User_talk:GSK

Home • Talk • Edits • Awards • Aliases • CSD • PROD

Click here to leave me a message

Can we tell people about this color black rat?

https://www.petroofrats.com/2023/11/25/bondie-our-beautiful-blonde-roof-rat-has-babies/

I breed Rattus rattus, actually have this rat and have bred her. I mean, we could keep it a secret, but not sure why we'd want to? Brianjstarr (talk) 15:40, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Using your own website constitutes as original research. It's not about keeping it a secret, it's about providing reliable third-party sources for the information you add. -- GSK (talk • edits) 17:29, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

But it's still a fact that the rat exists. How do you suggest we report that fact without using photos and videos of the actual rat? Brianjstarr (talk) 14:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

To be clear, it is of scientific interest that Rattus rattus exist with that color. I have searched the literature, and haven't found any mention of research being done on living examples. Rat hair color is a scientifically interesting topic, as it is often not just a case of an enzyme being switched off: migration of melanocytes within the developing embryo, as well as melanin within the melanocytes, themselves, are often involved. And this interacts with the neurological development and energy production of the animals. In addition, as melanin is also a neurological signaling hormone (and because of the migration of myelocytes), color can impact behavior.

Norway rat color has been extensively studied. But Rattus rattus color has not. In past because we don't have many individuals with atypical coloration. The existence of a healthy individual, capable of reproduction, with atypical color is of scientific value. There's no telling what we may learn by being able to compare the impact of color genetics on Norway Rats and a closely related species. We should be given that opportunity.

Characterizing this as "self-promotion" is inaccurate. I don't make any money from breeding these roof rats. I don't charge for them, and I don't profit from anything related to them. It's all purely self-funded and an expense for me and my family. I happily gift them to anyone that wants them as pets or to study them.

My day job is in the pharmaceutical field, and I have an interest in the advancement of science and medicine, so I do have an interest in wanting to make the world aware of things about Rattus rattus that might benefit that. But not for personal benefit to me. Just as I assume you donate your own time on Wikipages because you want to benefit mankind, generally, even if it doesn't benefit you, personally. Brianjstarr (talk) 14:39, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Your contributions are not being categorized as self-promotion. Original research on Wikipedia is "original research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists." This means that a reliable third-party source, 'that is not your own', must have published the information. As you mention that you have not found any indication of research being done on living examples, then it is my belief that you cannot add the information to the article, as it would violate Wikipedia's guidelines on original research. However, I have opened a discussion at the No original research noticeboard to solicit the help of editors who are more qualified than me to weigh in on the issue. -- GSK (talk • edits) 15:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Here from the NORN. @Brianjstarr am assuming good faith with the edit that you want to add that Rattus rattus exist with that color and it may be of scientific interest. However, according to Wikipedia's original research policy this is not the place to add/share that information. Wikipedia is built on research that has been collected and organized from reliable sources...[and] if you discover something new, Wikipedia is not the place to announce such a discovery. See WP:STICKTOSOURCE for more info.

Additionally, per WP:VERIFY content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, opinions, experiences, or unpublished original research. Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it. Some examples of reliable sources include peer-reviewed journals, mainstream newspapers, magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses. So self published material such as your own website and youtube channel are generally not acceptable as reliable sources. Hoping this helps clarify GSK's concerns and would encourage you to check out some of Wikipedia's core policies that guide editing. Eucalyptusmint (talk) 16:07, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, sounds good. I guess if people want to know about this Rattus rattus with this color, they can Google it and find my website or YouTube, instead. Brianjstarr (talk) 16:11, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Good news!

Takashi Kuramoto, the researcher that "identified a mutation in the Rab38 gene, causative gene of the Ruby-eyed dilution" has asked me to send him some hair samples (with follicles) of my blonde rattus rattus for genetic testing, as he believes she might have the same mutation.

Additionally, Wendy Demos, who "organize(s) the desktop calendar that the Rat Genome Database creates each year", has requested permission to use her photo for the 2025 calendar. Here is a link to the 2024 calendar: https://rgd.mcw.edu/wg/2024-calendar/

And Brett Gibson, Professor of Psychology at the University of New Hampshire is also interested in obtaining some rats with and without the mutation for behavioral research, as color mutations often affect rat behavior.

If you are interested in contacting these people, I can provide their contact info.

So...at some point, I will be able to state on Wikipedia that Rattus rattus ("black" or "roof" rats) really do exist in that color.

Will the publication of her photo in the 2025 Rat Genome be sufficient, or do I need to wait until Takashi and I publish the results of her genetic testing? Or, perhaps when University of New Hampshire publishes something about this on their website?

I'm sorry if I seem to be obsessed by this, but researching rat genetics is important. That's why Takashi and Wendy are both interested in my rat. The Rab38 gene is implicated in human disease states. So, there is a valid scientific reason why we should tell people that Rattus rattus with this mutation exist.

I've reached out several researchers that I know might be interested, but there are potentially many others out there that would be interested if they knew about these rats. Wikipedia is the world's reference. It's reach is far more than I can achieve on my own. I really look forward to the day when this fact can be published there, so that more people can learn about it. Brianjstarr (talk) 15:37, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

My intentions with the article were simply to follow Wikipedia policies. I have absolutely no interest in editing Black rat beyond following policy, nor am I interested in contacting people about it. I make policy-centric edits to hundreds, if not thousands, of articles. This does not mean I am interested in all of them enough to continue editing them. -- GSK (talk • edits) 15:41, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

I didn't expect that you would edit this article. But I would be curious to know if there are subject experts that curate these articles? Some topics are probably not fully understood by laymen and do require the attention of subject matter experts. Brianjstarr (talk) 15:52, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

And, by the way, I would consider myself to be a subject matter expert. Just saying. :-) Brianjstarr (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Try WP:RODENT. -- GSK (talk • edits) 16:05, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Maybe I'll wait until one of those folks publishes something before following up on this with Wikipedia. I don't feel like getting taken down again. :-) Brianjstarr (talk) 17:21, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Regarding GabrielPenn4223

I think I should stop by and say that I take a little bit of credit for this wave of disruptive editing. I mentioned my essay on making mistakes early on to them after getting scolded about good article nominating. However, they took this advice in the wrong direction; although I imply that mistakes happen and you shouldn't beat yourself up over them, they seemed to have taken this as "everyone makes mistakes, so therefore mistakes don't matter". Hence, why they frequently mentioned "we all make mistakes" in their messages, and User:GabrielPenn4223/We All Are Not Perfect.

Although the essay was misinterpreted, I'm not to sure how it even was, and I don't plan on making changes to it. I bet this was just a one-off occurrence. Pinging AirshipJungleman29 to see this, who was active in the ANI discussion. Panini! • 🥪 21:59, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

It's fine. It sounds harsh, but I don't believe the user was mature enough to contribute to WP. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:01, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree with AirshipJungleman29. No worries. I don't fault you for GabrielPenn4223's mistakes. GSK (talk • edits) 22:54, 14 February 2024 (UTC)