User talk:Boghog/Archive 12

Is it a script that does this; particularly converts:

{{Cite journal|last=Zhao|first=Yi|last2=Long|first2=Marcus J. C.|last3=Wang|first3=Yiran|last4=Zhang|first4=Sheng|last5=Aye|first5=Yimon|date=2018-02-28|title=Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses|url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5833000/|journal=ACS Central Science|volume=4|issue=2|pages=246–259|doi=10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556|issn=2374-7943|pmc=PMC5833000|pmid=29532025}}

Zhao, Yi; Long, Marcus J. C.; Wang, Yiran; Zhang, Sheng; Aye, Yimon (2018-02-28). "Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses". ACS Central Science. 4 (2): 246–259. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556. ISSN 2374-7943. PMC 5833000. PMID 29532025.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

to:

{{cite journal | vauthors = Zhao Y, Long MJC, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y | title = Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses | journal = ACS Central Science | volume = 4 | issue = 2 | pages = 246–259 | date = February 2018 | pmid = 29532025 | pmc = 5833000 | doi = 10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556 }}

Zhao Y, Long M, Wang Y, Zhang S, Aye Y (February 2018). "Ube2V2 Is a Rosetta Stone Bridging Redox and Ubiquitin Codes, Coordinating DNA Damage Responses". ACS Central Science. 4 (2): 246–259. doi:10.1021/acscentsci.7b00556. PMC 5833000. PMID 29532025. {{cite journal}}: Vancouver style error: initials in name 2 (help)CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

I find myself following behind you when cleaning up entries in Category:CS1 errors: Vancouver style.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I will modify my script to only output the first two letters of the first/middle initials. The script is getting its data from PubMed. See for example PMID 29532025 which returns |first2=MJC. Boghog (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I've noticed that I seem to be encountering more occasions where PubMed deviates from what I understand to be the Vancouver standard. Is that me or have they adopted a new standard?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I have done some searching, and as far as I can tell, Convert given (first) names and middle names to initials for a maximum of two initials is still the standard.^[1] It appears that National Library of Medicine (NLM) has "extended" the standard from two to three characters, but I cannot find any statement from the NLM about this deviation. In any case, the fix in my python script is trivial (append [:2]) to the first/middle initials string variable. Boghog (talk) 18:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Good, no reason to consider changing cs1|2.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi, Boghog.
I've noticed that you are an AfC reviewer but don't yet have the New Page Reviewer flag. Can you please head over to PERM and request it?
As part of a larger plan to increase cooperation between New Page Patrol and Articles for creation, we are trying to get as many of the active AfC reviewers as possible under the NPR user flag (per this discussion). Unlike the AfC request list, the NPR flag carries no obligation to review new articles, so I'm not asking you to help out at New Page Patrol if you don't want to, just to request the flag.
Of course, if it is something you would be interested in, you can have a look at the NPP tutorial. Please mention that you are an active AfC reviewer in your application.
Cheers, — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 06:17, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your note. I occasionally use the tools review submissions. Per your suggestion, I have applied for the flag. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:01, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello Boghog. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group, allowing you to review new pages and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or in some cases, tag them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is a vital function for policing the quality of the encylopedia; if you have not already done so, you must read the new tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the various deletion criteria. If you need more help or wish to discuss the process, please join or start a thread at page reviewer talk.

• URGENT: Please consider helping get the huge backlog down to a manageable number of pages as soon as possible.
• Be nice to new users - they are often not aware of doing anything wrong.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted - be formal and polite in your approach to them too, even if they are not.
• Don't review a page if you are not sure what to do. Just leave it for another reviewer.
• Remember that quality is quintessential to good patrolling. Take your time to patrol each article, there is no rush. Use the message feature and offer basic advice.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In case of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, the right can be revoked at any time by an administrator. ~ Amory (u • t • c) 12:07, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you think a redirect like this appropriate? Before today, that page redirected to Sweet Tooth (disambiguation). Wikipedia doesn't have any other pages that actually cover what a "sweet tooth" is, although there is wikt:sweet tooth. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 17:41, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

There is also this guy: Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal) ;-) There is already a disambiguation page called Sweet Tooth. My suggestion is to add FGF21 to Sweet Tooth and redirect Sweet tooth → Sweet Tooth. Does this sound reasonable? Boghog (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I took the liberty of making the changes. I also create a new redirect from Sweet tooth phenotype. I hope this is OK. Boghog (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I've never heard of Sweet Tooth (Twisted Metal) or the comic book video game. The phenotype is clearly the primary topic, but I'm not sure if redirecting to a gene with a SNP that mediates the phenotype necessarily would take precedence over non-primary topics if the phenotype isn't discussed to any real extent. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:08, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I am not at all sure that the phenotype is the primary topic. When in doubt, I think a disambiguation page is the way to go. Also I don't think it is worth creating a separate article on rs838133. Boghog (talk) 18:14, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Well, if it isn't "someone who gets cravings for sweets", what else do you expect to be the first thing that comes to a person's mind when they hear that term w/o context or search it on wikipedia without parenthetical disambiguation? I agree that rs838133 is not notable; it merits at most a paragraph in the FGF21 article. If more than one gene has an SNP that can produce that phenotype, an article about the phenotype within the context of genetics would be notable. Didn't see anything about that on pubmed though. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 18:23, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I tweaked the DAB page slightly. I think the way the redirects and DAB page are set up now is fine. FWIW, because the "sweet tooth phenotype" is a behavioral phenotype - which are just specific "observable patterns of behavior" or just simply specific "patterns of behavior" given that all behavior is observable - a "sweet tooth phenotype" literally just refers to the dictionary definition of a sweet tooth. Among other things, the phenome-wide association study commentary paper that I cited (http://sci-hub.tw/10.1038/nrendo.2017.62) indicated that people with that SNP of the FGF21 gene were in the highest tertile/quintile (I forget which) for simple sugar consumption in the study it commented on, which reflects that definition (i.e., a fondness or craving for sweets). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:09, 15 April 2018 (UTC) edited 20:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Hello,

There will be some changes to the way wikitext is parsed during the next few weeks. It will affect all namespaces. You can see a list of pages that may display incorrectly at Special:LintErrors. Since most of the easy problems have already been solved at the English Wikipedia, I am specifically contacting tech-savvy editors such as yourself with this one-time message, in the hope that you will be able to investigate the remaining high-priority pages during the next month.

There are approximately 10,000 articles (and many more non-article pages) with high-priority errors. The most important ones are the articles with misnested tags and table problems. Some of these involve templates, such as infoboxes, or the way the template is used in the article. In some cases, the "error" is a minor, unimportant difference in the visual appearance. In other cases, the results are undesirable. You can see a before-and-after comparison of any article by adding ?action=parsermigration-edit to the end of a link, like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Foss?action=parsermigration-edit (which shows a difference in how {{infobox ship}} is parsed).

If you are interested in helping with this project, please see Wikipedia:Linter. There are also some basic instructions (and links to even more information) at https://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikitech-ambassadors/2018-April/001836.html You can also leave a note at WT:Linter if you have questions.

Thank you for all the good things you do for the English Wikipedia. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 21:18, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

This is to let you know that Beta-Hydroxy beta-methylbutyric acid has been scheduled as today's featured article for 28 May 2018. Please check that the article needs no polishing or corrections. If you're interested in editing the main page text, you're welcome to do so at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2018. Ealdgyth - Talk 16:59, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Can you please stop making reference edits that do not improve the encyclopedia, by merely changing author style around from last/first to vauthors (or vice-versa)? This is a violation of WP:CITEVAR: "[Do] not attempt to change an article's established citation style merely on the grounds of personal preference, to make it match other articles, or without first seeking consensus for the change." If the script you are using cannot avoid doing this, then please stop using the script.

I noticed this happening again while checking a student editor working on Zatypota percontatoria, where I saw this edit of yours with summary consistent citation formatting. This has made things worse, not better. Complicating matters further, the two follow-up edits of yours means that one cannot use the Undo link to revert the first one.

You were advised of this issue a week ago, at the discussion now archived here. This is starting to feel disruptive to me. Can you please manually undo edit 838239555 of 19:52, April 25, 2018 at Zatypota percontatoria (the other two are already taken care of) and assure us that you won't continue this type of edit anymore? It's not helpful, and it's increasing my workload. And, it's giving students the wrong idea. Thanks. @Biogeographist and Jonesey95: Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot Your interpretation of citevar is incorrect. Before your reversion there was a consistent style. Your reversion has reintroduced an inconsistent style. Please revert your reversion. Boghog (talk) 08:37, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Mathglot It's not helpful – precisely why isn't it helpful? it's giving students the wrong idea – what is wrong about it? Also your reversion has removed information. Before my edits, several of the citations were incomplete and/or were not templated. Your revisions are not helpful. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I've self-reverted and restored your version, and will look into this in more detail tomorrow. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 08:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the script that Boghog uses is unhelpful when it strips information from citations, for reasons I explained at User talk:Boghog/Archive 12 § Not broken and Talk:Psychotherapy § Citation style, although I have no comment on the particular case of Zatypota percontatoria. Biogeographist (talk) 12:12, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems odd that Boghog is using |vauthors= in some citations and |name-list-format=vanc in other citations. Some pedantic editors would say that is a violation of CITEVAR, and in any event, removing useful citation information from the article by using |vauthors= is probably not helpful. Perhaps |name-list-format=vanc is a better option than removing information from the article. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:23, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I am using |name-list-format=vanc in book and web citations because the full authors information is harder to come by. It is trivial to regenerate full authors information for journal articles that are indexed in PubMed. Why do we need to replicate PubMed in Wikipedia? And why are full first names essential? To the average reader, this is superfluous information. Boghog (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

I have re-added the verbose first1, last1, parameters in this edit. The advantage of |vauthors= is that it much more efficient and doesn't clutter up the raw wiki text with long templates. The advantage of |name-list-format=vanc is that it insures the authors are formatted in a consistent way. Before I started editing this article, the citations were an inconsistent mess. Some of the first names were spelled out in full, some were abbreviated, some were in all caps, and some were missing altogether. After my edits, the formatting was completely consistent. Boghog (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2018 (UTC)

Further to the other editors you seem to have annoyed above, could you please take care not to give me the impression you are following me around with your edits. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:43, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I think the first time we interacted was on Evolution of mammalian auditory ossicles. My first edit on this article was on July 2008. Your first edit edit was on January 2018. What drew me to Genetic diversity was not your edits, but rather Category:CS1 maint: PMC format. We at least partially agree that the automated citation generation tools are adding useless parameters (compare diff with diff). Boghog (talk) 18:42, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Boghog, Thank you for fixing some citations for the FMT page. As a question from a newer user: I am using the citation function above the edit box by entering PMID/doi/etc., is there a way to have this automatically change to the standard citation for a page? I didn't see a standard format list in the MedMOS/RS sections and I see this as possibly saving people time in the future. Thanks in advance. AverageleveledIQ (talk) 16:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your question. Clearly Fecal microbiota transplant used Vancouver system historically, but has drifted away from this format over time presumably because most authors were using WP:REFTOOLS to add new citations. Unfortunately WP:REFTOOLS does not support |vauthors= as an option. I requested this functionality [[Wikipedia_talk:RefToolbar#Support_for_|vauthors=?|here]], but didn't get too far. The only tool that I know of that generates citations in this format is the Diberri Template builder. I hope this helps. Boghog (talk) 18:58, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes that does help. I gave it try and it seems easy enough to work with my next edits. Thanks again for your quick response. AverageleveledIQ (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:17, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

In these edits you changed:

van Geffen, Wouter; Hajian, Bita; Vos, Wim; De Backer, Jan; Cahn, Anthony; Usmani, Omar; Van Holsbeke, Cedric; Pistolesi, Massimo; Kerstjens, Huib (2018-05). "Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. Volume 13: 1783–1792. doi:10.2147/copd.s152463. ISSN 1178-2005. PMC 5985851. {{cite journal}}: |volume= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: PMC format (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

to

Bergamasco B, Bergamini L, Doriguzzi T, Sacerdote I (June 1966). "[The nyctohemeral cycle in coma. Prognostic possibilities]". Rivista Di Patologia Nervosa E Mentale. 87 (3): 312–8. doi:10.2147/copd.s152463. PMC 5985851.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:25, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. Accidentally used the PMC as a PMID. Should be:

• van Geffen WH, Hajian B, Vos W, De Backer J, Cahn A, Usmani OS, Van Holsbeke C, Pistolesi M, Kerstjens HA, De Backer W (2018). "Functional respiratory imaging: heterogeneity of acute exacerbations of COPD". International Journal of Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease. 13: 1783–1792. doi:10.2147/COPD.S152463. PMC 5985851. PMID 29881268.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link)

The source was primary and I see that you have replaced it with EB200. Boghog (talk) 12:00, 9 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you have to take a look at WP:CITEVAR. I have seen you do this before and would suggest that this is not a good use of editor time. Also, see WP:BOLD. Your edit was challenged. Take it to talk instead of re-reverting. --Randykitty (talk) 17:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Responded at Talk:TREAT-NMD. Boghog (talk) 18:38, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

You are deleting factual, cited information from the Brain Balance Wikipedia page. If you continue to do so I will have to report your account.

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

@Sofiariv10: Per WP:3RR, A series of consecutive saved revert edits by one user with no intervening edits by another user counts as one revert. My three consecutive edits were to different portions of the article. I could have done all this in one edit, but I split this into three edits so that the justification for each edit could be more clearly stated in the edit summary. I agree with you that the information that you added is factual, but as I have stated here, I dispute its relevance. I would appreciate if you would continue this discussion on the article's talk page. Boghog (talk) 05:18, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Beta-2 adrenergic receptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CAMP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:04, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for having a listen to my thoughts about the receptor infoboxes, your openness to discussion is really commendable :). I'm keeping abreast of the discussions and will contribute when I've got something to add. Thanks again, Tom (LT) (talk) 11:14, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

And thank you for raising the issue in the first place and for your constructive feedback! Concerning readability, we can and must do better. It has been difficult to please everyone, but I am confident that we can eventually arrive at a consensus. Boghog (talk) 14:37, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, please stop put FBXL2 content into FBXW7. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ztj0420 (talk • contribs) 19:12, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

@Ztj0420: Hi. In the future, it would really help if you add edit summaries to all your edits, especially those where you have deleted what looks like well sourced material. Without an edit summary, it may be difficult for others to understand why you made an edit and increases the chance that you edit will be reverted. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 12:45, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Does this reach you? Julia Edgar (talk) 09:36, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I did receive an e-mail alerting me to your message. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 09:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

@Boghog I don't know how to leave a message on my talk page - perhaps you can advise.

Regarding the opening section on 'Myelin' being too long, that's fine. I am new to Wiki and I am learning. I agree with the edits you made.

At least now the info (as far as I know) is accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Julia Edgar (talk • contribs) 10:41, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

No worries. You are adding great material and keep up the good work! It just needs to be reorganized a bit. It is often easier to first write the body of the article and after that that is finished, write the lead. But either way is fine with me. Of course, the order in which things are done is much less important compared to the final product. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:51, 28 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, Thanks for moving content created by my students on Ginger to a draft space. As they are learning with me on how to contribute to Wikipedia, they are (so am I) are constantly making different kinds of mistakes and violating many netiquettes/rules. Thanks for moving the pages elsewhere instead of simply deleting their hardwork. JudyCChan (talk) 06:06, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I just had an instance where CC stripped out five of 92 refs in such a way that a bot follows, restoring the ref but in a different format. As I wrote on CC's Talk, this was annoying in extreme, as for my effort to bring the article to GA status, the reviewer had asked that all journal citations be in same format. I have reversed the CC/bot edits. I see from looking back in CC's archives, that this has been a consistent (annoying) practice for many years. In fact, I quoted one of your comments from years back. Thank you for allowing me to vent here, as I did not want to be uncivil toward CC. David notMD (talk) 00:59, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi David. As you have noticed from my comments on CC's talk page, I too have been irritated by CC changing author formats. His behavior has improved since he used to do whole sale changes. He is now more selective, but at the same time, he still is often moving away from the previously established citation format. Not sure I can do much more other than follow-up edits. Boghog (talk) 02:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

I don't feel like posting this at Talk:Estrogen since it'd inevitably resurrect an old discussion (Talk:Estrogen#WP:Lead_sentence), so I'm just going to ask you.

Do you think this template's compound highlighting in these articles (view the diagram in Estrogen#Metabolism and Estrogen (medication)#Pharmacokinetics) is appropriate/accurate? Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:15, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Until I worked on this template, I literally thought "estrogen" was a unique chemical – analogous to testosterone – so I really need feedback on this. lol Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 03:20, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: The definition of estrogen depends on its context. A chemist might define a estrogen as a class of steroids related to and including 17-beta-estradiol. An endocrinologist might define estrogen as 17-beta-estradiol and its active metabolites. An environmentalist might define an estrogen as any substance that binds to the estrogen receptor. In the context of your metabolism graphic, you are linking to estradiol and not estrogen so I do not see any problems with ambiguity. If one nit picks, one might link to 17-beta-estradiol instead of estradiol. However estradiol generally mean 17-beta-estradiol. So I think your labels are fine in their present state.

I do have two more general comments. The arrows are a little too bold for my taste. I have revised the File:Estradiol metabolism structures.svg to include arrows and to match the order of structures in your present graphic. Also I think the graphic is too large and overwhelms articles it is placed in. This graphic can easily be scaled to 80% of its present size and still be readable. I have started to work on a scaled version in my sandbox to give you an idea what it would look like. Please note that I have simplified the captions by removing the linked term isozymes (that is explained in the linked artilce) and one of the 17-beta-HSD captions from the double sided arrow (it is assumed that the enzyme catalyzes the reaction in both directions). Boghog (talk) 13:27, 11 August 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. Medgirl also thought removing the term "isoforms" was appropriate, so I ended up doing that (and removing the highlighting). I can look into converting this to a smaller diagram sometime in the next week, although I'd need her feedback on that as well. Most of my diagrams have been 600px wide due to mobile browser widths. Even so, {{AI4}} is designed to be scrollable when the image renders on a page with a viewing width that's smaller than the image width (e.g., open Template:Metabolic metro on your phone). Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:55, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Take a look at my sandbox where I have already rescaled the figure. My main concern is about the desktop view. Boghog (talk) 20:14, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Ah. I'd still have to tinker around with the image before adopting it (I'd still to get Medgirl's input). A 11px font is fine only for very minor explanatory text in an image IMO; it's way too small to use as a font-size for most of the text since that text size is very small and is particularly hard to read on wide, high-resolution desktop monitors/laptop screens (e.g., my screen).

This is 11 px font.

This is the smallest font-size I've ever used in an annotated image. (font-size:12px)

This is the regular font-size for wikitext. (font-size:100%)

This is the font-size I'd normally use to annotate text in an annotated image. (font-size:14px)

I'll tinker around with the image soon to see what I can do to shrink it; in the meantime, I should probably point out that {{Estradiol metabolism}} need not be transcluded with centered alignment. If you think it's more appropriate to right-align the image in a section so that it takes up less article real estate, feel free to adjust it accordingly ({{Estradiol metabolism|align=right|header=XYZ}}). Also, I can reduce the arrow width easily enough since the start and end coordinates remain the same when the arrow width setting is changed in Inkscape. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 20:44, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Why not just use the version in my sandbox? Or at the very least, the new version of the svg file? To me, a far bigger problem is the overall size of the graphic. One can easily increase the size of the graphic in the browser if the font is too small. The overwhelming size of the graphic is a problem regardless of the magnification. Boghog (talk) 21:08, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

It would take me less time to adjust the line sizes in the original image, put all of the annotation coordinates in the current version in an Excel spreadsheet, scale them by the ratio that I shrink the diagram by, and change them simultaneously when I reupload the diagram (~10-15 minutes) than to resize and adjust the coordinates of the annotations in your sandbox diagram since I have to annotate Wikitext by trial and error (i.e., make a guess, hit "Show preview", adjust it, preview it again, and repeat this over and over again until I get it right). I also need Medgirl's input on using a smaller diagram before doing this. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:22, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: It would take even less time to use the version in my sandbox. Boghog (talk) 21:38, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

Lol. I agree with you on that, but both the current diagram and sandbox diagram have faults. So long as you both agree on a change, I'll go ahead and do it; I'd rather not put myself in a position where I have to go back and forth making changes that I end up reverting. I've already spent over 12 hours working on this diagram during the past week. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:46, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

In any event, I emailed her about shrinking it. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 21:54, 12 August 2018 (UTC)

@Seppi333: Wikipedia runs by open consensus, not private e-mails. I have also spent considerable amount of time on the sandbox version. The the arrows, especially the double sided arrows are cleaner and better proportioned than the current live version and is a better starting point. Finally I am more than willing to edit the sandbox version if necessary. Boghog (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm ok with using the sandbox version as long as the enzyme font-size is changed to 12px, the compound annotations are changed to 13px, the annotation positions are repositioned closer to the lines (especially the bottom 17β-HSD annotation), and the lines in the top-left and bottom-right are extended so that the association between the substrate and the product is clearer (e.g., the gaps between the compounds and the line in the bottom-right are rather excessive). I found it annoyingly difficult to click the annotations in the sandbox diagram when I was viewing it on my phone, so an 11px font-size for linked annotations is not just a readability issue; it makes the diagram less accessible on mobile devices.

That said, if your only concern with the template is the line width and the diagram width/height, adjusting those will not take me very long to do. I don't particularly care whether the diagram in your sandbox is used (provided the aforementioned adjustments are made) or the current template is used (again, provided that the adjustments to the lines or lines+size are made). I just don't want to spend time doing something that I end up reverting given how much time I've already spent on it. I've already reverted about an hour of work on the image file and template, so waiting for feedback seems prudent. Honestly, I don't know how Medgirl will feel about it because the original png image file was included in these articles as a collapsed 650px-wide image. I'm assuming that you don't consider this to be an urgent issue (mainly because amphetamine and HMB both contain annotated images with comparable widths/heights), so why not wait for further input? I'm not opposed to doing what you're asking; I'm opposed to doing more work that I might end up reverting. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 01:21, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I have increased the font sizes to 12 and 13px. With all due respect to Medgirl, it is not entirely her decision. The difference between the present annotated figure and the figures contained in amphetamine and HMB is that those later two articles are much larger than many of the stubs (e.g., Estrone sulfate) that the metabolism figure is inserted into. Boghog (talk) 02:06, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi there,

thanks for having a look at the MST article. However, I have to disagree about the citations labeled by you as "spammy". The citations I added link to applications notes provided by that company, which are well-suited references for the kinds of applications listed on the MST "Applications" section. So I see no reason why they should be removed.

Best!

Hi. Thanks for your message. For scientific and biomedical articles (see WP:SCIRS and WP:MEDRS respectively), Wikipedia generally prefers published sources that have been peer reviewed and more preferably, secondary sources (i.e., review aticles). The sources that you have provided have not been peer reviewed, so we have no independent evaluation of their reliability and notability. These sources might be acceptable if no published source were available, but in this case, there have been a number of papers, including review articles, that have been published on the applications of MST. I have added several sources that meet the requirements of SCIRS. Boghog (talk) 14:22, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Hello, I noticed you removed C. albicans from the list with organisms that have been edited in vivo. How come? Just curious to know what the reason is. Also: for one of the organisms there is no reference anymore now. Not sure you deleted it by accident or it was not there from the start. (talking about this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CRISPR) Garnhami (talk) 14:15, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The reason for my edit was explained in my edit summary. Per WP:SECONDARY, Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (review articles). All of the sources that I removed were primary. All of the sources that I added are secondary. I have re-added C. albicans, but this time supported by a secondary source. I have also added a source for C. elegans (Ma_2015 covers most of the organisms including C. elegans). When CRISPR was just getting started, the list of model organisms where it was applied was short. This is no longer true. In yeasts alone it has been applied to Yarrowia lipolytica, Pichia pastoris syn. Komagataella phaffii, Kluyveromyces lactis, Candida albicans and C. glabrata (Raschmanová_2018). The total list of model organisms where CRISPR has been applied is become very long which decreases the notability for any one example. Boghog (talk) 16:13, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Garnhami (talk) 21:35, 26 August 2018 (UTC)

In this edit, you changed the word "Jamaica" to "JAMAica". If you're using a script to do these edits or something along those lines, you should probably adjust it so it only capitalizes JAMA when it's a stand-alone word. -Apocheir (talk) 01:11, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I have changed my regular expression from "Jama" to "\bJama\b" so that it will now only match whole words. Boghog (talk) 03:18, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Outside my area of expertise, but the editor Ketoacids appears to be exceptionally BOLD in editing carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, and more recently heme oxygenase. I had some interactions on the first topic because parts were being inserted into nutrient articles, but let it drop. Since August the heme oxygenase article has been increased nearly 5X in length, with a lot of the content apparently copied over from the editor's additions to the carbon monoxide article. (There is a "See also" to the carbon monoxide-releasing molecules article.) I saw that you have been a past editor on both articles, so thought to bring it to your attention. David notMD (talk) 17:10, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. Also somewhat outside my area of expertise. In addition to the WP:PRIMARY concerns that you have already flagged, it appears that much of the material that has been added to the heme oxygenase is somewhat off topic. Hence some trimming is in order. I will take a closer look over the weekend. Boghog (talk) 18:37, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

Ketoacids decided to delete ALL content in the two articles since first having started to edit back in August. Reverted by another editor. That, reverted by Ketoacids. THAT, reverted by me. My suggestion in my reverts was that the articles in question could instead be improved by selective editing, but Ketoacids appears to think of these as owned, and hence feelings hurt that anyone else ("trolls") would deign to edit the articles. I would not have started to wack at the two articles in the first place except that Ketoacid's User page - since blanked - had mentioned a list of other articles as a "to-do" list. Oh, well. David notMD (talk) 21:50, 29 September 2018 (UTC)

Apparently we have lost a knowledgable editor which is a shame. By my count, about 40% of the source in Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules are secondary. So I agree with you, there is no reason to nuke all of Ketoacids additions. I will try to find appropriate review articles to replace the primary sources and adjust the text accordingly, but this will take some time. Boghog (talk) 08:34, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Have at it. I am returning to my comfort zone (nutrients, dietary supplements, food allergies...). David notMD (talk) 09:54, 30 September 2018 (UTC)

Derpablonachos as an editor appears to have been created only to delete large amounts of this article and from Heme oxygenase, which led me to believe it was a second account opened by Ketoacids, or perhaps a friend of. Anyway, I restored the references that were cut from Heme oxygenase, as they looked to be appropriate. You did a reversal of cuts for Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, but then reversed the reversal. Is the article really better for the massive cuts? Were any worth a second third look? David notMD (talk) 13:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Concerning Carbon monoxide-releasing molecules, Ketoacids and myself were involved in an edit conflict. I had categorized the sources as primary and secondary and had started to look for replacement sources when Ketoacids made a massive edit to remove material not supported by secondary sources. I was having difficulty locating appropriate secondary sources and also realized the text would need to be extensively rewritten. In short, this would entail an enormous amount of work in an area that I am not very familiar with, so I gave up. I will go back again, and see if I can salvage any of the material. Boghog (talk) 06:29, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Can I get your opinion? I see that you have removed a citation from an article (don't remember which one, toxic effects of local anesthesia maybe?) and I want to learn from your example. I have cited a reference to online content that is only accessible through a paid subscription (ISACA, Screened subnet. In the reference citation I included a quote from the source.

1. If I am citing content that must be paid to access (magazine, book, web) does that always devalue the reference?
2. If I quote the cited source does that make the reference more valuable?

If you like, will you send me a notification or bump on my talk page so I will see your response? This is important to me because in the information security domain I often have to rely on authoritative standards that are not free. Stephen Charles Thompson (talk) 20:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for your message. The issue with the citation is not that is non-free, but rather it contained no bibliographic information that would enable anyone outside of the University of Dundee to identify the original source. Through a Google search of for the partial DOI in the link that you added (sj.bdj.2014.546), I was able to find the original source. I then added the full source in this edit. While the article is non-free, at least full bibliographic information is now provide with links to the abstract which is free. The ideal sources are free and therefore preferred, but often times best available sources to support a given statement are non-free and are certainly acceptable to cite. Boghog (talk) 02:00, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

- what do you think? My very best wishes (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, please do not attempt to change the author format in established articles, that is contrary to the MoS, which states directly:

The Arbitration Committee has expressed the principle that "When either of two styles are [sic] acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change."

There is no mandate to change author format from Doe, John (or Doe, J. R.) to Vauthor-style Doe JR as you have done in several cases that I've seen, and probably many others. The MoS states of such action:

Optional styles should not be "enforced" in a bot-like fashion without prior consensus – doing so will likely be seen as disruptive.

I would be grateful if you could take note of this policy and desist from any further attempts to enforce Vauthor format. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:30, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a bit like calling the kettle black. In any case, I apologize for Hymenoptera. In the vast majority of articles where I tweak the author style, Vancouver style was the originally established style, so my edits are compliant with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 10:17, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

One day I went to the local park with my dog and right there at the entrance was the biggest pile of steaming excrement . Action needed to be taken to avoid the inevitable and as I had plenty of dog poop bags, I tied my dog to the railings and got down on my hands and knees and started cleaning up the mess. Just as I was finishing up, a woman arrived with her children and exclaimed loudly “watch out children, this stupid man has let his dog shit in front of the gate”

A lesson in assuming good faith methinks. I am convinced by the vanc rationale so keep up the good work Boghog, I believe you are doing a great job! CV9933 (talk) 10:49, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

@Boghog: For the page FGFR3 we are currently doing a project worth half of our credit for our genetic's class, about the gene and its functions on the human body. We have submitted the project to the teacher and the website wikiedu and both have been approved to be worked on. We have also submitted the work to a plagiarism check and its came back okay.I understand that you have a problem with the fact the we are adding disease causing traits with the FGFR3 gene but that is the agreed upon topic for me and my class mates and each of us has a specific disease we have to work on.The project itself is due in less than 24 hours so I would be very grateful if you could leave the text alone until it is approved by my professor. Brandon westmoreland (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Somatostatin receptor 2, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Colon (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Hey boghog, me and my group for class were assigned an article to edit and you keep making adjustments and deleting our work that needs to be graded. For the sake of my group could you hold off on editing for a week so we can get our grades. It’s the twinkle protein article. Eda2y (talk) 21:47, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Eda2y: Sorry, but much of the material that you and your class mates have added is essay-like and is not suitable for Wikipedia. Your version the article is in the history. Please refer your instructor to this link. Boghog (talk) 02:46, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

	The Hard Worker's Barnstar
	I have seen you laboring and laboring to clean up as kindly as you could after the genetics classes. Thank you so much for that work! It is frustrating as hell i know. Please know that I (and am sure others) appreciate your time and effort. Jytdog (talk) 17:23, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, but the credit really should go to you for taking the bull by the horns and decisively resolving this issue. Thank you for getting the class back on the rails! Boghog (talk) 20:52, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

Template:You are here has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  03:22, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

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

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Boghog,

Reviewer of the Year

This year's award for the Reviewer of the Year goes to Onel5969. Around on Wikipedia since 2011, their staggering number of 26,554 reviews over the past twelve months makes them, together with an additional total of 275,285 edits, one of Wikipedia's most prolific users.

Thanks are also extended for their work to JTtheOG (15,059 reviews), Boleyn (12,760 reviews), Cwmhiraeth (9,001 reviews), Semmendinger (8,440 reviews), PRehse (8,092 reviews), Arthistorian1977 (5,306 reviews), Abishe (4,153 reviews), Barkeep49 (4,016 reviews), and Elmidae (3,615 reviews).
Cwmhiraeth, Semmendinger, Barkeep49, and Elmidae have been New Page Reviewers for less than a year — Barkeep49 for only seven months, while Boleyn, with an edit count of 250,000 since she joined Wikipedia in 2008, has been a bastion of New Page Patrol for many years.

See also the list of top 100 reviewers.

Less good news, and an appeal for some help

The backlog is now approaching 5,000, and still rising. There are around 640 holders of the NPR flag, most of whom appear to be inactive. The 10% of the reviewers who do 90% of the work could do with some support especially as some of them are now taking a well deserved break.

Really good news - NPR wins the Community Wishlist Survey 2019

At #1 position, the Community Wishlist poll closed on 3 December with a resounding success for NPP, reminding the WMF and the volunteer communities just how critical NPP is to maintaining a clean encyclopedia and the need for improved tools to do it. A big 'thank you' to everyone who supported the NPP proposals. See the results.

Training video

Due to a number of changes having been made to the feed since this three-minute video was created, we have been asked by the WMF for feedback on the video with a view to getting it brought up to date to reflect the new features of the system. Please leave your comments here, particularly mentioning how helpful you find it for new reviewers.

---

If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, go here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:14, 14 December 2018 (UTC)