This is an archive of past discussions with User:Maxim Masiutin. 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.
Blood-saliva barrier, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
You did not identify the source of the material in your edit. It appears to be 21-Hydroxylase. Copying within Wikipedia is acceptable but it must be attributed.
This type of edit does get picked up by Copy Patrol and a good edit summary helps to make sure we don't accidentally revert it. However, for future use, would you note the best practices wording as outlined at Wikipedia:Copying_within_Wikipedia? In particular, linking to the source article and adding the phrase "see that page's history for attribution" helps ensure that proper attribution is preserved.
While best practices are that attribution should be added to the edit summary at the time the edit is made, the linked article on best practices describes the appropriate steps to add attribution after the fact. I have done so for you this time, but hope you will follow best practices yourself next time.
I've noticed that this guideline is not very well known, even among editors with tens of thousands of edits, so it isn't surprising that I point this out to some veteran editors, but there are some t's that need to be crossed.~~~~ S Philbrick(Talk)13:55, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems that I was the author of the source text as well, but still the attribution "Copied content from [[<page name>]] see that page's history for attribution" was required according to the license, it's better to mention "that page's history for attribution" than to mention myself :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
About your counter-vandalism
Hey Maxim Masiutin, thanks for your efforts to combat vandalism as a pending changes reviewer. I noticed on a user talk page that had added the warning templates in a somewhat unusual style — are you leaving those messages manually? If so, I highly recommend that you install Twinkle, which will help you revert edits and warn users much more efficiently. It also has a whole list of other functionality which I'd consider essential for any editor. Let me know what you think! —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:21, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, thank you, I was leaving these message manually. In some cases, I need to edit some text, and in some cases just a basic template without any additional text was enough. I was looking for tools to make pending changes reviews easier, but didn't find one so far. Thank you for recommending Twinkle, I will review it. And thank you again for your help. Do you have your list of essential tools explained somewhere? I use a few tools already. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Vandalism § Tools has a basic list of counter-vandalism tools. Though I do use Twinkle for many things, I personally prefer the workflow of RedWarn when I'm combatting vandalism. It was a bit complicated when I was first starting out, though, so I think you should stick with Twinkle until you're more experienced with semi-automated tools. Responding to your question below, you can only perform a rollback on the last revision of a page, you won't be able to use it if any edits have been made by other users after the vandalism. If all of the recent edits have been disruptive, you can go to the last good revision and click "restore this version", which will undo all subsequent edits. To warn the user, you can go to their talk page and select Twinkle's "warn" option from your toolbar. I highly recommend that you read Twinkle's documentation if you have more questions about how to use it. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 23:39, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
@TechnoSquirrel69: - I've noticed that when I'm in a "review" of a page (when I act as a pending changes reviewer), then I can both revert (or accept) the edit and leave a warning (or a thanks) message on the user's page. But when I'm simply in a history page, I cannot at once undo and edit page; I have to copy the page's name to clipboard to leave a message on the user's page with Twinkle. Is that normal for Twinkle? I don't have a "reverter" right - I can only revert multiple consecutive edits when an article is pending review, but for the other articles I have to copy-paste manually from the last good revision. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:31, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
Sir Maxim,
I added some content on Justin Paul (Scholar page), however you removed. let me give you evidence of the journal, Inter j of consumer studies , which is now ranked as consumer research journal with the highest Impact Factor. se the cover page on top of this profile on Linkedin comparing the Impact Factor of consumer research journals [1]https://www.linkedin.com/in/profjust/103.161.55.202 (talk) 15:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Please consider a discussion on the talk page, because the statements like "the highest impact factor in the world" should be backed up by better sources. Sorry for referring you to the rules, but could you please read them again carefully,
You may use URLs as links to support particular claims (information), as explained in the following Wikipedia guidelines:
On the claim about a journal with highest impact factor in the world, the rules of WP:LP do not apply, but the rules of WP:RS and WP:CITE apply. For the overall information about people, more stricter rules, described in WP:LP apply. For the whole Wikipedia, WP:OR equally apply.
Your edit to Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
@Diannaa: Can you please provide me with the results of the comparison tool, as I rewritten the section, it might have been a false positive. I indeed used the information from the article I gave proper attribution to, but I didn't copy it as a whole. Therefore, results of comparison tool might have been useful - the page is now deleted and I cannot see where exactly the violation were. Or send me the text you deleted by email. Thank you in advance! --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:14, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
I should be able to distinguish whether it were an acceptable WP:PARAPHRASE or a violation indeed.
I would also be grateful if you won't template me in the future, but add a few words on substance. The template you used on me does not seem to explain the questions I raised, and majority of its lines are irrelevant. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:22, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Here is a link to the CopyPatrol report. Click on the iThenticate link to view what was found by the detection service. I removed content based on the findings in the iThenticate report. Sorry about the template; the volume of daily reports precludes issuing personalized messages. — Diannaa (talk) 23:05, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you! Can you please send me my text in plaintext form or make it available for me, I will rewrite it better. As you saw in the report, there were no sentences copied, but lots of anatomical terms that triggered the alert. I clicked the link, but the text is presented as image there and I could not copy it. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:36, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
The problem is that you are presenting the same content in the same order as the source, using almost identical wording. That's a copyright violation. Medical terminology need not be re-worded, but I am pretty sure that this can be made more copyright compliant. Email sent. — Diannaa (talk) 11:33, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you very much! I tried now to explain the topic in simple terms and removed jargon which would hardly be understood by a simple layman reader. Could you please now check the page with your tool again? I would also appreciate if you send me the results, so I could know for the future what kind of presenting the ideas and information from the source is acceptable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
I can't check it with Earwig's Copyvio Detector because it's behind a paywall. Earwig's tool in most cases cannot see behind paywalls. Hence I had to rely on the iThenticate service report when I initially assessed the edit. At present the iThenticate service does not allow us to check individual articles; we have to rely on it to automatically report its findings as it checks incoming edits for us. But good news, the service did not flag your new edit! I have checked it manually as well, and it looks okay from a copyright point of view, and is also better because it gives the facts in a direct way that the general reader likely will find easier to understand. You might consider adding wikilinks to some of the terms you used if they are not already linked elsewhere in the article. Thanks for taking the time to look after this. — Diannaa (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop the bot
This request for help from administrators has been answered. If you need more help or have additional questions, please reapply the {{admin help}} template, or contact the responding user(s) directly on their own user talk page.
The bot flagged the image back in April because the image was uploaded without a license. You added a license about an hour later and here we are in November and the image has not been deleted. So there does not seem to be any reason to stop the bot. There was no license template on the file at the time the bot tagged it; and now there is a license; image was not deleted. — Diannaa (talk) 13:41, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Diannaa why did the bot threatened to delete the image if it were all right with the image at the moment the bot checked it? adding a tag a hour later after uploading the image is not a problem as soon ad the latest revision lists the license. From the information you gave me it seems that the bot fails to retrieve latest revision, it is a reason to stop the bot. Please also consider deleting the message the bot left on my userpage at wikimedia commos because such externus messages harm reputation. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:50, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Have a look at the history to see the sequence of events.
The image was uploaded at 19:05. No license template was present.
The bot tagged it at 20:06. No license template was present.
You addded the license at 20:51. License is now present. Image does not get deleted.
The bot does not return, because it's only checking new uploads.
It's okay for you to remove the bot message from your talk page yourself. No harm will come to your reputation for this event. — Diannaa (talk) 13:59, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
@Diannaa Sorry, I only received notification about the bot's message today. I noticed only now that the bot left the message on April. It is strange that I only got the alert now. Sorry for my previous messages. I apologize. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see this until I'd already formulated a reply. I don't know why it took you so long to receive notification that you had a message at the Commons. Usually I get a notification immediately. — Diannaa (talk) 14:01, 7 November 2023 (UTC)
18-Oxocortisol, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
I reverted your edit by mistake, sorry, I wanted to revert previous vandalism edit but reverted your edit instead, and then immediately restored your edit. So your edit is in place. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Don't worry, you reverted my edits was by mistake, your aim was only is revert Vandalism , every humans makes mistake and he also rectify them and learn from something from your faults.
I hope next time when you going to revert vandalism firstly you confirming then revert nonconstructive edits.good luck :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk)15:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I try to distinguish between nonconstructive edits and clear vandalism. I try do do my best judgment. In that case, it was a clear vandalism. By nonconstructive edits I understand good faith edits where disruptive edits or test edits as defined by WP:DE or WP:IDTEST, but that one was definitely a bad faith vandalism: [[2]] Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
That was kinda the point, so that anyone who still doesn't know what tweeting means would be able to understand. Given the context of the paragraph, it's probably understood however. Thanks anyay. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cancer treatment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)
Google trends is not considered a reliable source for establishing notability of an article subject. You keep bringing that up, and only Google trends, in your opinions in AFD discussions. Please evaluate the sources present in an article as well as look for other sources that might exist in secondary, independent sources. Or, if you don't find any, bring that information to the discussion. But talking about what is trending on Google doesn't help a discussion reach a consensus because they are not taken very seriously as evidence of anything but momentary popularity. Thank you. LizRead!Talk!07:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)
Hi Maxim, thanks for your edits in 1881–1896 cholera pandemic; much appreciated. However, I deleted the section Society and culture you created. Such a section could be useful, but the developments you describe there are not specific to the 1881–1896 cholera pandemic, but cover several cholera pandemics. For that reason, I think that section fits better in the general article Cholera outbreaks and pandemics. - DonCalo (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
OK, thank you! You are the subject matter expert, so you might have known better. Feel free to put the text to the other topics or delete it altogether. Please also consider rewriting a sentence about common stock ownership of British shareholders, as it is still a verbatim copy from another source. I rewritten yesterday the problematic text, but could not rewrite the section. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, I redid a lot of med. articles - I am a Physician, but this has little connection with writing a good WP article.
I noted you had made some edits to materials I had heavily edited - if you get a chance - the article on DES really needs another look-see by a better editor than I am - I know there are other clinicians on here -
I briefly reviewed the article. Do you wish to nominate it to GA? If yes, then there some work need to be done. I've nominated some articles to GA, some passed the review, some failed on first attempt. Let me know if you wish to nominate it, in this case I will be able to help edit it. Therefore, I may help as a technical editor, not as a subject matter expert, since I mostly specialize in writing or editing articles on steroids, steroidogenic enzymes, inborn errors of steroid metabolism, steroid metabolism disorders, genes related to steroids and pharmaceutical drugs. I could be a subject matter expert on steroids :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but I am not sure it is even vaguely a GA - but sure, I think it would force some discipline and it would get a really robust review in this manner.
This is an important topic - given how many cardiac stenting procedures are performed in any given year.
Let me know what needs to be done.
I'll like pull it into Word and then rework it - I started with small edits and ended up getting totally sucked in.
I am a total newbie - - 43 years as a doctor - but I have only been on WP a month - so I am a bit clueless.
You can edit the article in the meanwhile. On Monday, I will put the summary on what needs to be done for GA, since I will be busy with a CTF cybersecurity competition these days saarCTF 2023. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)
If you have access to paid articles, such as via Wikipedia Library or via your institutional access, that would be great, because paying about $40 for each article one will quickly run out of cash, sometimes you need to read about 20 articles to select 1-2. When I was working on an artile on alternative androgens, I read 289 articles, making notes in a spreasheet; if I didn't have access to some articles, my coauthor might have, and if no one of us had, I paid but paid alot :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)
I see that you have removed several short descriptions (SD). This results in some, but not all, of the articles picking up SDs from elsewhere, possibly using Wikidata. However, there are two problems. Firstly, some articles such as Prostate and Coronary stent were left with no SD at all. Secondly, the community has decided not to use Wikidata SDs unchecked, partly because they are prone to undetected vandalism. It seems better to leave the carefully hand-crafted SDs in place, or to improve them where necessary. Certes (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I would argue against the use of such vague statements, such as "elsewhere, possibly using Wikidata". You can simply write that it takes the description from Wikidata unless there is a template used in the article text itself.
I am sorry for removing the article description template, I was using the {{Template:Annotated link}} template and the description in Wikidata items started from a lowercase characters whereas the description template has to be started with an uppercase character. I also need lowercase character. Therefore, I thought wikidata would be one-for-all option to avoid duplication on information, but if you need the article description template, I will use the "desc_first_letter_case=lower" parameter for the {{Template:Annotated link}}.
Thank you for the explanation on why you need the article description template explicitly rather than taking the data from Wikidata item. I didn't know that it is harder to fight vandalism on Wikidata, however, Wikidata is still important and we should not neglect it or try to avoid problems you mentioned by inventing "solutions" like local templates. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions has plenty of information on the use of Wikidata SDs in Wikipedia. Basically, we have agreed that anyone can import them (creating a copy which won't update when Wikidata changes) as long as they review the text as they go (so no mistakes or misdeeds are imported). There is consensus not to use the WikiData SDs dynamically, nor to bulk-copy them blindly from Wikidata into Wikipedia without checking them individually. Certes (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the point of this whole idea of duplicating data, sorry, therefore I don't like this project personally, but if people need that, I would have to respect. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
There is a discussion at WP:EFR#Identify removal of short description about writing an edit filter to prevent removal of short descriptions. It is aimed at avoiding mistakes by novice editors but, as a more experienced contributor who still saw a reason to remove short descriptions, your input there might be useful. Certes (talk)
It is ridiculously insulting to have left that template warning for Vati after ignoring an earlier request to strike an insulting comment you left about him at WT:GAN. I recommend you drop this as your behavior has now verged into the tendentious and downright cruel. If you persist, I will escalate this to ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I am really sorry about the template. I didn't want to template him. Still, the disappointment does not justify the deletion of the content on Wikipedia - this is a severe violation of the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. Please forgive me for the templating though. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
But you chose to do it anyway, so don't act like it was a mistake or you were somehow forced to do it against your will. You chose not to strike your insulting comment about his motivations for nominating GAs. Don't act like you don't know what comment you're talking about, both Vati and I called it out as insulting and he explicitly asked you to strike it, which you totally ignored.
Your behavior is the cause of this. You are the one acting disruptive here. You chose to bludgeon that discussion to within an inch of its life, against half a dozen different editors telling you you were wrong. It is ironic to the point of painful that you harp about violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia when you have been doing so since you took over Roy's review and refused to revert yourself even though you agreed with me that you had failed it incorrectly based on a misinterpretation of the GACR. Shame on you. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
You misrepresented the situation wrong because I only agreed that not all sections were required, such as a section on Society and Culture. However, some sections were still needed because the article was incomplete. I presented the proof that information was available from verifiable sources about newborn and prenatal screening, and those sections were needed. It is a significant point that should not be removed. I understand your position, but still please do not try to misrepresent the situation. You could simply state that I agreed that I agreed Society and Culture were not needed by still insisting on Screening. I didn't notice that you asked something to strike it, I might have overlooked something in those lengthy threads. I am sorry that it turned that way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
If you really are sorry, you ought to go back, find the damn comment, strike it, and apologize. It's not that hard. It's right above the last comment I left on the page. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please suggest on the right procedure, see [4] - I read the arguments and analyzed the matter and now I am convinced that the article is suitable for GA, however, what is the right procedure? May I now change the status from fail to pass without re-nomination, or it should be re-nominated to preserve the correct workflow? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Can you please link the diff of the insulting comment that you've mentioned? I tried to be constructive and care about the content on Wikipedia; I did not want to insult anybody. Still, I would ask for pardon if there were a case, but I need to know what you are speaking about. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
Please stop
Maxim, I'm usually the most patient guy on the wiki, but you've exhausted mine. You are causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of people's time. Please just walk away from the whole XXXYY syndrome thing and WP:GA in general. If you don't you will surely end up being blocked. RoySmith(talk)21:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
I thought that you would apologize, but you came with a message like that. Please consider apologizing and stop insults like you did now. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:26, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
MM, I see you just opened a new GA review (Talk:Anaptychia ciliaris/GA1). I'm concerned that you have gaps in your policy and procedure knowledge that prevent you from being—at this point—a good GA reviewer. Can you please drop that review and any others ongoing, and take a pause from GA reviewing for a while. Maybe something like six months. There has already been a call for sanctions from uninvolved admins, and I'm certain that such requests will increase in frequency and intensity if you continue as you have been. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
It seems some think that your reviewing is problematic, and you should address their concerns before undertaking additional reviews. Esculenta (talk) 04:19, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I really apologize if the following is intrusive of violates some WP policy - there are a lot of them.
Are you the same Maxim Masiutin involved in cybersecurity/CISSP and also the runner?
As you have a very large obvious digital footprint - if you are the same MM - I do not feel too intrusive, a terse Google search pops up the name. You certainly have a lot of very diverse and intriguing interests.
Again, I do apologize if I am stepping across some kind of digital confidentiality boundary - I had considered making myself more 'obvious' and not hiding behind a random name.
We actually have many more things in common than I had thought - again assuming you are THE MM.
Yes, that is me! Thank you for contacting. This is not too intrusive, because if I wanted to be private, I would have used measures to protect my identity.
I would be willing to help you on Wikipedia as much as I could.
However, I'm also a newbie here. I was registered long ago, more than 15 years ago, but contribute from time to time, with pauses of a few years from time to time.
Should you be willing, you may also send me an email via Wikipedia or a LinkedIn message.
I am also lost in such a big number of policies which are so dispersed and diverse, and I am unlucky to sometimes accidentally (by lack of knowldege) violate some rules here and there first time, so I mostly learn by my mistakes. But, unfortunately, it may enrage people. I try to do my best to not commit errors, but on the other hand, I try to be useful and bring up constructive arguments. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:04, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
I also found that you've collected useful links, thank you! Should you find something interesting from like or guidelines on Wikipedia, please share with me. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:06, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
He uses a script, he develops useful scripts. You can contact BogHog if there is a problem with the script, since any suggestions to improve the scripts are welcome I hope.
Basically, there should be no first= or first1=, it should be vauthors=
As for the sources, if a journal or site is here and is not green status at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources then reviewers or other editors will object even if is yellow status which is technically OK if in certain cases.
I generally use fairly robust citations - though I likely do use some lighter weight public health sources - which the WP world likely does not like - I do have mixed emotions on that, but if that is the policy so be it. FDA and Health Canada - are likely on the list of 'not good' - though given what we are creating one does wonder if these are not good enough - BeingObjective (talk) 23:18, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
We should only write about what is already proven by reviews and meta-analysys. We should not sescribe stdies. I will make changes to address that, there are still primary sources to delete and find good secondary sources Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Totally agree - this is fairly clear - the PCI article is full of this noise -
As we discussed, there are many WP articles - I confess, I read and do wonder who the target audience ever was.
I do have a fair amount of Biochemistry background - started of in University Research then go disillusioned and entered the medical field.
I know a lot has changed in both pure Biochem and more so in molecular genetics - since I was in academia, but a lot of these articles are so jargon dense - consider the CYP enzymes and the importance of them to life processes - I read many articles and it is assume you have ten years of research background - the terms Cyp/CYP/Cytochrome P450 System - how many folks really have any knowledge and how do you explain it - likely not by dropping it in the middle of an article - just a small intellectual ramble.
That is great that you have a biochemistry background! I like it too, but I lack knowledge of some fundamental things in this area. Can you please help me finish the article RCCX based on the information presented in a 2021 article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8362596/
Can you make illustrations to show various types of this cluster? Similar images to those in the 2021 article? Drawings would have been useful for the RCCX article. In this cluster, some genes
intertwine, some go in forward direction and some reverse, etc., but I don't fully understand all these underlying details to explain it better or to draw images. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:18, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Well, I can certainly take a look - and see what my skills might add.
Hi Maxim- On Nov. 9 (21:15)I made a one-sentence addition to the entry on Jeff Bingaman to reference a book he recently published. I provided the ISBN for the book with its title, date of publication and publisher. You reverted my addition, saying that I needed a better reference. I could provide a reference to a published review of the book. Would that be sufficient? I'm a little confused as to what is required. Isn't the ISBN a sufficient reference? Thanks for your help. MacQ56 MacQ56 (talk) 01:26, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't notice that you referenced it. However, there should not be simple references as you did, we should use a template or a tool from a toolbar to insert such references. As it is now, it is still unreferenced, and does not comply to the rule. Let me edit and change how it should be so you will be able to compare and see how do do that next time. In the meanwhile, you can read the rules/recommendations at Help:Referencing for beginners.
Thank you for contacting me, and sorry that I didnt' notice that it was inside. I was looking at the end of addition, which was unreferenced. If I saw it, I would have edited to make correct. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:35, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
I also moved the information about the book from the leas section to the body, because it did not fit. I also rewritten the long senttence little bit. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)
25-Hydroxycholesterol, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.
The article has been assessed as Stub-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. It is commonplace for new articles to start out as stubs and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.
Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting 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. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.
Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. 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.
Thank you for writing the article on Wikipedia! I genuinely appreciate your efforts in creating the article on Wikipedia and expanding the sum of human knowledge in Wikipedia. Wishing you and your family a great day!
To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)
Your edit to Paroxysmal supraventricular tachycardia has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. — Diannaa (talk) 15:15, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cancer treatment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:
