User talk:CatPath

Hello, CatPath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Quick introduction to Wikipedia
• How to write a great article
• Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
• Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome!  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

• Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
• Diberri Template builder for citing scientific articles

In this edit summary you state "The Shamovsky 2006 reference does not claim that RNA-1 is an RNA thermometer". In fact, the referenced article states:

Here we describe a previously uncharacterised non-coding RNA that is essential for heat-shock response activation and that could potentially serve as a thermosensor. Indeed, the concept of an RNA thermosensor, albeit with a different mode of action, has already been described in bacteria

While you could have added "potentially" I disagree with removing the whole paragraph so will be reinserting it. Please discuss, ideally on the article talk page, before removing large sections Thanks Jebus989^✰ 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the Hsp70 element, the referenced article states:

We suggest that one or both of these regions of secondary structure comprises a heat-sensitive inhibitory element that impedes access to the initiation codon at normal growth temperature. Furthermore, the ability of ribosomal subunits to recognize this region could be heat enhanced, presumably through thermal destabilization of the stem. This model draws by analogy on studies that have elucidated a mechanism of bacterial heat shock preferential translation. In that instance, a series of studies have shown that thermal melting of a stem-containing region including the Shine-Dalgarno region, and perhaps also a downstream box segment, allows rRNA base-pairing and ribosome recruitment only at elevated (heat shock) temperatures

But I accept that, although spelling it out, they do not use the phrase 'RNA thermometer/thermosensor', so I will not reinsert it at this time Jebus989^✰ 08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Vaccine concerns are based on "However, some countries, such as the USA, do not routinely vaccinate with BCG, based on the uncertain efficacy against pulmonary TB in adolescents and adults, as well as the need to maintain the utility of tuberculin testing as a diagnostic test in the population."--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)

No issue with the OR at Bb, User:CatPath let's just keep checking and if we see relevant source on the sensu, I'll be glad to extract and make the initial edit, if you post a citation there. (I did some drug discovery work on that organism years ago, as a medic hem / chem biol, not a microbiol). Alternatively on the sensu, I'd be glad to try to help you find a way to get a short scholarly note published. Never been easier with PLOS and the proliferation of niche J's. (I am envision a comment somewhere, or a reply, that incorporates your obs). RSVP, or we can go offline. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)

Editors with conflict of interests aren't a speedy deletion criterion, and not really ever a deletion criterion. Editors can, and do, edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. They don't have any restrictions above or beyond regular editors - just that we acknowledge it's a trickier situation, and you need to be carefuler. You can read the whole mess, but basically all it says is don't push a POV against the interests of the encyclopaedia. I don't see any evidence of that in that case. Articles that are blatant spam get deleted because they're of no encyclopaedic value. Articles that are of encyclopaedic value, but - what? rely to heavily on sources from a single publisher? - may need some balancing/editing, but there's no need to delete them.

That said, if there're substantial copyright violations in the article, tag it as G-12, and then it should be speedily deleted. Copyright infringment needs to be nuked from orbit, and the article re-created from scratch. WilyD 09:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

• Well, if there are substantial amounts of copied text (or even small amounts!), that is a serious problem. Don't haraung someone over having a COI, unless their editing is otherwise problematic, but don't put up with copyright violations. WilyD 11:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

See comment here

Hi CatPath -- Wondering if we could talk on Talk:Esther Lederberg about the extensive changes you've been making? Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Hello CatPath. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Environmental microbiology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Too complex for speedy deletion. Try WP:Copyright problems instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

CatPath,

removing apparently valid sources for an article which has been copied from the non-deleted source does seem quite a surprising action. I presume there must be some reason that isn't visible to the rest of us, such as that the deleted sources have been spammed into there? Otherwise, one might imagine that a good route for the article would be to use the non-CV sources to develop the article.

What's the situation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi CatPath, u removed the tree that I created and said "‎Phylogeny: Deleted tree. Does not appear correctly on some screens. Should be presented as a figure, not as in-line text". I know you are trying to make the page clearer and more reader friendly, but instead of removing someones work altogether why don't you fix the errors to make it more legible and aesthetic. Don't mean to be rude but you seem to be doing this alot. The information present was gotten from credible sources and represent a useful addition to the knowledge base of Bacteriology, so agin why don't you solve problems rather than just delete problems. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

I see that you have been making many edits to different pages on how the lac operon works and its inhibition by glucose. I don't think it is wise to make wholesale changes without making clearer in the text why what is generally accepted to true in textbook may not be accurate. I don't know if this has been addressed in studies, but lac operon mutants that are insensitive to catabolite repression is explained in term of not requiring cAMP binding, and if the cAMP model is wrong, I'm still not sure how it could be affected by the glucose shutting down lactose permease. If one model is wrong, it doesn't mean the other is necessarily correct, therefore a clearer explanation of the different models is necessary. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm Luna, the person whose edit you rolled back on the ABA page. I was wondering if you could help me.

I realize that my edit didn't match Wikipedia's guidelines, so I'm okay with it going away. However, the issues I mentioned still remain: the autistic/parent community takes serious issue with many forms of ABA therapy for a number of ethical reasons. A lot of children and adults have been abused, scarred, and diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of their experiences in ABA.

I feel that parents and others need to be aware of the controversy and risks when making this decision. I've heard of parents who say they were not informed about some of the things that happened in the therapy (e.g. pinning down a sobbing child, physical injury, taking away a child's AAC device as punishment). Ideally, parents would know that these things happen, so they can balance cost/benefit and know what to look out for if they decide to proceed with ABA.

Since I'm new and unused to the quality guidelines, I doubt that attempting to edit the article alone will result in an edit that stays. I'd like it to have a clear, appropriately-cited part somewhere so the article will describe both sides of the argument. Where and how can I get help to make this happen?

Thanks a lot, Luna MissLuna12 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Greetings! I noticed that you reverted some edits that I made to Borrelia burgdorferi. References 4 and 5 document the consensus of researchers with reliable, high quality medical references that this pathogen is oncogenic and an infectious cause of cancer. Providing two important wikilinks to more information on this bacteria is appropriate. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

User:Bfpage, the only review source on the Bb oncogenesis discussion closes its only relevant section on the Bb-lymphoma association by saying, "Unlike gastric MALT lymphoma, only a few cases of PCBCL [primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma] have responded to antibiotics (42, 57, 91, 141, 166, 206). As in the case of C. psittaci and ocular adnexal MALT lymphoma, if B. burgdorferi is truly associated with PCBCL, then there is wide geographic variability and other factors are probably involved" (see , p. 846, accessed 19 June 2015.).

Bottom line, correlation is not causality, and there is no support in this best source, for the broad conclusion you stated, Bfpage, that Bb as a "pathogen is oncogenic and an infectious cause of cancer." Please. State what the experts state, and only that. We are not allowed, or in this case, qualified to do more. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

I am so glad that you found the (embarrassing) mistake of my listing the same reference twice but with different lead authors in the Pelvic inflammatory disease article. Just because it has passed its GA review doesn't mean that it doesn't need more reviews-you have proven that and I am glad. I think where I went wrong is that I plugged in the doi into an automated, web-based referencing bot that spit out the 'wiki-ready' mark-up code with Clarke's name first instead of Sharma. So now I have the tedious job of going back over my contributions and created articles where I used this one reference as two....grrr. I created my own problem. Thanks again and feel free to point out the editing mistakes that I make-it can only make things better. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Ok. Then. That is fine. My mistake! SwagBucks101101 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi CatPath,

I just wanted to comment on the recent changes you made to the Lyme disease microbiology article. The reference you cited doesn't claim these 21 species are "Lyme-associated." It just says there are 21 species which make host of deer ticks. Most of these 21 species don't have any proof for pathogenic potential.

See below:

"Although the pathogenic potential of many of these variants remains to be established, recognition is an essential first step towards unravelling their ecological role(s) and pathogenic capability. Within this category are borreliae, including B. americana, B. bavariensis, B. bissettiae, B. californiensis, B. finlandensis, B. kurtenbachii, B. mayonii, B. sinica, B. tanukii, B. turdi and B. yangtzensis, which share their vector with known pathogenic species."

So I think it's actually pretty irresponsible to call these 21 species "Lyme-associated" since the majority of them haven't been associated with Lyme disease at all. They've only been associated with host ticks which also carry the pathogenic lyme variants. Let me know your thoughts here.

Also, I gotta say, the source that I used that you removed explicitly stated the number of main species which cause Lyme disease. See below:

"Nearly all human infections are caused by three B burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies: Borrelia garinii, Borrelia afzelii, and B burgdorferi sensu stricto. All three species cause Lyme borreliosis in Europe, whereas only B burgdorferi sensu stricto causes Lyme borreliosis in the USA."

This is very much in line with a consensus of the medical literature.--Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

There's a misunderstanding here. Moving to article's talk page to keep everything in one place. CatPath (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

Pleased to meet you. Your recent edit was undone earlier today, so I'm here to ask your expertise in the matter and whether it belongs or not. Etsybetsy (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

I have started a discussion regarding your revert of my recent contribution to the Pertussis vaccine article. I have also self-reverted an identical edit I had made to the Pertussis article, and added a comment to that talk page as well. --Outdowands (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

I had it on my watchlist, but I've been sporadic in my editing and you caught it first. Thanks and sorry for not responding quickly enough to keep you from having to deal with it. TheDracologist (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The old dot blot format is not suitable for high throughput immunoblot analysis. The new method quantify individual dot to define the linear range of the analysis. Therefore, it is a significantly improvement of the old method. Let me know if you do not agree, so we can discuss further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The classic dot blot format is suitable for high throughput analysis. I have a 96-channel dot blot apparatus sitting in my lab. The real problem with the new article that you created is that the new method described with the QDB plate is not notable. Multiple reliable sources describing the QDB plate (e.g., scientific review articles in prominent journals) are needed to justify a new Wikipedia article about the method. Please see WP:Notability for more information. Also, if you are one of the authors of the paper describing the new approach, you have a conflict of interest; please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest editing. CatPath (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Cathpath: If only you can honestly claim the 96-channel dot blot apparatus could fulfill what we have described in the article, then the QDB method I described here should be deleted. You should notice I have deleted all the relevant information about QDB plate. Indeed, it is the method I want to share with the scientific world. It is to my benefit to promote QDB method, but it is to a greater benefit to the scientific world to introduce QDB method to replace the outdated Dot blot method and Western blot method. Do not you agree? By the way, the article you cited is also single sources, and no apparatus was used in the article. Please respond to my questions, otherwise I will undo your change.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

The QDB method should be deleted because of its lack of notability, according to Wikipedia guidelines. As I said above, more evidence that the new method is notable is required before it deserves an article on Wikipedia. I have started a Discussion on the Talk page of the article Quantitative dot blot. Please continue the discussion there. Yes, I provided only a single citation, but the general method of quantitative dot blot using the classic dot-blot apparatus is well established, and I can easily provide more references. CatPath (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Cathpath: I have followed your suggestion, please follow your response on the talk page. I would love to discuss further how to present this new information to the world appropriately with you. Please just take a couple of minutes try to understand why people consider it a new method. Believe me, i would not say it if I am the only one in the world think of this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)