Jump to content

User talk:Boghog/Archive 14

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16→Archive 18

Tool

Greetings Boghog. I just went to the tool of yours hosted by tools.wmflabs.org at [1] (this is the link I found at the bottom of this list), but it's currently down, and I didn't know if this was a routine maintenance issue or something else. Best wishes. Biosthmors (talk) 16:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

@Biosthmors:. Thanks for letting me know the tool was down. I have restarted it and it now appears to be functioning again. I have no idea why it went down. The tool server has been rock solid and it is very rare when I have to restart the tool service. This was one of those rare times. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:57, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Edit

Did you also mean to roll back all my changes? [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:31, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, working on restoring your edits. Boghog (talk) 12:32, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
Okay thanks :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:34, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

citation format

Hi - I see you made a change to the citation I put in... I just want to understand what you did so that I can do this correctly in the future. Thanks -J — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mahrjeff (talk • contribs) 14:38, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Mahrjeff:. Thank you for your contributions. I only tweaked the citation format in your edit so that is consist with the previously established citation style for the article. More specifically, the |url= parameter duplicated the |doi=0.1101/2020.01.22.915660 parameter, so I deleted the former. I also added the |name-list-format=vanc parameter so that the author format matched the previously established author style. I hope this makes sense. One reservation about the biorxiv citation is that is a preprint that has not passed peer review. Hence it may not qualify as a reliable source. Boghog (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2020 (UTC)

New Page Reviewer newsletter February 2020

Hello Boghog,

Source Guide Discussion

The first NPP source guide discussion is now underway. It covers a wide range of sources in Ghana with the goal of providing more guidance to reviewers about sources they might see when reviewing pages. Hopefully, new page reviewers will join others interested in reliable sources and those with expertise in these sources to make the discussion a success.

Redirects

New to NPP? Looking to try something a little different? Consider patrolling some redirects. Redirects are relatively easy to review, can be found easily through the New Pages Feed. You can find more information about how to patrol redirects at WP:RPATROL.

Discussions and Resources
Refresher

Geographic regions, areas and places generally do not need general notability guideline type sourcing. When evaluating whether an article meets this notability guideline please also consider whether it might actually be a form of WP:SPAM for a development project (e.g. PR for a large luxury residential development) and not actually covered by the guideline.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 7095 Low – 4991 High – 7095

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

16:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Biological dark matter

Hi. I have seen you corrected some citation formats in the article Biological dark matter in 2019. I found 2 additional sources that discuss a research on uncategorized genetic material found in human guts which probably derives from some unidentified microbial dark matter: https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22830474-800-mystery-microbes-in-our-gut-could-be-a-whole-new-form-of-life/ (newscientist.com) and https://biologydirect.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13062-015-0092-3 (Biology Direct). I think they should be added to the article. Could you help me prepare the proper citations, please? Thanks a lot! Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:30, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pinoczet: The New Scientist piece refers to the Biomedcentral article, so I merged the two as follows:
  • Lopez P, Halary S, Bapteste E (October 2015). "Highly divergent ancient gene families in metagenomic samples are compatible with additional divisions of life". Biology Direct. 10: 64. doi:10.1186/s13062-015-0092-3. PMC 4624368. PMID 26502935. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |lay-date= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-source= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |lay-url= ignored (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)
Per WP:SCIRS, this source is not ideal since it is primary. I have searched for a review that covers the same material, but unfortunately I cannot find one. Therefore I think this primary source is OK to use as long as the text that you add reflects the caution that the authors used in their conclusions (hinting at the possibility). Boghog (talk) 02:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much. By the way, if you find some time, could you take a look at the section I added, please? I mean especially correcting grammar (e.g. verb tenses choice), spelling, and punctuation, awkward wording, citation format etc. Thanks! Have a nice day, --Pinoczet (talk) 11:45, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

HSP27 protein

Hi, The part I removed was discussing HSP72 not the molecule of interest HSP27. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ishakamir (talk • contribs) 20:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the explanation. I have self-reverted. Just a friendly suggestion: when deleting, add a short explanation for your edits. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:21, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

about CYP305M2

Could you help create this entry? This is very important for the locust disaster.Wei, Jianing; Shao, Wenbo; Cao, Minmin; Ge, Jin; Yang, Pengcheng; Chen, Li; Wang, Xianhui; Kang, Le (23 January 2019). "Phenylacetonitrile in locusts facilitates an antipredator defense by acting as an olfactory aposematic signal and cyanide precursor". Science Advances. 5 (1): eaav5495. doi:10.1126/sciadv.aav5495.--Htmlzycq (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Htmlzycq:. I just created CYP305M2. I could not find much in the way of identifiers beyond what is contained here. Boghog (talk) 11:07, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Could you get the file "Fig. 5 Model of the biosynthesis of PAN and HCN from phenylalanine" from this OA article, I don't know how to comply with the copyright policy.

BTW, why did Cytochrome P450 aromatic O-demethylase gcoA gene have no its own CYP Symbol?--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Your welcome. The figures of Wei, et al. (2019) are under a CC BY-NC license and hence cannot be used by Wikipedia. According to Mallinson et al. (2018), the gcoA enzyme belongs to the CYP255A family but for reasons unknown to me, they did not assign a CYP number to this protein. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:47, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh, CC BY-NC, I see. That's why. Besides, is there any other CYPs in enwiki not included in this template{{Cytochrome P450}}?--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:20, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope this template can be similar to {{Clusters of differentiation}}, listed by serial number, easy to access. The other template {{Dioxygenases}} is classified by structure, or coenzyme, or mito clan CYPs, to facilitate the establishment of a complete understanding.--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:24, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
There may be a few cyp articles that are missing in the navbox, but based on a quick search (CYP search), it appears that a high percentage of them are included. Boghog (talk) 14:22, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Rucaparib, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page BRCA (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) 13:38, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

About citations in Cystic Fibrosis

Dear Boghog,

Please, next time that you will change the citation style on a page, look at the edit history of that page. It is possible that somebody is already working on it to make the citation style better. As for your edit comment about it being inconsistent... Well yes, it was, as I was currently working on it and as it can be time consuming to check >150 individual citations, I tend to do it in parts. It was said in the edit comments that the actual state of citations is a work in progress. Therefore, thanks for more work. :]

As for why I am choosing this style of citation... The page has a long list of citations, which is good, but can also be less readable. Therefore I propose a cleaner citation style:

  • Use "vancouver style author list" instead of individual "first/last name" fields. Shrinks the page file without any loss of data.
  • Use "display authors/editors" = 3 for long lists of authors. It saves a lot of space. It is a common practice to do so in many journals and publications. One even I got scolded by a reviewer when my citations did not skim the author list by using "etal". Also, the addition of doi/pmid links completely secures the fact that no author is ommited even if they are not listed, as one can easily lookup the data via those links.
  • There is no need for month or day in "source date" of journal citations. I personally never saw a citation style using them in any journal. The volume and issue are more important for journals. Day and month are signifficant only for fast paced publications, such as news articles, web pages, blogs, magazines, and newspapers.
  • If it is signifficant to put a date with day and month, please use the Day Month Year notation, e.g. 3 Dec 2020. This way it is clear and short at th same time. Using only numbers is many times unclear, as some people use DD-MM-YYYY and others MM-DD-YYYY, which leeds to dates like 06-02-2020 to be ambigous.
  • If there is a wiki page for a journal, please use its ISO4 abbreviation as a link to said page. This also removes the need for adding ISSN numbers.

If there are indications why my proposed style of citation is not sufficient, please do tell me. I would like to evade a situation where we are both correcting each other only because we have different oppinions on citation styles.

Waiting for your input,
Light Code (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Light Code: Thanks for your message. Concerning the Vancouver system, I completely agree with you. If you look at my edits, I converted |first1=, |last1=, ... to |vauthors= or added |name-list-format=vanc to the few citations that did not already follow Vancouver style authors. Concerning number of displayed authors, I replaced |display-authors=3 with |display-authors=6 as the later is the Vancouver standard. I don't have any strong opinions on including month in |date=. These can be removed if you prefer. I always use ISO 8601 compliant dates, and in fact {{cite journal}} insists on them and will generate an error message if not compliant. Finally, I have consistently replaced journal abbreviations with full journal names since that is what most editors/readers seem to prefer. Boghog (talk) 18:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Boghog: Thank you for your opinion and for the link. 6 authors it is then. I will think about the dates when I will have more time for more citation edits. To be honest, the most important thing was to rebuild lost citations. You know, it would be really nice if the citation styles were done differently, so the citation style would be declared once for the whole document, and the citations themselves would only use that declaration. This would ensure that a page would heve consistent formatting even if it was edited by many different people. But that is outside of our scope, sadly.
Once again, thanks for info and have a nice day.
Light Code (talk) 15:16, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

thanks / question

Hi Boghog, thanks for your improvements to Androgen-binding protein. It looks so much better now. The reFill tool has been broken for a while, do you know if there is a good alternative available? Thanks! Dr. Vogel (talk) 13:25, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@DrVogel: Thanks for you note. The tool I have been using is the Diberri Template builder. I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:37, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
The 2019 Cure Award
In 2019 you were one of the top ~300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med 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 thematic organization 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 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

I just came here to say essentially the same thing, based on a shout-out for your work that I came across in this paper: Thus, special thanks for your contributions to protein-related articles! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:50, 12 March 2020 (UTC)
Hear hear! Paul (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Thanks guys for the link and acknowledgements. I had no idea that I was mentioned in the paper. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:12, 13 March 2020 (UTC)
Yeah... you've definitely contributed a lot to Wikipedia. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 23:02, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about the citations

I didn’t realize that |vauthors was preferred over |name-list-format=vanc. Do you know of a tool that can create Vancouver style citations automatically? I’ve been using Citation Bot, but that just spits out the default citation style.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 16:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. Per WP:CITEVAR, if there is a predominate pre-existing style, that style should be preserved. If |vauthors= predominate style, Diberri Template builder can be used to create new cites in that format. If there are many authors, storing the author information in first1, last1, ... parameters produces enormous templates that start to overwhelm the wiki text. |vauthors= is much more efficient. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

section heads

It appears that your consistent citation formatting script is inconsistent with changes to spaces in section headers. Spaces were added to References and External links but not to the other section headers. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Prazosin&diff=next&oldid=945715418 Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)

About CYP51

I think the Sterol 14-demethylase shuold not redirect to Lanosterol 14 alpha-demethylase, because the latter is a subset of the former. At least five steroids can be catalyzed by CYP51 family enzymes, these sterols here inculd lanosterol, 24,25-dihydrolanosterol, 29-norlanosterol, obtusifoliol and 24-methylenedihydrolanosterol.PMCID: PMC2324071 --Htmlzycq (talk) 15:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

although human CYP51A1 can catalyze five substrates, under physiological conditions, only lanosterol be the substrate.--Htmlzycq (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@Htmlzycq: My general rule of thumb is is there is a one-to-one correspondence between EC number and human gene as defined by ExPASy, then the human gene and EC page should probably be merged. That seems to be the case here. That said, if you want to reverse this redirect, I would not object. The number of infoboxes in Lanosterol 14 alpha-demethylase is becoming a bit excessive. Boghog (talk) 18:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


OK, I think the page Sterol 14-demethylase should add more non-human message, as the note on Cytochrome P450 Homepage CYP51 nomenclature:

CYP51s were originally all called CYP51, because only one gene was found per species and they all seemed to be in this one conserved family. However, rice had many CYP51s in at least two sequence groups, so subfamilies have been designated for CYP51s. These are not the typical subfamilies, but only one subfamily is created for each major taxonomic group. CYP51A for animals, CYP51B for bacteria. CYP51C for Chromista, CYP51D for Dictyostelium, CYP51E for Euglenozoa, CYP51F for fungi. Those groups with only one CYP51 per species are all called by one name: CYP51A1 is for all animal CYP51s since they are orthologous. The same is true for CYP51B, C, D, E and F. CYP51G (green plants) and CYP51Hs (monocots only so far) have individual sequence numbers.

By the way, it seems that this website hasn't been updated for many years.--Htmlzycq (talk) 23:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)


Compare with CYP51A1 and CYP51, I think that STAR (gene) and Steroidogenic acute regulatory protein should be redirect.--Htmlzycq (talk) 03:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Re: Lumateperone

Hello, Boghog. You have new messages at Talk:Lumateperone#Numbers.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

--Gryllida (talk) 21:27, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Could you please possibly reply? I'm seeing you're currently available, and the source which I am asking about is not available for public download. Thanks Gryllida (talk) 22:54, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Replied at article talk page. Boghog (talk) 05:47, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Antiviral protein, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Recombinant (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 12:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

Articles for Creation: List of reviewers by subject notice

Hi Boghog, you are receiving this notice because you are listed as an active Articles for Creation reviewer.

Recently a list of reviewers by area of expertise was created. This notice is being sent out to alert you to the existence of that list, and to encourage you to add your name to it. If you or other reviewers come across articles in the queue where an acceptance/decline hinges on specialist knowledge, this list should serve to facilitate contact with a fellow reviewer.

To end on a positive note, the backlog has dropped below 1,500, so thanks for all of the hard work some of you have been putting into the AfC process!

Sent to all Articles for Creation reviewers as a one-time notice. To opt-out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page. Regards, Sam-2727 (talk)

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Drug pipeline

Hello Sir, and please excuse my weak English.

I have a problem i hope you give me your point of view on, Since you are an expert in the field. maybe @Seppi333: could way in too

i have translated this article Drug pipeline to Arabic under a title with the meaning: "drug-development line" and we got into a bit of a disagreement about the meaning of the terms: 1- pipeline, 2- Drug pipeline, 3- company pipeline (we don't have a word for pipeline in this meaning in Arabic). we all agree that "drug in the pipe line" means drug under development, but we disagreed about the meaning of pipeline and drug pipeline, my fellow Insists that drug pipeline only means "the set of drug candidates that a pharmaceutical company has under discovery or development..." as in the article and doesn't mean "the system for developing and producing something(a drug in this case) " as in here (the second example), but his claim Contradicts some sentences that suggest it's a system of development rather than a set of drugs, like:

  • The uncertainties lessen as a drug moves along the pipeline
  • The early stage of the pipeline needs to be refilled as drugs move up
  • How many drugs and how far they are along the product pipeline will determine

my questions are:

  • 1- is there a difference between pipeline and Drug pipeline and company pipeline.
  • 2- could pipeline mean both system of development and set of drug under development or only the second meaning.
  • 3- is my fellow right and the title should be "drug under development" or my title "drug-development line/system" is fine.

i hope my questions are clear and i'm sorry if this is too long and thanks in advance Momas (talk) 19:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your questions. I believe the meaning of drug pipeline depends on context and can be restricted to a particular company (the company pipeline) or expanded to cover the entire pharmaceutical industry (the industry pipeline). In addition, the drug pipeline might be restricted to a particular drug class. Hence I think Drug pipeline should be expanded to include all three definitions. Conversely I do not believe the pipeline refers to the system that is used to develop drugs. That is covered by early stage drug discovery and later stage drug development. Does this make sense? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
it does somewhat, so it's a set of drugs and not a system, my question: is "drug/drugs under development" a suitable title and serves the same meaning of drug pipeline? and if you had to express the term in other words, what would they be? thank you again. --Momas (talk) 21:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)
Hi again. I think "Drugs under development" is a good a title as any and clearly distinguishes drug candidates from the process of developing drugs. As I have tried to make clear to my recent edits, Drug pipeline has taken on several different meanings depending on context. I have found at least one source[1] that implies that the pipeline is also the process. But most sources that I have found restrict the meaning to drug candidates that excludes the process. Boghog (talk) 07:11, 14 June 2020 (UTC)
thank you for your time and answers and the edits, have a nice day --Momas (talk) 13:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Addonizio M (February 2005). "Re-Engineering the Drug Development Pipeline". Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology News. 25 (3): 66. Archived from the original on 11 October 2007.

New Page Reviewer newsletter June 2020

Hello Boghog,

Your help can make a difference

NPP Sorting can be a great way to find pages needing new page patrolling that match your strengths and interests. Using ORES, it divides articles into topics such as Literature or Chemistry and on Geography. Take a look and see if you can find time to patrol a couple pages a day. With over 10,000 pages in the queue, the highest it's been since ACPERM, your help could really make a difference.

Google Adds New Languages to Google Translate

In late February, Google added 5 new languages to Google Translate: Kinyarwanda, Odia (Oriya), Tatar, Turkmen and Uyghur. This expands our ability to find and evaluate sources in those languages.

Discussions and Resources
  • A discussion on handling new article creation by paid editors is ongoing at the Village Pump.
  • Also at the Village Pump is a discussion about limiting participation at Articles for Deletion discussion.
  • A proposed new speedy deletion criteria for certain kinds of redirects ended with no consensus.
  • Also ending with no change was a proposal to change how we handle certain kinds of vector images.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 10271 Low – 4991 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)

Ref.

Hello. I apologise to bother you. Since you're a very experienced user in terms of the proper references formatting, may I ask you for help to prepare 2 citations, please? I would like to cite the following works: Gene and protein evolution (page 166) and Transposable Elements: Classification, Identification…. I will be very grateful, thanks a lot in advance! :) Cheers, --Jojnee (talk) 20:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Book chapters are a pain to format since none of the citations tools do a very good job at creating them. However both chapters linked above are also indexed in PubMed which makes things much easier with this tool. Here is the first[1] and the second.[2] Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Maka Owski W, Toda Y (2007). "Modulation of Host Genes by Mammalian Transposable Elements". In Volff JN, Schmid M (eds.). Gene and Protein Evolution. Genome Dynamics (3rd ed.). Basel: S. Karger. p. 166. doi:10.1159/000107610. ISBN 978-3-8055-8341-1. OCLC 729848415. PMID 18753791.
  2. ^ Makałowski W, Gotea V, Pande A, Makałowska I (2019). Anisimova M (ed.). "Transposable Elements: Classification, Identification, and Their Use As a Tool For Comparative Genomics". Methods in Molecular Biology. 1910. Clifton, N.J.: 177–207. doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-9074-0_6. ISBN 978-3-8055-8341-1. OCLC 145014779. PMID 31278665.

Reference fixing

Hi Boghog, thanks for your help every so often tidying up my references. Do you use a script for this? If possible would you mind having a look at my sandbox page, and helping my tidy up my master list of references (User:Tom_(LT)/sandbox#Bibliography). You'll be able to see I have been trying over time to slowly improve them but I can see based on your edit at Rectum I may need a bit more help... --Tom (LT) (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi Tom. Likewise, thank you for your edits cleaning up and expanding medicine articles. I do have a script based on Pywikibot. In order to use it, you first have to install Python and then Pywikibot. However the script only works on journal citations that have PMID, PMC, or DOIs and pulls its data from PubMed. It will not format bare references and it does not process book cites. I do that manually. Your master list of of references are book cites, so I cannot automatically process those. Per your request, I tweaked your master list. If you specifically want Vancouver style authors, you can add |name-list-format=vanc to the citation templates. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks.--Tom (LT) (talk) 08:57, 4 July 2020 (UTC)

Template filling tool

Hi Boghog I don't seem to be able to run the tool at the moment. Cheers CV9933 (talk) 15:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi CV9933. Thanks for the heads up. I tried restarting the tool service, but that did not help. It is bizarre that the cgi script is downloaded instead of executing. The problem may have to do with this. As a non administrator, I have no control over how cgi scripts are handled. I will contact the Toolforge administrators to see if they can resolve the problem. More later. Boghog (talk) 19:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
@CV9933: Backup and running again. See T257421 for the gory details. Boghog (talk) 11:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks Boghog. Not my area of expertise, so I could only guess how that fix solved the problem. Cheers CV9933 (talk) 12:10, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

H-GAPS use of Diberri/Boghog tool

Hi, Boghog! Eyoungstrom is a UNC psych professor, and an integral part of a new Wikimedia m:affiliate called the m:H-GAPS User Group. The name stands for "Helping Give Away Psychological Science", and they plan to be active on psych articles, where we need all the help we can get. I have been explaining to Eric how frustrating it is to encounter citations without PMIDs, then have to go track down the source and see if it is a secondary or primary, and that since the Diberri/Boghog format is used on most featured articles, it will behoove them to learn to use the tool. (I also explained the importance of CITEVAR on Featured articles.) Eric has some ideas about integrating the tool with Zotero ... I don't speak that language at all, so am hoping you can weigh in on the discussion on his talk page, and maybe we can make this happen! @RexxS: to that discussion as well, as the two of you may speak the template language ... that I don't! Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:34, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi SandyGeorgia. I replied there. Boghog (talk) 12:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
Thanks so much! It will save me so much time to not have to track down citations all the time, when I rely so heavily on PubMed. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

"Consistency" should not be a goal

Hi, thanks for your work in fixing references.
However, please consider that while correctness, completeness, and readability are important goals, consistency -- either of the source or of the visible form -- is not. Changing thousands of articles with semi-automatic tools merely to "fix" the appearance of all refs to some arbitrarily chosen standard format does not make Wikipedia one pennyworth better, for anyone. Especially when the "fix" is to add another inscrutable parameter to the already obfuscated, verbose, and pointless {{cite|..}} templates. Especially when the new format suppresses information that may be useful to the reader (the full names of authors).
Editing a thousand articles for trivial appearance reasons causes those articles to pop up in the watchlists of thousands of editors, who have to check the article and scan the diff to check what changed. Please think of that waste of other editors' time when deciding whether to continue in your "quest". Consider instead spending that time improving the contents of articles -- the kind of contribution that Wikipedia will never get enough of.
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. Many of my edits to Gene Wiki and Drug articles is where the Vancouver system of authors was originally established and has been degraded over time. I am just returning the formatting to their original state. Other articles are a real mess of citations styles and I have picked one that is easy to standardize around. I agree with you that {{cite journal}} templates can become a real mess of inscrutable parameters. I humbly suggest that replacing an ad nauseam list of |first1=, |last1=, ... parameters that can occur in any order with a single |vauthors= parameter reduces inscrutability. Concerning content, I have created a considerable amount (see for example this acknowledgement). I am especially proud of my work on Nuclear receptor, Transcription factor, Hsp90 and linking all these articles together with {{Transcription factors and intracellular receptors}} navbox. Boghog (talk) 19:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Can you help me correct my grammar？

I just added something new in ERG5.--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Your grammar is not bad (disclaimer: I am not certain mine is much better ;-) ). In any case, I have tweaked it a bit. Thanks for your contributions. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I use the editor's system cite template：cite journal. "| vauthors = " not in default mode--Htmlzycq (talk) 14:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
For creating the file https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Signal_transduction_pathways.png RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Hi. Thanks for the barnstar, but the graphic was originally created by User:Roadnottaken, not me. All I did was move it to commons. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Graphic for LEAPER

I've noticed that you've created several graphics for biology articles. I was wondering if you could create some kind of lede graphic suitable for LEAPER, or direct me to someone else who could. I completely understand if you don't have the time. Thanks! ~ HAL333 20:47, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for creating the LEAPER article. I am not sure exactly what you had in mind. Is there a published schematic of the process that you can point me to? If so, I may be able to create from scratch a public domain equivalent that can be inserted into LEAPER. But I need some sort of template to work from. Boghog (talk) 21:06, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
How about Figure 3 in Fry 2020? Boghog (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2020 (UTC)
That would be perfect. ~ HAL333 22:19, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Retracted papers

CLCN2 needs a tidy but I noticed that one of the papers is retracted. I wasn't sure if that cite should be left or removed so could you take a look? Thanks & Regards. CV9933 (talk) 09:32, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Generally retracted citations should be removed unless the retraction itself is notable as reported by independent sources. In this case there were two citations to support the statement, and only one was retracted, so I left the statement and the non-retracted source in place (diff). I hope this is OK. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)
Looks better, thanks for your help and info. Regards CV9933 (talk) 12:47, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

PKNOX2

Hello! I have created a new page - PKNOX2. Can you help by adding a "table of contents" to it. Don't know why it does not appear. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi. One needs at least four sections before a table of contents automatically appears. Boghog (talk) 04:36, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Reverted your edits to Fatty acid desaturase

Sorry, but while you fixed some errors in the references, and added some useful information, you also introduced a few errors, besides making the unwarranted and negative abbreviations above.--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Jorge Stolfi: The originally established citation style in Fatty acid desaturase was the Vancouver system which is used by many biomedical journals. Hence per WP:CITEVAR, I have reestablished that style. What errors have introduced? Boghog (talk) 03:47, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not abbreviate page numbers

Also, pleas do NOT shorten page ranges like "12345-12354" to "12345-54". This convention (like most abbreviations in references) was invented by journal publishers to save every millimeter of paper that they could. There is NO justification to do this abbreviation (or most other abbreviations)in Wikipedia. (If you want to save disk space, bandwidht, and processing time, replace the "Cite" templates by plain wikisource instead.)
All the best,--Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Abbreviate page numbers are widely used in Wikipedia and I can find no guidance or policy that either encourages or discourages their use. If you want to include full page number ranges, I will not object, as long as it is done consistently. Boghog (talk) 04:55, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
It would be silly to have a guidance for that. It is just common sense. And the general guidandce to avoid purely "appearance" edits. --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 14:06, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Steroid Tzar

Do you know who is the steroid tzar? I have edited varioius articles related to CYP11B1, CYP11B2, CYP21A2 enzymes, the steroids in which metabolism these enzymes are involved, and the medical conditions caused by insufficiency of these enzymes. It would be good if the competent person (maybe you) review my edits. --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:36, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your edits and for your message. I am mainly interested in what these enzymes do to drugs and know much less about diseases caused by their insufficiency. From a casual examination, your edits look fine, but I will take a closer look. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:56, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you! Here are the pages that I have edited in last days, but some pages have only minor edits:

These are CYP2xx and CYP4xx that mostly affect drug metabolism. ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:58, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Maxim Masiutin: Starting with 11β-Hydroxyprogesterone, your contributions are solid, but I see an issue with the deficiency section. For biomedical claims, secondary sources (review articles) are strongly preferred. (see WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS). The reason for this is an alarmingly high percentage of biomedical research simply cannot be repeated (see Replication crisis). Hence it is better to wait for review articles for a second, independent evaluation of the research which integrates it with other findings in the field. For 11β-Hydroxyprogesterone, accordingly to PubMed, only five article have been published on this enzyme (see PubMed search), none of which are secondary. If at all possible, please use secondary sources to support biomedical claims. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 18:25, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I will do my best to use secondary sources. I will also read again the WP:MEDRS and WP:SCIRS sections of the Wikipedia rules. As about the deficiency section, I have just given 3 studies that all confirm that levels of 11β-Hydroxyprogesterone raise in 21-hydroxylase_deficiency. You have made the correct point that 11β-Hydroxyprogesterone is not very well studied, and not attracted much attention. Let us not delete this section, since the impact of it is minimal - it just reiterates what all these 3 studies have figured out. Let me monitor the situation, and when the secondary studies will start to appear eventually, I will add them to the references? By the ways, since May 2020, my largest contributinos were to the following 3 wikipedia pages related to enzymes mostly relevant to drug metabolism (your point of interest): CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP4F2. I hope you will be happy with them. I have also edited the sections "substrates", "inhibitors" and "inducers", although I understand that somehow my edits in these section do not rely on solid sources. Most of the sourses for "inhibitors" and "inducers" are based on in vitro research. But very little in vivo reasearch has been done for inducers and inhibitors of these enzymes. There were already almost all substances listed based on in vitro reasearch. If we only leave reliable sources, we have do delete almost all substaces and leave only a few. I'm not inclined to to this kind of sorting. :-) ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:41, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

CYP11B3

Hi, Steroid Tzar!

could you create the svg image of 18-Hydroxy-11-deoxycorticosterone (18-OH-DOC), which is the product of the CYP11B3 in neonatal rat adrenal. --Htmlzycq (talk) 02:01, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

Have fun!

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:48, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

New article question Dickkopf

Hi Boghog, molecular bio is not an area where I typically edit. I was wondering if Dickkopf--a family of proteins--looks okay? Since it's a family of proteins rather than one gene, does that mean it should not have Template:Infobox_gene? Thanks, Elysia (AR) (talk) 15:53, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Elysia (AR): Looks good! Thanks for creating the article and for the heads up. Adding several {{Infobox gene}} templates to a single article would overwhelm it. What we normally do with gene family articles is add the more compact {{Infobox protein}} templates, as long as there are not too many. I went ahead and added these. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I will file that away for the future. Elysia (AR) (talk) 21:25, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Hi @Elysia (AR):, the fiveth member of Dickkopf family, DDKL1, is also a human protein, see Q9UK85 or figure 1 in PMC5622213.--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Question

How do I ask a question about a topic? I clicked the TALK button but cant see how to do it. Gerry

--WOOLFHOUSE (talk) 02:58, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi Woolfhouse. I looks like you have essentially already figured it out. Just click the "Edit" tab on any article or user page, followed by the "New Section" tab and start typing. Don't forget to include an "Subject/headline" in the box at the top and an edit summary in the box at the bottom of the page. (See also How to edit a Wiki page.) Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:49, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Consistent Citation Formatting

I'm using the built-in Wikipedia tool at Preferences -> Gadgets -> Citation Expander https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_expander

It seems that this tool is incompatible with the way of how you format the citations. After the Citation Expander you find the formatting inconsistent and re-format them.

How can we reconcile the ways on how we format the citations?

---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:51, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

The author format that was introduced into 11β-Hydroxyprogesterone followed Vancouver style. Hence per WP:CITEVAR, subsequent citations should also follow Vancouver style unless there is a consensus to change it. The Citation Expander is very easy to use, but there is no option for Vancouver style which is unfortunate. I have tried to get the maintainers of these scripts to add Vancouver style as an option, but unfortunately I have not been able to convince them. The Wikipedia template filling tool is able to produce templates that follow the Vancouver style, but is not quite as easy to use. Boghog (talk) 14:35, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
@Boghog: Thank you! I will try using this tool. ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:50, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

No offence

Sorry, I'm just use to using the other one, which I'll continue to use in articles. You want to use this, fine. I make joke. Leo Breman (talk) 18:36, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Leo Breman: Likewise, I am not trying make a joke. Zoophily had a mixtures of citation styles and all I was trying to do is to introduce some order. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Sure, I get it: consistency. Completely behind you here. I started off with citations already in the text and stuff copy and pasted from elsewhere. But you notice that when I tried to use your style it produced all these error messages. I'm just very used to my style, and often I write stuff from stub/scratch (there was too much wrong in the article to leave it alone). Also I dispute that the Vancouver style is superior. I don't like way the names are done. Chalk it up to taste. Cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 19:03, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Great. We are more or less on the same page. If the Vancouver author style is not followed, |vauthors= produces error messages and that is the whole point. |first= (or |authorn=) will accept anything (initials with or without peroids, full first names with or without middle name, or even accept complete !@#$%^&* gibberish). In contrast, if |vauthors= is used thought an article and there are no error messages, the author format is guaranteed to be consistent. If one uses |firstn=||lastn= or |authorn=, then one needs to work harder to make sure of consistency. If you really hate the |vauthors= format, then you should not use it. Boghog (talk) 19:42, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry, I had a read at the link you left, but it was a whole bunch -I couldn't quickly understand what I did wrong. So I just did it my way to get it over with. I get that if it is used throughout it will be consistent, but that goes for anything, no? You say "work harder", I don't know, I've always done it one way, and it ruts in. But I was thinking, we are all volunteers here, if citation consistency is your thing -all the power to you! Hehe. Leo Breman (talk) 20:24, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia CYP pages are about genes or proteins?

I have a question: Wikipedia CYP pages are about genes or proteins? It seems that CYP pages were initially created by a bot that made gene-related stubs, with short descriptions about the gene function. However, some pages that were initially about genes morphed in pages about the proteins.

For example, the "Function" section changed from "this gene encodes that protein, and is located there and surrounded by those genes" the emphasis changes "to this protein is an enzyme catalyzes so-and-so metabolism and in humans is encode by that gene".

When it comes to Description field in Wikidata entries (visible in Mobile Wikipedia App), some CYPs have "a gene", and some have "a protein".

To be specific: Wikidata Description for CYP2C9 shows "mammalian protein found in Homo sapiens", while for CYP2C19 it shows "protein-coding gene in the species Homo sapiens".

I wanted to make some CYP pages better, but I know which policy should I conform in order to proceed, e.g. to rearrange the sections, headers, descriptions (Description field in Wikidata entries).

---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:02, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent questions. The gene and the protein encoded by that gene are so closely related that in the vast majority of cases, it makes no sense to separate the two. Of course, the protein and gene are invariably found in other species besides humans. That is why the Gene Wiki settled on the lead sentence "X is a protein that in humans is encoded by the Y gene" to make clear the article is about both the gene and the protein encoded by that gene that is found in humans and in other species. The description field I have not paid much attention to. It has been added in an ad hoc basis a variety of editors which explains the inconsistency. The description is supposed be as succinct as possible which is not always possible with a gene/protein. If there is one to one correspondence between a particular gene and an enzyme, it generally makes sense to merge the two. If there is many to one relationship, then a separate enzyme article is justified. My own bias is to focus on the function of the protein before mentioning any diseases caused by gene mutations. To understand the disease, one should first understand the function of the protein. In short, it is complicated and one really needs to treat genes on a case by case basis. Boghog (talk) 19:07, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi! User: Boghog and @Maxim Masiutin:, I just added some information about the evolution of CYP21A in 21-Hydroxylase, including pictures and text. But English is not my mother tongue. Could you help me reorganize the content？--Htmlzycq (talk) 07:48, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

@Boghog:@Htmlzycq:I have just re-arranged the 21-Hydroxylase page according to the above suggestions (to focus on the function of the protein before mentioning any diseases caused by gene mutations; to understand the disease, one should first understand the function of the protein). English is also not my mother's tongue. I have also another question to @Boghog: Boghog - is the "introduction" section (the one that comes before the table of contents) of 21-Hydroxylase now OK, i.e. not too long and not too short? What are the general rules on the introduction section for CYPs? Are there any guidelines or best practices, albeit unofficial?? ---Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:18, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Proteinbox

Just curious, I made a small edit to STAC3 and wondered how you add a protein box and get it to self populate. Regards CV9933 (talk) 15:29, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi. To add add a {{infobox gene}} template, one first needs to link the corresponding wikidata item (e.g., Q18053642) to the Wikipedia page STAC3 as I did in this edit and then add the infobox template to the top of the Wikipedia page. In this particular case, there was an inappropriate link to STAC3 that I first had to unlink as I did in this edit. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:33, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
Great explanation and thanks for clarifying the article lead. Regards CV9933 (talk) 16:56, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove first names of authors in references

Please do not remove the first names of authors in references.
(1) That is hard factual information that may be useful or essential for the readers, e.g. to resolve homonyms and identify authors in other contexts (like searching for personal webpages, Wikipedia articles, Google Scholar citations, etc)
(2) Those names usually come from the article as published. Removing them overrides the choices of journal publishers AND authors, and makes the reference LESS faithful to the original; it would be like shortening or rephrasing the title of a paper.
(3) It is the sort of appearance-only edit that editors should NOT engage in, because it wastes time of many other editors and has zero value for readers.
(4) There is absolutely NO reason to uniformize the way author names are written, not even in the same reference.
(6) Dots, dashes, and other punctuation in abbreviations are important and must be retained. (Is "Clay HU" "H. U. Clay", of "Clay Hu"?)
All the best, --Jorge Stolfi (talk) 01:02, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Re #1: The advantage of Vancouver system authors is that they are completely standard making authors easier to search for, not harder. Furthermore, every single citation in Fatty acid desaturase contains a link to the original publication for someone that is interested in the authors first names.
Re #2: The journals themselves often use Vancouver system in their reference sections.
Re #3: Changing previously established citation style without first obtaining consensus also wastes editors time.
Re #4: Per WP:CITESTYLE, citations within any given article should follow a consistent style.
Re #6: I would agree that consistent punctuation is important and |vauthors= enforces a consistent format (by generating an error message for non-compliant author formatting) whereas |first= does not. Boghog (talk) 04:44, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree with Jorge Stolfi but for other reasons that Boghog and I already discussed over two years ago at Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 2 § Citation style. It's infuriating that Boghog is still stripping valuable author name data from citations. Use the |name-list-format= parameter instead of destroying data! Biogeographist (talk) 20:18, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a reliable source of citation data. Boghog (talk) 22:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I refuted that argument over two years ago at Talk:Psychotherapy/Archive 2 § Citation style. Biogeographist (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
My argument still stands. Boghog (talk) 22:41, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
No it doesn't. Your argument is: Wikipedia is not a reliable source of citation data, therefore editors should not add reliable citation data to Wikipedia. The ought or "should" doesn't follow from the "is". I've worked hard to add reliable citation data to Wikipedia and I hate seeing you try to destroy it. Biogeographist (talk) 23:11, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Thoughts on creating a physician-scientist's article

Hello User:Boghog, I noticed you worked on the Sipuleucel-T article. What is your level of interest to collaborate on creating a BLP for a notable physician-scientist that worked on the clinical trials of that compound? I have a WP:COI with Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center and its faculties. The physician-scientist, Philip Kantoff, works for the organization.

Do you have any interest to collaborate on a project like this?--Chefmikesf (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your contribution. Philip Kantoff is clearly notable and the draft was reasonably neutral. So I have moved it to main space after a few relatively minor edits. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:35, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
Hi. I've link this wikipedia page to wikidata: d:Q42532150

In my opinion, there should be no "notable" problem if there are items on wikidata, so I create a stub Charles A. Berry which have its item Q94619602 --Htmlzycq (talk) 06:37, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the link to wikidata. Mention in Wikidata itself I don't think is sufficient to establish notability. I added a few more citations to Charles A. Berry which I think establishes notability. Boghog (talk) 08:06, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

"name-list-style = vanc"

You may just add the "name-list-style = vanc" attribute rather than editing the author's list. The list of the author will be displayed in Vancouver Style even if full names of the authors are given. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:28, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Further reading references

Hello Bohhog,

Thank you very much for your modification. Could you explain me if there is a fast way to convert NLM citation format into the Cite Journal template? I have a few more articles I'd like to put in and I don't know if I must introduce everything manually, as I am a new user. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BQ20 HVargas (talk • contribs) 16:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

@BQ20 HVargas: Thanks for your question. If you have a PMID, you can paste that into the Template filling tool, and that will return a {{cite journal}} template that includes the citation data. Hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:28, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, it has been a great help. BQ20 HVargas (talk) 23:20, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

With this edit your script created this:

{{cite journal | vauthors = Johnson EC, Demontis D, Thorgeirsson TE, Walters RK, Polimanti R, Hatoum AS, Sanchez-Roige S, Paul SE, Wendt FR, Clarke TK, Lai D. A large-scale genome-wide association study meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder. | title = The Lancet Psychiatry | date = October 2020 }}|title=A large-scale genome-wide association study meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder |journal=The Lancet Psychiatry |date=October 2020 |pages=S2215036620303394 |doi=10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30339-4}}
Johnson EC, Demontis D, Thorgeirsson TE, Walters RK, Polimanti R, Hatoum AS, Sanchez-Roige S, Paul SE, Wendt FR, Clarke TK, Lai D A large-scale genome-wide association study meta-analysis of cannabis ud (October 2020). "The Lancet Psychiatry". {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help); Vancouver style error: punctuation in name 11 (help)|title=A large-scale genome-wide association study meta-analysis of cannabis use disorder |journal=The Lancet Psychiatry |date=October 2020 |pages=S2215036620303394 |doi=10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30339-4}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Sorry about that and thanks for correcting my error. That particular edit to that citation was not a script edit, but rather was done manually. Since my script pulls it data from PubMed and that particular citation was not yet included in PubMed, the script would ignore the citation. Since I made that edit, the citation has been added to PubMed and now my script produces this output. Boghog (talk) 15:22, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Orphan refs

Hi there. Thanks for rescuing[3] all those refs I orphaned as Remdesivir. Is there a script to do this? I was waiting for AnomieBot to come along, but that can take a while ... Alexbrn (talk) 07:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

And thank you for your cleanup up Remdesivir. There is no user activated script that I know of to rescue orphan refs, but because I am impatient, I did it manually ;-) Boghog (talk) 07:41, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. All eligible users are allowed 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 2020 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Methamphetamine page; Recreational section

Can you please tell what is wrong with my edit and why you removed it?

Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by KetoolgenicWarrior (talk • contribs) 06:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS. Secondary sources are needed to support medical claims. The source you provided was primary. Boghog (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistent citation style

No offence man, but I'm reverting your changes to the Digitalis article. As far as I can tell, you only changed citations I added from the style I always use to the Vancouver style, fixed two others, but left everything else. The citation style is thus just as jumbled as it was before, and will only get worse as I add more citations. Plus I copy and paste citations to articles on individual species where I've always used the other style, which is going to screw up the consistent citation style over there. I hope you used some automated process for this so that I'm not wasting too much of your time here. Anyway, greetings and cheers, Leo Breman (talk) 16:06, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@Leo Breman: Hi. I won't argue this further, but I just wanted to point out that I did not just modify citations that you added, but all the citations including approximately a dozen that were added before your first edit. Before my edit, there were a mix of styles, full first author names, first author initials, and at least one Vancouver style. After my edit, the citation style was not a jumble of styles. It was 100% Vancouver (except for Withering which I somehow missed). I did use a mix of |vauthors= and |name-list-style=vanc templates, but the rendered citation style was completely consistent. Boghog (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, I saw that I was exaggerating when moving the citations to 'my' style, my apologies for that. Sorry, perhaps more annoyed than I should have been. I've changed everything you changed, I hope it's more consistent now! Look, I really don't care if someone changes it all at a later date, but I still want to add more, and I as mentioned, the c&ping of the Vancouver style to the species articles will screw them up. The style doesn't really mean anything, it's just that I'm used to one way, and not used to Vancouver, learning it will confuse me -it's like British vs. American spelling: I could learn it, but I will get confused going back and forth. The labelling vs. labeling thing ... I thought for ages labeling was just misspelled, it doesn't make sense compared to other Germanic languages, but now I get it! Leo Breman (talk) 16:53, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Template filling tool

Hi Boghog, the tool is being a bit pesky for me today, probably needs a re-boot. Regards, CV9933 (talk) 11:12, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CV9933: I am having identical problems with the template filling tool hosted on my local workstation which indicates that the problem is with the upstream NCBI Entrez server, not the template filling tool hosted on the Wikimedia Cloud Services (Toolforge). Now both are at least intermittently working again. Boghog (talk) 15:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Okay that's working for me now - regards CV9933 (talk) 16:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@CV9933: The NCBI Entrez server is undergoing maintenance[1] which explains the why the tool has been wonky. Things should be back to normal tomorrow. Boghog (talk) 22:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Notice: Upcoming Maintenance Downtime". NCBI. Entrez search and retrieval systems, will be operational but may be intermittently slow

Thanks - and help?

I've noticed that you frequently show up as an editor after my students add content and citations and edit citations for consistency (like recent edits on Growth hormone receptor and Insulin-like growth factor 1). Can you explain what you are doing/changing and how you do it so that I can help my students get it right when they add the citations? When I look at the edit history the code confuses my non-coder brain. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 19:40, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @UWM.AP.Endo:. Thanks for the question. The two articles that you mentioned used the Vancouver system author system format. Unfortunately most of the standard citation tools don't support this format. One tool does is the citation template filling tool. If you have a PMID, you can paste this into the tool, and it will return a fully formatted citation template that can be copy and pasted into the Wikipedia article. Using this tool a bit more work, but it will generate citations that are consistent with the previously established citation style. BTW, I have fond memories of bubblers when growing up;-) Cheers Boghog (talk) 20:23, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
Thanks, @Boghog:! I'll have to play with that tool so that I can teach my students how to use it next fall when I teach this course again. I also love a good bubbler! I grew up here, and when I was on a recruiting trip to an out of state college, I made the grave mistake of asking if they had a TYME machine on campus. Luckily my dad was there to clarify that I was just looking for the Automated teller machine. UWM.AP.Endo (talk) 21:21, 4 December 2020 (UTC)
TYME machines. Wow, I had forgotten about those. It has been a awhile ;-) Boghog (talk) 23:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

New Page Patrol December Newsletter

Hello Boghog,

A chart of the 2020 New Page Patrol Queue

Year in review

It has been a productive year for New Page Patrol as we've roughly cut the size of the New Page Patrol queue in half this year. We have been fortunate to have a lot of great work done by Rosguill who was the reviewer of the most pages and redirects this past year. Thanks and credit go to JTtheOG and Onel5969 who join Rosguill in repeating in the top 10 from last year. Thanks to John B123, Hughesdarren, and Mccapra who all got the NPR permission this year and joined the top 10. Also new to the top ten is DannyS712 bot III, programmed by DannyS712 which has helped to dramatically reduce the number of redirects that have needed human patrolling by patrolling certain types of redirects (e.g. for differences in accents) and by also patrolling editors who are on on the redirect whitelist.

Rank Username Num reviews Log
1 DannyS712 bot III (talk) 67,552 Patrol Page Curation
2 Rosguill (talk) 63,821 Patrol Page Curation
3 John B123 (talk) 21,697 Patrol Page Curation
4 Onel5969 (talk) 19,879 Patrol Page Curation
5 JTtheOG (talk) 12,901 Patrol Page Curation
6 Mcampany (talk) 9,103 Patrol Page Curation
7 DragonflySixtyseven (talk) 6,401 Patrol Page Curation
8 Mccapra (talk) 4,918 Patrol Page Curation
9 Hughesdarren (talk) 4,520 Patrol Page Curation
10 Utopes (talk) 3,958 Patrol Page Curation
Reviewer of the Year

John B123 has been named reviewer of the year for 2020. John has held the permission for just over 6 months and in that time has helped cut into the queue by reviewing more than 18,000 articles. His talk page shows his efforts to communicate with users, upholding NPP's goal of nurturing new users and quality over quantity.

NPP Technical Achievement Award

As a special recognition and thank you DannyS712 has been awarded the first NPP Technical Achievement Award. His work programming the bot has helped us patrol redirects tremendously - more than 60,000 redirects this past year. This has been a large contribution to New Page Patrol and definitely is worthy of recognition.

Six Month Queue Data: Today – 2262 Low – 2232 High – 10271

To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here

18:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikidata

Hi Boghog, I checked on Wikidata that Bbc1 (Q27543328) has a link to en Wikipedia (it did) and then tried to place an infobox template in the article but it returns a Lua error when I preview. Any ideas? Regards CV9933 (talk) 16:35, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Hi @CV9933: It appears that the problem is that Bbc1 and 60S ribosomal protein L13 (Q18031237) are the same gene/protein. My suggestion is to merge the former into the later. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:44, 16 December 2020 (UTC)
Ah thanks for that - I thought it might be something I was doing wrong as I'm am not that familiar with Wikidata. Regards CV9933 (talk) 20:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)

Regarding your recent edit in Progressive vaccinia

Greetings! I have come to recently acknowledge your edits in the article Progressive vaccinia. As you may have seen, I have been consistently editing the page for a while now, aiming to improve its ranking, which is currently only a stub. Hence, albeit my progress is gradual and somewhat slow, I still edit the page from time to time. Consequently, regarding your recent edit, may I ask for you to revert it? I just took a rest for a while with a friend, and, since I left the wiki page tab open in my computer, I didn't immediately read your edit. I shall fix the references soon enough, however, but still I'm just about to finish fixing it. Thanks for your concern and reply! JN Dela Cruz (talk) 19:49, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

RaTG13

Hi Boghog, in the draft, I've translate this article from zhwiki,why did not verified it?--Htmlzycq (talk) 15:19, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boghog/Archive_14&oldid=1079152851"