ahead to greater support for "federated queries" that draw together information from all parts of the emerging network of websites.  Another perspective might be likened to a photographic negative of that one: Wikidata as an already-functioning Web hub. Over half of its properties are identifiers on other websites. These are Wikidata's "external links", to use Wikipedia terminology: one type for the DOI of a publication, another for the VIAF page of an author, with thousands more such. Wikidata links out to sites that are not nominally part of the semantic web, effectively drawing them into a larger system. The crosswalk possibilities of the systematic construction of these links was covered in Issue 8. Wikipedia:External links speaks of them as kept "minimal, meritable, and directly relevant to the article." Here Wikidata finds more of a function. On viaf.org one can type a VIAF author identifier into the search box, and find the author page. The Wikidata Resolver tool, these days including Open Street Map, Scholia etc., allows this kind of lookup. The hub tool by maxlath takes a major step further, allowing both lookup and crosswalk to be encoded in a single URL. Links
To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here. Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM. If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery |
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:50, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
Coenzyme and cofactor
Cooperative antigen transfer page suggested for deletion
I changed the title Cooperative antigen transfer to more proper one: Antigen transfer in the thymus which could be find in refferences. Is it like this ok? Thank you for your answer. (BrezinaJiri (talk) 21:29, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
- Hi @BrezinaJiri:. Much better. Still needs a better lead sentence that can be understood by a wide audience. I have made an attempt in these edits and added a secondary source that supports the subject of the article. Does this look OK? Please modify as you see fit. Boghog (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a good paper to cite here. Thanks for your contribution, is it somehow possible to take back the suggestion for deletion? I understand that it needs to be improved, but the references i cite here are really related to this topic and are relevant. Thanks for your answer. (BrezinaJiri (talk) 21:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
- Hi @BrezinaJiri:. The new title is supported by reliable sources, so I withdrew the AfD. The article is a good start, but it still needs a bit of editing. For example, the CAT acronym needs to be replaced. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:10, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Thanks Boghog, I will re-write it. Cheers. (BrezinaJiri (talk) 22:15, 12 February 2018 (UTC))
You're lame
Sigh. Another Wikipedia "editor" who doesn't see the forest for the trees. Crazy that you'd delete a Stanford University research project as unworthy of Wikipedia. And one that fights HIV, cancer and Alzheimers. Repeat: you're lame.Davieinspain (talk) 10:28, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Dave
- @Davieinspain: Per WP:LINKSPAM, Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed. Boghog (talk) 12:30, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for February 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Pseudokinase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
Date Year parameters cite journal
I’ve noticed recently that there seems to be a date / year conflict in the cite journal template where only one of them is allowed. The solution I have adopted is to remove date= and leave the year, with the rationale that the Wikipedia template filling tool populates the year parameter. I generally try to align my edits with your consistent formatting policy and wondered what your thoughts are on this. Regards CV9933 (talk) 19:09, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. The Wikipedia template filling tool previously returned the now deprecated
|month=parameter. I was lazy and just removed the deprecated month parameter from the tool. I can modify the tool so that|year=is replaced with|date=and include the month in the date if returned by Entrez esearch. This should be compatible with the other citation tools and the script that I am currently using. Would this be OK? Boghog (talk) 19:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)- Thanks - that sounds like a good solution. CV9933 (talk) 19:40, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
- I think that'd be helpful as well; I've been manually changing year → date and then adding the month for a while now. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:19, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Done @CV9933 and Seppi333: As promised, I have replaced |year=with|date=month+yearin the output of the WTF tool. I should have done this a long time ago. Sorry about that. Let me know if there are any problems. Boghog (talk) 11:59, 20 February 2018 (UTC)- Yes I tested on a couple of previous edits, works fine. Thanks. CV9933 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that there is now an
|author=parameter at the end of the template, which I initially ignored, but I put some data in for a test and it overides the|vauthor=parameter, so maybe we could lose that? Regards CV9933 (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2018 (UTC)- Good grief. Looking into it. Thanks for the heads up. Boghog (talk) 17:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
Fixed hopefully. I accidentally copied the wrong version to the server. This has now been corrected. Boghog (talk) 21:03, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was using it at the time of the fix so I probably knew before you did. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- After a bit more use I noticed that the date returns a month error in PMID 27229733, maybe a script error? CV9933 (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently entrez esearch now occasionally returns a two digit month code. The raw data returned by esearch for PMID 27229733 is "<Month>08</Month>" and the WTF perl script is expecting a string. This appears to be a new behavior that I have recently also noticed in a python script. I will have to add a lookup table to convert these two digit months to strings. I should be able to fix this over the weekend. Boghog (talk) 15:11, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed I added some code to convert two digit month codes into text and
|date=August 2016for PMID 27229733 is returned. Boghog (talk) 09:27, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- After a bit more use I noticed that the date returns a month error in PMID 27229733, maybe a script error? CV9933 (talk) 14:51, 22 February 2018 (UTC)
- I was using it at the time of the fix so I probably knew before you did. Cheers.CV9933 (talk) 21:20, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
- I noticed that there is now an
- Yes I tested on a couple of previous edits, works fine. Thanks. CV9933 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I noticed you use the vcite parameter sometimes, can the tool do that or do you edit that manually? CV9933 (talk) 10:10, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{vcite journal}} and {{vcite2 journal}} are basically obsolete and I have not used them in years. The rationale for the former was that loading times for {{cite journal}} were very long. CS1 templates like {{cite journal}} now use WP:Lua which has solved the loading time problem, hence the primary justification for using {{vcite journal}} no longer exists. The primary reason for {{vcite2 journal}} was to add
|vauthors=support. However {{cite journal}} now also supports|vauthors=, so again, the primary reason for using {{vcite2 journal}} no longer exists. Is there some special reason that you would like to use {{vcite journal}} or {{vcite2 journal}}? Boghog (talk) 11:07, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
- {{vcite journal}} and {{vcite2 journal}} are basically obsolete and I have not used them in years. The rationale for the former was that loading times for {{cite journal}} were very long. CS1 templates like {{cite journal}} now use WP:Lua which has solved the loading time problem, hence the primary justification for using {{vcite journal}} no longer exists. The primary reason for {{vcite2 journal}} was to add
GA Reassessment: Behavioral_genetics
Behavioural_genetics, an article that you or your project may be interested in, has been nominated for a community good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Groceryheist (talk) 06:40, 7 March 2018 (UTC)
Ref templates
The 32em is no longer needed. The template now adds this automatically. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
- The template also chooses bad defaults. I do realize that many like to see multiple columns on mobile, although it is not at all clear why. If the default column width on the desktop could be made slight wider without altering the mobile display and if multiple columns were automatically enabled with slightly fewer references, I would then be happy with the defaults. Boghog (talk) 18:14, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Lost edit
I was editing the Tumor_necrosis_factor_superfamily page for two hours, but when I wanted to save it it said I can't save it because you made a change in the meanwhile. I am still on that page but the new content seem to be already lost. Pleeeeease help me to get it back it was so much work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jan Kuzmik (talk • contribs) 18:25, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry for the edit conflict. Copy the material from the lower window and paste into the top. That will overwrite my edits, but I do not mind. Boghog (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Ah, I think it's already lost. I clicked the resolve manually button and then I probably clicked resolve or save (I don't remember) hoping it would save my changes. I suppose there was this lower window with my content which I didn't see and now it's lost. Do you know of any way to retrieve it from wikipedia or my computer? Jan Kuzmik (talk) 18:36, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- I am really sorry about the content that you lost. For general background info, please see Help:Edit conflict. Did you try the back button on your browser? Depending on what browser you are using, that just might bring back your edits in the lower window that you can copy and paste into the top window. Another thing that might work is to reload pages from your browser history. As far as I know, Wikipedia itself would not store your intermediate edits. Boghog (talk) 18:43, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the info. Yeah I tried the back button immediately but it didn't work and it seems that Chrome, which I use, only remembers the url of the page. Anyway, I feel like the page is somewhere in the memory of my computer, but I don't know how to retreive it so I will just re-edit the page. Jan Kuzmik (talk) 19:03, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, something seems to have gone awry with this edit. The translation section looks as if it has been moved to the middle of the conservation section and placed in the middle of a reference, causing the angry red error message. I'm not sure what your intentions were so I have not attempted to correct it, so if you could have another look at the page it would be appreciated. Thanks, regards, Eagleash (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. The script that I used somehow mangled the page. I have reverted my orginal edit and re-edit the way I intended to. Sorry about that. Boghog (talk) 05:13, 25 March 2018 (UTC)
Not broken
Please don't make changes that only substitute one valid template parameter for another; if it was okay before, the change does not improve the article, nor is it relevant to consistent citation style.
If you mix valid improvements to the article, as you did here to Transfeminism with invalid ones, there's an increased risk that the bundled changes will be reverted, as happened in this case. By separating out unrelated content and doing a series of incremental edits, you lessen the risk that the good edits will be removed. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:10, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your message. I was using a script that does all the edits at once, so it is difficult to do this incrementally. Also, if you look more closely at my first edit, it was more than just inserting hyphens in parameter names. Boghog (talk) 10:20, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- All I can say, is, then don't use a script. I know it's more than just inserting hypens, I saw your improvements which is why cI called them out. If it's difficult to do incrementally, then either fix the script, or the params or regexes you're using, or do it manually. I don't know what else to say. Mathglot (talk) 10:55, 18 April 2018 (UTC)
- Do not change authors from last/first to vauthors (or vice-versa); this is a violation of WP:CITEVAR: "[Do] not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If the script cannot avoid doing this, then stop using the script. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 10:36, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Don't template the regulars. I am using the script selectively so as not to violate WP:CITEVAR. Also the script is not broken. Boghog (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Who are you talking to? I see no template usage here by anybody. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- While you may not have used a template, you are sure behaving like it. I don't need to be quoted policy, especially when you have misinterpreted it.
Do not change authors from last/first to vauthors
is not what Citevar says. What Citevar does says isimposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles
isGenerally considered helpful
. Boghog (talk) 22:44, 19 April 2018 (UTC) - Here are the net results of my edits: diff. Time to move on. Boghog (talk) 00:18, 20 April 2018 (UTC)
- While you may not have used a template, you are sure behaving like it. I don't need to be quoted policy, especially when you have misinterpreted it.
- Who are you talking to? I see no template usage here by anybody. Mathglot (talk) 19:55, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
- Don't template the regulars. I am using the script selectively so as not to violate WP:CITEVAR. Also the script is not broken. Boghog (talk) 10:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
@Boghog, Jonesey95, and Mathglot: Boghog recently made many changes to references in Psychotherapy, many of which I have reverted: per Wikipedia:Citation templates, the last1, first1, last2, first2, ... fields are correct; removing information such as first names and journal wikilinks from citation templates is unhelpful, and removing such info from only a few references is inconsistent. I am commenting here because the subject of this section, "Not broken", is apropos, as is Mathglot's advice above: All I can say, is, then don't use a script
. Or make your script much more sophisticated so that it is not stripping valuable information from citations (and doing it inconsistently)! You are wasting the time of editors like us who have to manually clean up after your script. I have also noted this at Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 2#Citation style. Biogeographist (talk) 14:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Biogeographist Thanks for your note. My intention is not make extra work for other editors. If there is a problem with my edits, I am more than willing to followup with manual edits myself to fix any problems. The problem Psychotherapy is there is an inconsistent citation style, especially with respect to first names. One way to fix this is to use first initials consistently throughout. If you like, I can do that, while at the same time leave the journal wiki links in place. Boghog (talk) 14:56, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Here is an example of a script edit followed by several manual edits that in the end produced a consistent citation style. It is very difficult if not impossible to write a script to do all of this automatically. I am not blindly running the script. To the contrary, I quite often follow up script edits with manual edits to fix things that the script misses. Boghog (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. I know you're not trying to make extra work, but that is an unintended side effect of your script, so changing the script would be the best solution if possible.
- It is not a good idea to remove full author names from citation templates because the extra information provided by full author names is useful in several ways: it disambiguates authors with the same last name and initials; it provides a more complete identity of the authors for people unfamiliar with the literature (and many readers of Wikipedia are likely to be less familiar with the literature than specialists); it provides more search results when users search for full names.
- If an article's citation style calls for last name and initials only, it is better to use the
name-list-formatfield of the citation template to set the display format of the names, rather than to strip the first names from the citation template. Another important reason to keep full names in citation templates is because citation templates generate COinS data for automated citation harvesting by reference management software; with full names included, the data harvested from Wikipedia will be more complete. Think of citation templates as database records: we want the most complete database record possible, and fields such asname-list-format(and the other display options parameters) control how the data is displayed in the rendered page. - Regarding the citation style of Psychotherapy, I am partial to displaying full names due to the value of the information that I mentioned above. I think of initials as a convention used to save space (and thereby save on printing costs) in print media, or in content that is published in print and other formats. Wikipedia is not distributed in print, so there is no need to use initials to save on printing costs. Biogeographist (talk) 16:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
- The version that existed when Boghog said "Time to move on" above has almost all full names, with only a couple of initials. Boghog's edits made the references considerably more inconsistent, not considerably more consistent, as asserted above. I agree with Boghog that consistency of naming is desirable, and a discussion about that should continue on the article's talk page. WP:CITEVAR is the relevant guideline. There is specific guidance there about how to choose a citation style; achieving consensus on the article's talk page is the best way to ensure that there is a record of consensus for that article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 21:17, 25 April 2018 (UTC)
File:HMB_synthesis_2.svg
Hi Boghog,
I have been looking at the article on HMB and noticed the File:HMB_synthesis_2.svg, which you created. I was wondering if you could correct a small mistake? In the Fenton's reagent approach from tert-butanol and carbon monoxide, you have drawn CO as having a double carbon–oxygen bond when it should be a triple bond. Would you please either change it to show a triple bond or to just show CO?
Thanks,
EdChem (talk) 00:25, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
PS: Also, could you italicise the "tert" of tert-butanol so that it appears as tert-butanol? Thanks. EdChem (talk) 00:47, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
- Fixed Hi EdChem. Thanks for checking my error. I fixed the carbon monoxide bond order as well as italicized tert in tert-butanol. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:05, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
is it a script?
Is it a script that does this; particularly converts:
{{Cite journal|last=Zhao|first=Yi|last2=Long|first2=Marcus J. C.|last3=Wang|first3=Yiran|last4=Zhang|first4=Sheng|last5=Aye|first5=Yimon|date=2018-02-28|title=Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5833000/|journal=ACS Central Science|volume=4|issue=2|pages=246–259|doi=10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556|issn=2374-7943|pmc=PMC5833000|pmid=29532025}}- Zhao, Yi; Long, Marcus J. C.; Wang, Yiran; Zhang, Sheng; Aye, Yimon (2018-02-28). "Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses". ACS Central Science. 4 (2): 246–259. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556. ISSN 2374-7943. PMC 5833000. PMID 29532025.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link)
- Zhao, Yi; Long, Marcus J. C.; Wang, Yiran; Zhang, Sheng; Aye, Yimon (2018-02-28). "Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses". ACS Central Science. 4 (2): 246–259. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556. ISSN 2374-7943. PMC 5833000. PMID 29532025.
to:
{{cite journal | vauthors = Zhao Y, Long MJC, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y | title = Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses | journal = ACS Central Science | volume = 4 | issue = 2 | pages = 246–259 | date = February 2018 | pmid = 29532025 | pmc = 5833000 | doi = 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556 }}- Zhao Y, Long M, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y (February 2018). "Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses". ACS Central Science. 4 (2): 246–259. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556. PMC 5833000. PMID 29532025.
{{cite journal}}: Vancouver style error: initials in name 2 (help)
- Zhao Y, Long M, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y (February 2018). "Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses". ACS Central Science. 4 (2): 246–259. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556. PMC 5833000. PMID 29532025.
I find myself following behind you when cleaning up entries in Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I will modify my script to only output the first two letters of the first/middle initials. The script is getting its data from PubMed. See for example PMID 29532025 which returns
|first2=MJC. Boghog (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)- Thanks. I've noticed that I seem to be encountering more occasions where PubMed deviates from what I understand to be the Vancouver standard. Is that me or have they adopted a new standard?
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have done some searching, and as far as I can tell, Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials for a maximum of two initials is still the standard.[1] It appears that National Library of Medicine (NLM) has "extended" the standard from two to three characters, but I cannot find any statement from the NLM about this deviation. In any case, the fix in my python script is trivial (append
[:2]) to the first/middle initials string variable. Boghog (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)- Good, no reason to consider changing cs1|2.
- —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
- I have done some searching, and as far as I can tell, Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials for a maximum of two initials is still the standard.[1] It appears that National Library of Medicine (NLM) has "extended" the standard from two to three characters, but I cannot find any statement from the NLM about this deviation. In any case, the fix in my python script is trivial (append
References
- ^ "NLM Author Indexing Policy". NCBI Bookshelf.
Reverting singlet oxygen
Moved to Talk:Singlet oxygen § Lead sentenceNew Page Reviewer Flag
Hi, Boghog.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your note. I occasionally use the tools review submissions. Per your suggestion, I have applied for the flag. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
New page reviewer granted
Hello Boghog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.
- URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
- Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
- You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
- Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
- Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.
The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
Do you think a redirect like this appropriate? Before today, that page redirected to Sweet Tooth (disambiguation). Wikipedia doesn't have any other pages that actually cover what a "sweet tooth" is, although there is wikt:sweet tooth. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- There is also this guy: Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal) ;-) There is already a disambiguation page called Sweet Tooth. My suggestion is to add FGF21 to Sweet Tooth and redirect Sweet tooth → Sweet Tooth. Does this sound reasonable? Boghog (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I took the liberty of making the changes. I also create a new redirect from Sweet tooth phenotype. I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal) or the
comic bookvideo game. The phenotype is clearly the primary topic, but I'm not sure if redirecting to a gene with a SNP that mediates the phenotype necessarily would take precedence over non-primary topics if the phenotype isn't discussed to any real extent. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)- I am not at all sure that the phenotype is the primary topic. When in doubt, I think a disambiguation page is the way to go. Also I don't think it is worth creating a separate article on rs838133. Boghog (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- Well, if it isn't "someone who gets cravings for sweets", what else do you expect to be the first thing that comes to a person's mind when they hear that term w/o context or search it on wikipedia without parenthetical disambiguation? I agree that rs838133 is not notable; it merits at most a paragraph in the FGF21 article. If more than one gene has an SNP that can produce that phenotype, an article about the phenotype within the context of genetics would be notable. Didn't see anything about that on pubmed though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I tweaked the DAB page slightly. I think the way the redirects and DAB page are set up now is fine. FWIW, because the "sweet tooth phenotype" is a behavioral phenotype - which are just specific "observable patterns of behavior" or just simply specific "patterns of behavior" given that all behavior is observable - a "sweet tooth phenotype" literally just refers to the dictionary definition of a sweet tooth. Among other things, the
phenome-wide association studycommentary paper that I cited (http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/nrendo.2017.62) indicated that people with that SNP of the FGF21 gene were in the highest tertile/quintile (I forget which)for simple sugar consumption in the study it commented on, which reflects that definition (i.e., a fondness or craving for sweets). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC) edited 20:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am not at all sure that the phenotype is the primary topic. When in doubt, I think a disambiguation page is the way to go. Also I don't think it is worth creating a separate article on rs838133. Boghog (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)
- I've never heard of Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal) or the
Upcoming changes to wikitext parsing
Hello,
There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.
There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).
If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.
Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid scheduled for TFA
This is to let you know that Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
- please help translate this message into your local language via meta
|
The 2017 Cure Award |
| In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs. |
Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:51, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Consistent citation formatting and Not broken
Can you please stop making reference edits that do not improve the encyclopedia, by merely changing author style around from last/first to vauthors (or vice-versa)? This is a violation of WP:CITEVAR: "[Do] not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If the script you are using cannot avoid doing this, then please stop using the script.
I noticed this happening again while checking a student editor working on Zatypota percontatoria, where I saw this edit of yours with summary consistent citation formatting. This has made things worse, not better. Complicating matters further, the two follow-up edits of yours means that one cannot use the Undo link to revert the first one.
You were advised of this issue a week ago, at the discussion now archived here. This is starting to feel disruptive to me. Can you please manually undo edit 838239555 of 19:52, April 25, 2018 at Zatypota percontatoria (the other two are already taken care of) and assure us that you won't continue this type of edit anymore? It's not helpful, and it's increasing my workload. And, it's giving students the wrong idea. Thanks. @Biogeographist and Jonesey95: Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mathglot Your interpretation of citevar is incorrect. Before your reversion there was a consistent style. Your reversion has reintroduced an inconsistent style. Please revert your reversion. Boghog (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- Mathglot
It's not helpful
– precisely why isn't it helpful?it's giving students the wrong idea
– what is wrong about it? Also your reversion has removed information. Before my edits, several of the citations were incomplete and/or were not templated. Your revisions are not helpful. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the script that Boghog uses is unhelpful when it strips information from citations, for reasons I explained at User talk:Boghog/Archive 12 § Not broken and Talk:Psychotherapy § Citation style, although I have no comment on the particular case of Zatypota percontatoria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- It seems odd that Boghog is using
|vauthors=in some citations and|name-list-format=vancin other citations. Some pedantic editors would say that is a violation of CITEVAR, and in any event, removing useful citation information from the article by using|vauthors=is probably not helpful. Perhaps|name-list-format=vancis a better option than removing information from the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)- I am using
|name-list-format=vancin book and web citations because the full authors information is harder to come by. It is trivial to regenerate full authors information for journal articles that are indexed in PubMed. Why do we need to replicate PubMed in Wikipedia? And why are full first names essential? To the average reader, this is superfluous information. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC) - I have re-added the verbose first1, last1, parameters in this edit. The advantage of
|vauthors=is that it much more efficient and doesn't clutter up the raw wiki text with long templates. The advantage of|name-list-format=vancis that it insures the authors are formatted in a consistent way. Before I started editing this article, the citations were an inconsistent mess. Some of the first names were spelled out in full, some were abbreviated, some were in all caps, and some were missing altogether. After my edits, the formatting was completely consistent. Boghog (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
- I am using
- It seems odd that Boghog is using
- Further to the other editors you seem to have annoyed above, could you please take care not to give me the impression you are following me around with your edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
- Actually, I think the first time we interacted was on Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. My first edit on this article was on July 2008. Your first edit edit was on January 2018. What drew me to Genetic diversity was not your edits, but rather Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. We at least partially agree that the automated citation generation tools are adding useless parameters (compare diff with diff). Boghog (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Citation formatting
Boghog, Thank you for fixing some citations for the FMT page. As a question from a newer user: I am using the citation function above the edit box by entering PMID/doi/etc., is there a way to have this automatically change to the standard citation for a page? I didn't see a standard format list in the MedMOS/RS sections and I see this as possibly saving people time in the future. Thanks in advance. AverageleveledIQ (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your question. Clearly Fecal microbiota transplant used Vancouver system historically, but has drifted away from this format over time presumably because most authors were using WP:REFTOOLS to add new citations. Unfortunately WP:REFTOOLS does not support
|vauthors=as an option. I requested this functionality here, but didn't get too far. The only tool that I know of that generates citations in this format is the Diberri Template builder. I hope this helps. Boghog (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
- Yes that does help. I gave it try and it seems easy enough to work with my next edits. Thanks again for your quick response. AverageleveledIQ (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for May 13
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neuroepigenetics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Genetic (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.11 25 May 2018
ACTRIAL:
- WP:ACREQ has been implemented. The flow at the feed has dropped back to the levels during the trial. However, the backlog is on the rise again so please consider reviewing a few extra articles each day; a backlog approaching 5,000 is still far too high. An effort is also needed to ensure that older unsuitable older pages at the back of the queue do not get automatically indexed for Google.
Deletion tags
- Do bear in mind that articles in the feed showing the trash can icon may have been tagged by inexperienced or non NPR rights holders. They require your further verification.
Backlog drive:
- A backlog drive will take place from 10 through 20 June. Check out our talk page at WT:NPR for more details. NOTE: It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing. Despite our goal of reducing the backlog as much as possible, please do not rush while reviewing.
Editathons
- There will be a large increase in the number of editathons in June. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
Paid editing - new policy
- Now that ACTRIAL is ACREQ, please be sure to look for tell-tale signs of undisclosed paid editing. Contact the creator if appropriate, and submit the issue to WP:COIN if necessary. There is a new global WMF policy that requires paid editors to connect to their adverts.
Subject-specific notability guidelines
- The box at the right contains each of the subject-specific notability guidelines, please review any that are relevant BEFORE nominating an article for deletion.
- Reviewers are requested to familiarise themselves with the new version of the notability guidelines for organisations and companies.
Not English
- A common issue: Pages not in English or poor, unattributed machine translations should not reside in main space even if they are stubs. Please ensure you are familiar with WP:NPPNE. Check in Google for the language and content, tag as required, then move to draft if they do have potential.
News
- Development is underway by the WMF on upgrades to the New Pages Feed, in particular ORES features that will help to identify COPYVIOs, and more granular options for selecting articles to review.
- The next issue of The Signpost has been published. The newspaper is one of the best ways to stay up to date with news and new developments. between our newsletters.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
Issues
In these edits you changed:[1]
van Geffen, Wouter; Hajian, Bita; Vos, Wim; De Backer, Jan; Cahn, Anthony; Usmani, Omar; Van Holsbeke, Cedric; Pistolesi, Massimo; Kerstjens, Huib (2018-05). "Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Volume 13: 1783–1792. doi:10.2147/copd.s152463. ISSN 1178-2005. PMC 5985851. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
to
Bergamasco B, Bergamini L, Doriguzzi T, Sacerdote I (June 1966). "[The nyctohemeral cycle in coma. Prognostic possibilities]". Rivista Di Patologia Nervosa E Mentale. 87 (3): 312–8. doi:10.2147/copd.s152463. PMC 5985851.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. Accidentally used the PMC as a PMID. Should be:
- van Geffen WH, Hajian B, Vos W, De Backer J, Cahn A, Usmani OS, Van Holsbeke C, Pistolesi M, Kerstjens HA, De Backer W (2018). "Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 13: 1783–1792. doi:10.2147/COPD.S152463. PMC 5985851. PMID 29881268.
{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
- van Geffen WH, Hajian B, Vos W, De Backer J, Cahn A, Usmani OS, Van Holsbeke C, Pistolesi M, Kerstjens HA, De Backer W (2018). "Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 13: 1783–1792. doi:10.2147/COPD.S152463. PMC 5985851. PMID 29881268.
- The source was primary and I see that you have replaced it with EB200. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)
I think you have to take a look at WP:CITEVAR. I have seen you do this before and would suggest that this is not a good use of editor time. Also, see WP:BOLD. Your edit was challenged. Take it to talk instead of re-reverting. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
- Responded at Talk:TREAT-NMD. Boghog (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
NPP Backlog Elimination Drive
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
We can see the light at the end of the tunnel: there are currently 2900 unreviewed articles, and 4000 unreviewed redirects.
Announcing the Backlog Elimination Drive!
- As a final push, we have decided to run a backlog elimination drive from the 20th to the 30th of June.
- Reviewers who review at least 50 articles or redirects will receive a Special Edition NPP Barnstar:
. Those who review 100, 250, 500, or 1000 pages will also receive tiered awards: 
, 
, 
, 
. - Please do not be hasty, take your time and fully review each page. It is extremely important that we focus on quality reviewing.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 06:57, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for June 16
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Granulin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Inflammatory (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)
3 Revert Rule and Edit Waring
You are deleting factual, cited information from the Brain Balance Wikipedia page. If you continue to do so I will have to report your account.
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.
Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.
- @Sofiariv10: Per WP:3RR,
A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert.
My three consecutive edits were to different portions of the article. I could have done all this in one edit, but I split this into three edits so that the justification for each edit could be more clearly stated in the edit summary. I agree with you that the information that you added is factual, but as I have stated here, I dispute its relevance. I would appreciate if you would continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Boghog (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for July 8
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beta-2 adrenergic receptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
A cupcake for you!
|
Thanks for having a listen to my thoughts about the receptor infoboxes, your openness to discussion is really commendable :). I'm keeping abreast of the discussions and will contribute when I've got something to add. Thanks again, Tom (LT) (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC) |
And thank you for raising the issue in the first place and for your constructive feedback! Concerning readability, we can and must do better. It has been difficult to please everyone, but I am confident that we can eventually arrive at a consensus. Boghog (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
FBXW7
Hi, please stop put FBXL2 content into FBXW7. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztj0420 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)
- @Ztj0420: Hi. In the future, it would really help if you add edit summaries to all your edits, especially those where you have deleted what looks like well sourced material. Without an edit summary, it may be difficult for others to understand why you made an edit and increases the chance that you edit will be reverted. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)
Test
Does this reach you? Julia Edgar (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- Yes, I did receive an e-mail alerting me to your message. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
Talk about Myelin
@Boghog I don't know how to leave a message on my talk page - perhaps you can advise.
Regarding the opening section on 'Myelin' being too long, that's fine. I am new to Wiki and I am learning. I agree with the edits you made.
At least now the info (as far as I know) is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Edgar (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
- No worries. You are adding great material and keep up the good work! It just needs to be reorganized a bit. It is often easier to first write the body of the article and after that that is finished, write the lead. But either way is fine with me. Of course, the order in which things are done is much less important compared to the final product. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.12 30 July 2018
|
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- June backlog drive
Overall the June backlog drive was a success, reducing the last 3,000 or so to below 500. However, as expected, 90% of the patrolling was done by less than 10% of reviewers.
Since the drive closed, the backlog has begun to rise sharply again and is back up to nearly 1,400 already. Please help reduce this total and keep it from raising further by reviewing some articles each day.
- New technology, new rules
- New features are shortly going to be added to the Special:NewPagesFeed which include a list of drafts for review, OTRS flags for COPYVIO, and more granular filter preferences. More details can be found at this page.
- Probationary permissions: Now that PERM has been configured to allow expiry dates to all minor user rights, new NPR flag holders may sometimes be limited in the first instance to 6 months during which their work will be assessed for both quality and quantity of their reviews. This will allow admins to accord the right in borderline cases rather than make a flat out rejection.
- Current reviewers who have had the flag for longer than 6 months but have not used the permissions since they were granted will have the flag removed, but may still request to have it granted again in the future, subject to the same probationary period, if they wish to become an active reviewer.
- Editathons
- Editathons will continue through August. Please be gentle with new pages that obviously come from good faith participants, especially articles from developing economies and ones about female subjects. Consider using the 'move to draft' tool rather than bluntly tagging articles that may have potential but which cannot yet reside in mainspace.
- The Signpost
- The next issue of the monthly magazine will be out soon. The newspaper is an excellent way to stay up to date with news and new developments between our newsletters. If you have special messages to be published, or if you would like to submit an article (one about NPR perhaps?), don't hesitate to contact the editorial team here.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 00:00, 30 July 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for helping my students in FNH 200.
Hi Boghog, Thanks for moving content created by my students on Ginger to a draft space. As they are learning with me on how to contribute to Wikipedia, they are (so am I) are constantly making different kinds of mistakes and violating many netiquettes/rules. Thanks for moving the pages elsewhere instead of simply deleting their hardwork. JudyCChan (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)
User Chris Capoccia messing with refs
I just had an instance where CC stripped out five of 92 refs in such a way that a bot follows, restoring the ref but in a different format. As I wrote on CC's Talk, this was annoying in extreme, as for my effort to bring the article to GA status, the reviewer had asked that all journal citations be in same format. I have reversed the CC/bot edits. I see from looking back in CC's archives, that this has been a consistent (annoying) practice for many years. In fact, I quoted one of your comments from years back. Thank you for allowing me to vent here, as I did not want to be uncivil toward CC. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi David. As you have noticed from my comments on CC's talk page, I too have been irritated by CC changing author formats. His behavior has improved since he used to do whole sale changes. He is now more selective, but at the same time, he still is often moving away from the previously established citation format. Not sure I can do much more other than follow-up edits. Boghog (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
Compound highlighting for Estrogen and Estrogen (medication) in {{Estradiol metabolism}}
I don't feel like posting this at Talk:Estrogen since it'd inevitably resurrect an old discussion (Talk:Estrogen#WP:Lead_sentence), so I'm just going to ask you.
Do you think this template's compound highlighting in these articles (view the diagram in Estrogen#Metabolism and Estrogen (medication)#Pharmacokinetics) is appropriate/accurate? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Until I worked on this template, I literally thought "estrogen" was a unique chemical – analogous to testosterone – so I really need feedback on this. lol Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: The definition of estrogen depends on its context. A chemist might define a estrogen as a class of steroids related to and including 17-beta-estradiol. An endocrinologist might define estrogen as 17-beta-estradiol and its active metabolites. An environmentalist might define an estrogen as any substance that binds to the estrogen receptor. In the context of your metabolism graphic, you are linking to estradiol and not estrogen so I do not see any problems with ambiguity. If one nit picks, one might link to 17-beta-estradiol instead of estradiol. However estradiol generally mean 17-beta-estradiol. So I think your labels are fine in their present state.
- I do have two more general comments. The arrows are a little too bold for my taste. I have revised the File:Estradiol metabolism structures.svg to include arrows and to match the order of structures in your present graphic. Also I think the graphic is too large and overwhelms articles it is placed in. This graphic can easily be scaled to 80% of its present size and still be readable. I have started to work on a scaled version in my sandbox to give you an idea what it would look like. Please note that I have simplified the captions by removing the linked term isozymes (that is explained in the linked artilce) and one of the 17-beta-HSD captions from the double sided arrow (it is assumed that the enzyme catalyzes the reaction in both directions). Boghog (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Medgirl also thought removing the term "isoforms" was appropriate, so I ended up doing that (and removing the highlighting). I can look into converting this to a smaller diagram sometime in the next week, although I'd need her feedback on that as well. Most of my diagrams have been 600px wide due to mobile browser widths. Even so,
{{AI4}}is designed to be scrollable when the image renders on a page with a viewing width that's smaller than the image width (e.g., open Template:Metabolic metro on your phone). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)- @Seppi333: Take a look at my sandbox where I have already rescaled the figure. My main concern is about the desktop view. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. I'd still have to tinker around with the image before adopting it (I'd still to get Medgirl's input). A 11px font is fine only for very minor explanatory text in an image IMO; it's way too small to use as a font-size for most of the text since that text size is very small and is particularly hard to read on wide, high-resolution desktop monitors/laptop screens (e.g., my screen).
- This is 11 px font.
- This is the smallest font-size I've ever used in an annotated image. (font-size:12px)
- This is the regular font-size for wikitext. (font-size:100%)
- This is the font-size I'd normally use to annotate text in an annotated image. (font-size:14px)
- I'll tinker around with the image soon to see what I can do to shrink it; in the meantime, I should probably point out that {{Estradiol metabolism}} need not be transcluded with centered alignment. If you think it's more appropriate to right-align the image in a section so that it takes up less article real estate, feel free to adjust it accordingly (
{{Estradiol metabolism|align=right|header=XYZ}}). Also, I can reduce the arrow width easily enough since the start and end coordinates remain the same when the arrow width setting is changed in Inkscape. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)- @Seppi333: Why not just use the version in my sandbox? Or at the very least, the new version of the svg file? To me, a far bigger problem is the overall size of the graphic. One can easily increase the size of the graphic in the browser if the font is too small. The overwhelming size of the graphic is a problem regardless of the magnification. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- It would take me less time to adjust the line sizes in the original image, put all of the annotation coordinates in the current version in an Excel spreadsheet, scale them by the ratio that I shrink the diagram by, and change them simultaneously when I reupload the diagram (~10-15 minutes) than to resize and adjust the coordinates of the annotations in your sandbox diagram since I have to annotate Wikitext by trial and error (i.e., make a guess, hit "Show preview", adjust it, preview it again, and repeat this over and over again until I get it right). I also need Medgirl's input on using a smaller diagram before doing this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: Why not just use the version in my sandbox? Or at the very least, the new version of the svg file? To me, a far bigger problem is the overall size of the graphic. One can easily increase the size of the graphic in the browser if the font is too small. The overwhelming size of the graphic is a problem regardless of the magnification. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Ah. I'd still have to tinker around with the image before adopting it (I'd still to get Medgirl's input). A 11px font is fine only for very minor explanatory text in an image IMO; it's way too small to use as a font-size for most of the text since that text size is very small and is particularly hard to read on wide, high-resolution desktop monitors/laptop screens (e.g., my screen).
- @Seppi333: Take a look at my sandbox where I have already rescaled the figure. My main concern is about the desktop view. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback. Medgirl also thought removing the term "isoforms" was appropriate, so I ended up doing that (and removing the highlighting). I can look into converting this to a smaller diagram sometime in the next week, although I'd need her feedback on that as well. Most of my diagrams have been 600px wide due to mobile browser widths. Even so,
Lol. I agree with you on that, but both the current diagram and sandbox diagram have faults. So long as you both agree on a change, I'll go ahead and do it; I'd rather not put myself in a position where I have to go back and forth making changes that I end up reverting. I've already spent over 12 hours working on this diagram during the past week. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
In any event, I emailed her about shrinking it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
- @Seppi333: Wikipedia runs by open consensus, not private e-mails. I have also spent considerable amount of time on the sandbox version. The the arrows, especially the double sided arrows are cleaner and better proportioned than the current live version and is a better starting point. Finally I am more than willing to edit the sandbox version if necessary. Boghog (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- I'm ok with using the sandbox version as long as the enzyme font-size is changed to 12px, the compound annotations are changed to 13px, the annotation positions are repositioned closer to the lines (especially the bottom 17β-HSD annotation), and the lines in the top-left and bottom-right are extended so that the association between the substrate and the product is clearer (e.g., the gaps between the compounds and the line in the bottom-right are rather excessive). I found it annoyingly difficult to click the annotations in the sandbox diagram when I was viewing it on my phone, so an 11px font-size for linked annotations is not just a readability issue; it makes the diagram less accessible on mobile devices.
- That said, if your only concern with the template is the line width and the diagram width/height, adjusting those will not take me very long to do. I don't particularly care whether the diagram in your sandbox is used (provided the aforementioned adjustments are made) or the current template is used (again, provided that the adjustments to the lines or lines+size are made). I just don't want to spend time doing something that I end up reverting given how much time I've already spent on it. I've already reverted about an hour of work on the image file and template, so waiting for feedback seems prudent. Honestly, I don't know how Medgirl will feel about it because the original png image file was included in these articles as a collapsed 650px-wide image. I'm assuming that you don't consider this to be an urgent issue (mainly because amphetamine and HMB both contain annotated images with comparable widths/heights), so why not wait for further input? I'm not opposed to doing what you're asking; I'm opposed to doing more work that I might end up reverting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
- OK, thanks. I have increased the font sizes to 12 and 13px. With all due respect to Medgirl, it is not entirely her decision. The difference between the present annotated figure and the figures contained in amphetamine and HMB is that those later two articles are much larger than many of the stubs (e.g., Estrone sulfate) that the metabolism figure is inserted into. Boghog (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)
MST "spammy references"
Hi there,
thanks for having a look at the MST article. However, I have to disagree about the citations labeled by you as "spammy". The citations I added link to applications notes provided by that company, which are well-suited references for the kinds of applications listed on the MST "Applications" section. So I see no reason why they should be removed.
Best!
- Hi. Thanks for your message. For scientific and biomedical articles (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS respectively), Wikipedia generally prefers published sources that have been peer reviewed and more preferably, secondary sources (i.e., review aticles). The sources that you have provided have not been peer reviewed, so we have no independent evaluation of their reliability and notability. These sources might be acceptable if no published source were available, but in this case, there have been a number of papers, including review articles, that have been published on the applications of MST. I have added several sources that meet the requirements of SCIRS. Boghog (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)
Question on CRISPR/CAS9
Hello, I noticed you removed C. albicans from the list with organisms that have been edited in vivo. How come? Just curious to know what the reason is. Also: for one of the organisms there is no reference anymore now. Not sure you deleted it by accident or it was not there from the start. (talking about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR) Garnhami (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. The reason for my edit was explained in my edit summary. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (review articles). All of the sources that I removed were primary. All of the sources that I added are secondary. I have re-added C. albicans, but this time supported by a secondary source. I have also added a source for C. elegans (Ma_2015 covers most of the organisms including C. elegans). When CRISPR was just getting started, the list of model organisms where it was applied was short. This is no longer true. In yeasts alone it has been applied to Yarrowia lipolytica, Pichia pastoris syn. Komagataella phaffii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Candida albicans and C. glabrata (Raschmanová_2018). The total list of model organisms where CRISPR has been applied is become very long which decreases the notability for any one example. Boghog (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)
In this edit, you changed the word "Jamaica" to "JAMAica". If you're using a script to do these edits or something along those lines, you should probably adjust it so it only capitalizes JAMA when it's a stand-alone word. -Apocheir (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
- Sorry about that. I have changed my regular expression from "Jama" to "\bJama\b" so that it will now only match whole words. Boghog (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.13 18 September 2018
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
The New Page Feed currently has 2700 unreviewed articles, up from just 500 at the start of July. For a while we were falling behind by an average of about 40 articles per day, but we have stabilised more recently. Please review some articles from the back of the queue if you can (Sort by: 'Oldest' at Special:NewPagesFeed), as we are very close to having articles older than one month.
- Project news
- The New Page Feed now has a new "Articles for Creation" option which will show drafts instead of articles in the feed, this shouldn't impact NPP activities and is part of the WMF's AfC Improvement Project.
- As part of this project, the feed will have some larger updates to functionality next month. Specifically, ORES predictions will be built in, which will automatically flag articles for potential issues such as vandalism or spam. Copyright violation detection will also be added to the new page feed. See the projects's talk page for more info.
- There are a number of coordination tasks for New Page Patrol that could use some help from experienced reviewers. See Wikipedia:New pages patrol/Coordination#Coordinator tasks for more info to see if you can help out.
- Other
- A new summary page of reliable sources has been created; Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources/Perennial sources, which summarizes existing RfCs or RSN discussions about regularly used sources.
- Moving to Draft and Page Mover
- Some unsuitable new articles can be best reviewed by moving them to the draft space, but reviewers need to do this carefully and sparingly. It is most useful for topics that look like they might have promise, but where the article as written would be unlikely to survive AfD. If the article can be easily fixed, or if the only issue is a lack of sourcing that is easily accessible, tagging or adding sources yourself is preferable. If sources do not appear to be available and the topic does not appear to be notable, tagging for deletion is preferable (PROD/AfD/CSD as appropriate). See additional guidance at WP:DRAFTIFY.
- If the user moves the draft back to mainspace, or recreates it in mainspace, please do not re-draftify the article (although swapping it to maintain the page history may be advisable in the case of copy-paste moves). AfC is optional except for editors with a clear conflict of interest.
- Articles that have been created in contravention of our paid-editing-requirements or written from a blatant NPOV perspective, or by authors with a clear COI might also be draftified at discretion.
- The best tool for draftification is User:Evad37/MoveToDraft.js(info). Kindly adapt the text in the dialogue-pop-up as necessary (the default can also be changed like this). Note that if you do not have the Page Mover userright, the redirect from main will be automatically tagged as CSD R2, but in some cases it might be better to make this a redirect to a different page instead.
- The Page Mover userright can be useful for New Page Reviewers; occasionally page swapping is needed during NPR activities, and it helps avoid excessive R2 nominations which must be processed by admins. Note that the Page Mover userright has higher requirements than the NPR userright, and is generally given to users active at Requested Moves. Only reviewers who are very experienced and are also very active reviewers are likely to be granted it solely for NPP activities.
List of other useful scripts for New Page Reviewing
|
|---|
|
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:11, 17 September 2018 (UTC)
Concerns about an editor
Outside my area of expertise, but the editor Ketoacids appears to be exceptionally BOLD in editing carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, and more recently heme oxygenase. I had some interactions on the first topic because parts were being inserted into nutrient articles, but let it drop. Since August the heme oxygenase article has been increased nearly 5X in length, with a lot of the content apparently copied over from the editor's additions to the carbon monoxide article. (There is a "See also" to the carbon monoxide-releasing molecules article.) I saw that you have been a past editor on both articles, so thought to bring it to your attention. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks for your note. Also somewhat outside my area of expertise. In addition to the WP:PRIMARY concerns that you have already flagged, it appears that much of the material that has been added to the heme oxygenase is somewhat off topic. Hence some trimming is in order. I will take a closer look over the weekend. Boghog (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ketoacids decided to delete ALL content in the two articles since first having started to edit back in August. Reverted by another editor. That, reverted by Ketoacids. THAT, reverted by me. My suggestion in my reverts was that the articles in question could instead be improved by selective editing, but Ketoacids appears to think of these as owned, and hence feelings hurt that anyone else ("trolls") would deign to edit the articles. I would not have started to wack at the two articles in the first place except that Ketoacid's User page - since blanked - had mentioned a list of other articles as a "to-do" list. Oh, well. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently we have lost a knowledgable editor which is a shame. By my count, about 40% of the source in Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules are secondary. So I agree with you, there is no reason to nuke all of Ketoacids additions. I will try to find appropriate review articles to replace the primary sources and adjust the text accordingly, but this will take some time. Boghog (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Have at it. I am returning to my comfort zone (nutrients, dietary supplements, food allergies...). David notMD (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Apparently we have lost a knowledgable editor which is a shame. By my count, about 40% of the source in Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules are secondary. So I agree with you, there is no reason to nuke all of Ketoacids additions. I will try to find appropriate review articles to replace the primary sources and adjust the text accordingly, but this will take some time. Boghog (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)
- Ketoacids decided to delete ALL content in the two articles since first having started to edit back in August. Reverted by another editor. That, reverted by Ketoacids. THAT, reverted by me. My suggestion in my reverts was that the articles in question could instead be improved by selective editing, but Ketoacids appears to think of these as owned, and hence feelings hurt that anyone else ("trolls") would deign to edit the articles. I would not have started to wack at the two articles in the first place except that Ketoacid's User page - since blanked - had mentioned a list of other articles as a "to-do" list. Oh, well. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)
Derpablonachos as an editor appears to have been created only to delete large amounts of this article and from Heme oxygenase, which led me to believe it was a second account opened by Ketoacids, or perhaps a friend of. Anyway, I restored the references that were cut from Heme oxygenase, as they looked to be appropriate. You did a reversal of cuts for Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, but then reversed the reversal. Is the article really better for the massive cuts? Were any worth a second third look? David notMD (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
- Concerning Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, Ketoacids and myself were involved in an edit conflict. I had categorized the sources as primary and secondary and had started to look for replacement sources when Ketoacids made a massive edit to remove material not supported by secondary sources. I was having difficulty locating appropriate secondary sources and also realized the text would need to be extensively rewritten. In short, this would entail an enormous amount of work in an area that I am not very familiar with, so I gave up. I will go back again, and see if I can salvage any of the material. Boghog (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
Useless citation behind a password
Can I get your opinion? I see that you have removed a citation from an article (don't remember which one, toxic effects of local anesthesia maybe?) and I want to learn from your example. I have cited a reference to online content that is only accessible through a paid subscription (ISACA, Screened subnet. In the reference citation I included a quote from the source.
- If I am citing content that must be paid to access (magazine, book, web) does that always devalue the reference?
- If I quote the cited source does that make the reference more valuable?
If you like, will you send me a notification or bump on my talk page so I will see your response? This is important to me because in the information security domain I often have to rely on authoritative standards that are not free. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)
- Hi. Thanks for your message. The issue with the citation is not that is non-free, but rather it contained no bibliographic information that would enable anyone outside of the University of Dundee to identify the original source. Through a Google search of for the partial DOI in the link that you added (sj.bdj.2014.546), I was able to find the original source. I then added the full source in this edit. While the article is non-free, at least full bibliographic information is now provide with links to the abstract which is free. The ideal sources are free and therefore preferred, but often times best available sources to support a given statement are non-free and are certainly acceptable to cite. Boghog (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.14 21 October 2018
|
Hello Boghog, thank you for your work reviewing New Pages!
- Backlog
As of 21 October 2018[update], there are 3650 unreviewed articles and the backlog now stretches back 51 days.
- Community Wishlist Proposal
- There is currently an ongoing discussion regarding the drafting of a Community Wishlist Proposal for the purpose of requesting bug fixes and missing/useful features to be added to the New Page Feed and Curation Toolbar.
- Please join the conversation as we only have until 29 October to draft this proposal!
- Project updates
- ORES predictions are now built-in to the feed. These automatically predict the class of an article as well as whether it may be spam, vandalism, or an attack page, and can be filtered by these criteria now allowing reviewers to better target articles that they prefer to review.
- There are now tools being tested to automatically detect copyright violations in the feed. This detector may not be accurate all the time, though, so it shouldn't be relied on 100% and will only start working on new revisions to pages, not older pages in the backlog.
- New scripts
- User:Enterprisey/cv-revdel.js(info) — A new script created for quickly placing {{copyvio-revdel}} on a page.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here) 20:49, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Question
[2] - what do you think? My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
Author format in established articles
Hi Boghog, please do not attempt to change the author format in established articles, that is contrary to the MoS, which states directly:
- The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."
There is no mandate to change author format from Doe, John (or Doe, J. R.) to Vauthor-style Doe JR as you have done in several cases that I've seen, and probably many others. The MoS states of such action:
- Optional styles should not be "enforced" in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus – doing so will likely be seen as disruptive.
I would be grateful if you could take note of this policy and desist from any further attempts to enforce Vauthor format. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- This is a bit like calling the kettle black. In any case, I apologize for Hymenoptera. In the vast majority of articles where I tweak the author style, Vancouver style was the originally established style, so my edits are compliant with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
- One day I went to the local park with my dog and right there at the entrance was the biggest pile of steaming excrement . Action needed to be taken to avoid the inevitable and as I had plenty of dog poop bags, I tied my dog to the railings and got down on my hands and knees and started cleaning up the mess. Just as I was finishing up, a woman arrived with her children and exclaimed loudly “watch out children, this stupid man has let his dog shit in front of the gate”
A lesson in assuming good faith methinks. I am convinced by the vanc rationale so keep up the good work Boghog, I believe you are doing a great job! CV9933 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.15 16 November 2018
Chart of the New Pages Patrol backlog for the past 6 months. |
Hello Boghog,
- Community Wishlist Survey – NPP needs you – Vote NOW
- Community Wishlist Voting takes place 16 to 30 November for the Page Curation and New Pages Feed improvements, and other software requests. The NPP community is hoping for a good turnout in support of the requests to Santa for the tools we need. This is very important as we have been asking the Foundation for these upgrades for 4 years.
- If this proposal does not make it into the top ten, it is likely that the tools will be given no support at all for the foreseeable future. So please put in a vote today.
- We are counting on significant support not only from our own ranks, but from everyone who is concerned with maintaining a Wikipedia that is free of vandalism, promotion, flagrant financial exploitation and other pollution.
- With all 650 reviewers voting for these urgently needed improvements, our requests would be unlikely to fail. See also The Signpost Special report: 'NPP: This could be heaven or this could be hell for new users – and for the reviewers', and if you are not sure what the wish list is all about, take a sneak peek at an article in this month's upcoming issue of The Signpost which unfortunately due to staff holidays and an impending US holiday will probably not be published until after voting has closed.
Go here to remove your name if you wish to opt-out of future mailings. — Insertcleverphrasehere (or here)18:37, 16 November 2018 (UTC)
edditing the FGFR3 GENE page
@Boghog: For the page FGFR3 we are currently doing a project worth half of our credit for our genetic's class, about the gene and its functions on the human body. We have submitted the project to the teacher and the website wikiedu and both have been approved to be worked on. We have also submitted the work to a plagiarism check and its came back okay.I understand that you have a problem with the fact the we are adding disease causing traits with the FGFR3 gene but that is the agreed upon topic for me and my class mates and each of us has a specific disease we have to work on.The project itself is due in less than 24 hours so I would be very grateful if you could leave the text alone until it is approved by my professor. Brandon westmoreland (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 18
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somatostatin receptor 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
Twinkle protein
Hey boghog, me and my group for class were assigned an article to edit and you keep making adjustments and deleting our work that needs to be graded. For the sake of my group could you hold off on editing for a week so we can get our grades. It’s the twinkle protein article. Eda2y (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)
- @Eda2y: Sorry, but much of the material that you and your class mates have added is essay-like and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Your version the article is in the history. Please refer your instructor to this link. Boghog (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
ArbCom 2018 election voter message
Hello, Boghog. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks so much!
|
The Hard Worker's Barnstar |
| I have seen you laboring and laboring to clean up as kindly as you could after the genetics classes. Thank you so much for that work! It is frustrating as hell i know. Please know that I (and am sure others) appreciate your time and effort. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC) |
- Thanks, but the credit really should go to you for taking the bull by the horns and decisively resolving this issue. Thank you for getting the class back on the rails! Boghog (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)
Nomination for deletion of Template:You are here
Template:You are here has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)
Disambiguation link notification for November 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Dermatopontin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Stroma (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).
(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)
NPR Newsletter No.16 15 December 2018
Hello Boghog,
- Reviewer of the Year
This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.
- Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.
See also the list of top 100 reviewers.
- Less good news, and an appeal for some help
The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.
- Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019
At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.
- Training video
Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)