User talk:Boghog/Archive 1

 '''Welcome, !

I'm Riana, and I noticed that you're new, so I thought I'd drop you a note. We do have a lot of users, and are currently working on articles, so things can be a little intimidating... but don't worry! We love to help out, and we'll try our best to make your stay here as comfortable as possible. Here are a few links I found useful when I first arrived here:-


 * Be Bold!
 * Don't let grumpy users scare you off
 * Meet other new users
 * Policies, guidelines, and rules
 * How to create a page, edit a page and write a great article
 * A handy tutorial, and a picture tutorial


 * Writing well
 * Learn from others
 * Play nicely with others
 * Contribute, Contribute, Contribute!
 * Tell us about yourself
 * Be inspired by our finest!

You should sign your name on talk pages, discussions and votes by typing ; our software automatically converts it to your username and the date. Also, if you don't want to jump right into editing articles right now, why not check out the sandbox? Feel free to make test edits there.

I know it's a lot of information, but there are two more things I recommend you take note of while editing Wikipedia - cite references wherever possible, and avoid allowing personal biases interfere with your editing.

I hope you enjoy editing and being a Wikipedian - I definitely do. Although we all make mistakes, please keep in mind what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or problems, leave me a message on my talk page, and I'll try my best to help. Otherwise, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type  on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

We hope you stick around, and make sure you enjoy yourself! Cheers,

G protein-coupled receptors
Thank you for classifying the Template:G protein-coupled receptors. Could you add a description of this classification at G protein-coupled receptor (preferably with a reference)? --Arcadian 10:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I will add a new classification section to the GPCR page with references when I find a spare moment.  In retrospect, I should have done this first before changing the template. Boghog2 10:52, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I didn't notice it before, but the classification system was already briefly mentioned in the article (see physiological roles section), however no references were provided. I have now added two additional references which to the best of my knowledge first described the ABC classification system (see 2 and 3). Boghog2 19:55, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you! --Arcadian 22:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)


 * And thanks for all your recent work on the ion channels. --Arcadian 19:27, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. But much work remains!  I will do my best to refine these articles further.  Boghog2 20:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification on this page. I rolled back what I considered erroneous information (based on a bit of Google research), but you sealed the deal. Tanthalas39 (talk) 22:30, 14 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching the erroneous acronym. The first error was mine for not making clear that Frizzled and Taste2 receptors belong to the same family.  So while the acronym was erroneous, the edit was indirectly useful in that it pointed out a logical inconsistency and your edit in turn brought it to my attention.  So again thank!  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 19:48, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Nice work
Hey, thanks for the expansion at GABAC receptor! I took down the tootechnical template and left a note on the talk page. Peace, delldot   talk  18:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Aw, aren't you nice! Definitely let me know if you need anything or whatnot.  Peace,  delldot   talk  19:49, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

NR figure
hey i just noticed the nuclear receptor figure! i guess it's been up for a while but i just wanted to say nice job! it really adds a lot of clarity to the page. Roadnottaken 14:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the complement Roadnottaken! Your original suggestion encouraged me to do better.  What is clear to me may not be clear to others so your comments are greatly appreciated. Boghog2 19:10, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Medicine Collaboration of the Month
NCurse work 15:58, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar
It's not just for transcription factor but for all your valuable contributions to various articles. Axl 06:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the clarification and most of all, thanks for the award! Boghog2 11:19, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Fatty acid-binding protein
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have perfomed a web search with the contents of Fatty acid-binding protein, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 11:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Revmoved tag and responded to erroneous warning on the maintainer's talk page. Cheers.  Boghog2 11:47, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to MCB, if you have any questions please don't hesitate to get in touch. All the best Tim Vickers 01:14, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the friendly welcome and for offering to answer questions. Most of my edits have been in areas related to MCB, so I figured it is about time I joined.  Regards  Boghog2 21:25, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What was wrong with the InChI of Dapagliflozin?
Hi there, why did you change the InChI, e.g. remove the breaks? Was the InChI not correct? —Preceding unsigned comment added by EgonWillighagen (talk • contribs) 09:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I should have been more specific. My changes to the InChI were in two parts.  Disclamer: I know very little about the InChI syntax so please correct the following if I am wrong.  The first change that I made was in the stereochemical layer in which I believe undefined stereochemistry represented by "?" was replaced with absolute stereochemistry, "+" or "-".  So in your latest revision, you have propagated my changes so it appears that we are in agreement about that change.  The second change was the line breaks.  I don't have any strong feelings about that one way or the other, except to say that I wish that the ChemBox template would have a width option which would automatically soft wrap text in all fields to fit within that width.  Cheers.  Boghog2 19:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Standard template for references
Hi not to criticize but do you think that the standard template for references should have the full length name for the journal rather than an abbreviation? I try to use full length names where possible, as I know from experience that when trying to order a copy of a document from the library it is often helpful to have the full name as sometimes its hard to work out what an abbreviation means (especially in obscure foreign language journals that the library staff are not familiar with). Not sure if this is consistent with the wikipedia standard or not, just I noticed you had redone the reference for saripidem and abbreviated the journal name.Meodipt 12:02, 7 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Concerning whether or not to abbreviate journal names, I have no strong preference. The main reason I reformatted the reference in saripidem was to provide a link to PubMed. (BTW, the having PubMed ID (PMID) depending of which library you order the article from, may make article ordering even easier.)  I generated the in-line citation using User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool.  Given a PMID, this tool generates a wikipedia in-line citation downloading the information from PubMed.  By default, abbreviated journal names are returned.  Cheers.  Boghog2 12:21, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Keep it up
You're doing fantastic work -- keep it up. I'm particularly impressed by your diligence in finding appropriate journal references to support existing prose. --Arcadian 00:01, 28 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! There is a lot of accurate and useful information contained in MCB articles which is unfortunately not backed up by citations.  I am attempting to slowly fix that. Boghog2 04:12, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cell Signaling
Hi there. I noticed you listed "GPCRs" as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. These interests may intersect with WikiProject Cell Signaling, which I invite you to join. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Registration mark (®)
Boghog2, I have a polite disagreement with you over the use of the Registration mark.

As we discussed in Talk:Zolpidem, all the standard medical and scientific style sheets of which I'm aware, including the AMA Style Sheet, MLA Style Sheet, Chicago Manual of Style, etc., tell you not to use the registration mark, and all the medical books and journals on my bookshelf don't use it -- except in the package inserts in the ads, and in press releases from the manufacturers.

I went through this once before in a newsletter I was editing, where we had a legal department to advise us.

The only purpose of a registration mark is for the owner of the mark to use it to indicate that it's a registered mark. Using the mark makes it easier for the owner to protect it in court against infringers. The only people who use the registered mark in their copy are working for the trademark holder. There's no purpose for anyone else to use it.

The standard way to distinguish generic names from trade names of drugs is to use the generic first in lower case, and to follow it with the trade name in initial caps (since it's a proper noun), like this: "doxorubicin (Adriamycin)".

Do you have any objection to using that? Nbauman 00:46, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Nbauman, thanks for your detailed explanation. I basically agree with what you are saying.  The reason I reverted edits that removed trademarks from drug brand names was the justification for removing trademarks was the MOS:TRADE guidelines, whereas these guidelines specifically allow such use: Do not use the ™ and ® symbols, or similar, unless unavoidably necessary for context (for instance, to distinguish between generic and brand names for drugs).


 * It is also important to keep in mind: However, [MOS guidelines are] not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.


 * For the general reader, it may not be immediately obvious that lower case represents a nonproprietary BAN / INN / USAN and upper case is used to denote a proprietary name. The use of the trademark symbol makes this distinction clearer.  So I would argue that adding a trademark symbol to a name in a Wikipedia article may be appropriate in situations where both  nonproprietary and proprietary names are listed together so as to remove any confusion as to the origin and use of the names.  Cheers.  Boghog2 10:11, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * In those WP articles in which people want to make it explicit that a name is a brand name rather than a generic name, they simply say that it's a brand name, for example, "doxorubicin (brand name, Adriamycin)". You'll never see that registered mark appear in a book or magazine article that follows the University of Chicago style sheet, as most do.


 * It looks strange. It tells the reader that the copy is approved by the manufacturer. Since that's not true, you don't want to signal that to the reader.


 * The registered mark actually has a particular legal meaning. It means that the brand name has literally been registered. (Most brand names are registered, but not all are, so you can't even assume that a brand name is registered.) It's really legal jargon.


 * I'm not going to make a big deal out of it, and I appreciate your scientific editing. A lot of people use these registration marks. But copy editors don't like them unless they're used by the trademark owner. Nbauman 23:32, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The allowance of use of trademark symbols carries the caveat of "unavoidability". In none of the cases mentioned was there the possibility of confusion between a brand name drug and the generic drug, because the articles only made reference to one or the other, or to both collectively (generating no possibility of confusion in either case).  Even still, were references to both the brand name drug and the generic drug to appear side by side, I believe the guideline stresses finding another way to distinguish the two references and only making use of trademark symbols as a last resort.  This is why I routinely remove unnecessary usage of trademark symbols across Wikipedia when I find them.  I have yet to see a case where they are necessary to prevent confusion between the brand name drug and its generic equivalent.  -- Dachannien TalkContrib 19:27, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, enough already. I surrender. But a ten yard penalty for piling on. ;-) Boghog2 19:20, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

literature hound
Wow, you were really on top of that ADRB2 structure, weren't you? Didn't that just come out this week? Anyway, just thought I'd come over to express how impressed I was. On that note, I think there was also a companion Nature paper, too, right? (found it, . How these guys managed two Science and one Nature paper with very similar titles is beyond me...)  Anyway, may be worth citing too, or maybe I'll add it to the further reading section... AndrewGNF 22:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You are also very much on top of the literature for finding the Nature preprint.  The difference between the two sets of publications is that the Nature paper describes the structure of the native receptor cocrystallized with an antibody where as the Science publications describe the structure of a fusion protein (see GPCR structure).  The two structures were obtained through different approaches and each was a major accomplishments (see [Membrane Protein Analyzed]).  Hence I think the two sets of publications are justified.  I am sure that Nature and Science were in competition to have these papers published in their respective journals.  The reason I based the figure in ADRB2 on the structure described in the Science paper is that it is significantly higher resolution. Boghog2 06:41, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation! Too much cool literature that I should be reading, too little time... AndrewGNF 07:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

PBB requests
You've probably already noticed, but your requests for PBB gene stubs is now complete. Enjoy! AndrewGNF (talk) 20:49, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your quick response! I have already added NavBoxes.  There is no particular hurry, but it would be nice if you could add the rest of the nuclear receptors en masse so that I can deal with them as a group.  Ditto for GPCRs, although that is a much larger group.  Thanks again for responding to my request.  Boghog2 (talk) 20:55, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that would be definitely be doable, but I don't have a good way to get Entrez Gene IDs for those families. Do you?  I could do the naive thing and search for gene symbols that start with 'NR' and 'GPR', but quite likely there will be false positives and negatives.  Thoughts? AndrewGNF (talk) 23:43, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Since there are only 48 human nuclear receptors and all the HUGO gene links are listed here, I should easily be able to supply you with a list of Entrez Gene IDs. The GPCRs, since there are so many more of these will take more work.  I will see if I can come up with a list.  Thanks for your interest!  Boghog2 (talk) 23:58, 17 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I now have a list of Entrez Gene IDs for the nuclear receptors: User:Boghog2/Sandbox2. According to my count it appears that pages for 20 of the 48 have already been created.  So if you could make pages for the other 28, I would appreciate it.  In addtion, the current Estrogen receptor (ER) article contains information about both ER-alpha (ESR1) and ER-beta (ESR2) whereas  ESR1 points to the ER article and ESR2 has a separate page. For consistency, I think it would be better to have a separate ESR1 page. Cheers Boghog2 (talk) 13:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Excellent. I'll ask Jon to do a run of all the genes listed there (just so everything is systematically done).  Agreed on the ESR1 issue.  I made some changes to the Estrogen receptor page to roll back the protein box.  PBB won't recognize it on the next run and it will write the wikicode to the logfile for manual update (when we can change the redirect at ESR1).  AndrewGNF (talk) 16:30, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for agreeing to add pages for the rest of the nuclear receptors (NRs) and for your followup on a separate ESR1 page. This will make it easier to systematically integrate the new NR pages with the existing ones.  For smaller families like the NRs, manually adding the NavBoxes and Category templates is not a big problem. But if you tackle some of the larger families like GPCRs in one go, it would be nice if the bot could added the appropriate templates.  Keep up the good work!  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 19:50, 18 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Embarrassing that it's been so long and we still haven't completed your request. But with the changes that Jon implemented, I think we'll be able to blow through most/all of the GPCRs pretty quickly now with minimal namespace conflict issues.  Just wanted to be sure you still want them.  Clearly, these are on the less-well-annotated side of things, so it looks like people will want to see that something is being done with them...  Also, are we all done with the nuclear receptors, or should that also be revisited now? AndrewGNF (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for remembering! Even though the GPCR special request logs (see A0 - D11) were not yet promoted as ready for volunteer manual inspection,  I preemptively went through the entire GPCR log list and integrated the pages already created by the ProteinBoxBot and manually created the rest (see GPCR navobox) with the exception of the olfactory receptors.  After the latest controversy, it may be better to hold off on these receptors since many of the individual members are less well documented.   I may have missed a few things in the GPCR special request, so it might be worth rerunning these minus the olfactory receptors.  I think the nuclear receptors are completely done (according to my count, there are now 48 separate NR pages with PBB content, see template:transcription factors), but it wouldn't hurt to rerun these jobs just to make sure that I haven't missed any.  Finally I feel a bit guilty for requesting the GPCR special run since it lead to the start of the latest controversy.  I was about to respond directly, but I now see this is a wider issue involving WP policy and my comments to specifically defend the creating of a few orphan GPCR pages would have detracted from the bigger picture.  (I am such a wimp!) In any case, thanks again to you and Jon for your great work and please don't let the critics get you down.  Boghog2 (talk) 19:55, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Ahh, great, didn't notice that you'd done all that page creation by hand. Bravo again for that heroic amount of work...  We'll queue up the non-olfactory GPCRs and the NRs again to double check, but at a second priority after the initial round of ~7000 is done.  (If you have an easy way to remove the OR IDs from the previous list of 779 you sent, send it on over or edit User:AndrewGNF/Sandbox/GPCRs.)  No need to feel guilty -- debates like these I think are the "cost of doing business" as more people get aware of PBB, and on balance, the net effect is positive.  As you said, full steam ahead! AndrewGNF (talk) 20:21, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not getting back to you sooner on the edited GPCR list. On closer inspection, there is more known about many individual members of the olfactory receptor family than I originally thought (e.g., specific odorant molecules each is sensitive to).  I am currently working on this family and after I am finished, I will provide you with an edited list of notable GPCR members. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 13:34, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I'd noticed you've been putting a whole lot of effort into those ORs. Bravo again, they look great...  AndrewGNF (talk) 17:10, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mifepristone corrected.png
Hi Boghog. I have a small request—would you mind making the terminal carbons in this image skeletal (i.e., not show them)? The use of "me" labels for methyl groups is discouraged in our structure drawing guidelines. If it's too much trouble, no need to rush. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi Fvasconcellos. I have changed the figure.  I normally use -CH3 instead of -Me for the abbreviation for methyl, however I was a having problem with the labels for the C17 hydroxyl overlapping with the C18 methyl group.  I have redrawn the figure with terminal -CH3 labels and prevented label overlap by lengthening the C17-O bond.  Removing the methyl group labels entirely looks funny to my eye, especially when ring fusion hydrogen atoms are drawn to designate stereochemistry.  I hope the current figure is OK.  If not, let me know.  Also thanks for pointing out the our structure drawing guidelines.  I had no idea they existed.  Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Looks good—thanks for the speedy response. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Excellent work on Image:2RH1.png. I just saw it in OPM a couple of days ago—was going to do it myself, but seems you beat everyone to it :) Fvasconcellos (t·c) 17:05, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry ;-) I have been following AndrewGNF's excellent work on adding pages for human genes/proteins and I noticed one he just added for ADRB2 and of course it was screaming for  a graphic and I couldn't resist.  Drawing lines to represent the cell membrane as in OPM  is an excellent idea.  I will try to add this to the figure when I get a chance.  Thanks for the link and for the complement!  Boghog2 (talk) 18:59, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Welcome :) Keep up the good work. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Nuclear receptors
The nuclear receptors are done. It looks like a third to a half of them already had PBB pages which were updated. The rest were flagged for manual inspection to be placed in the right spot or integrated with an existing non-PBB article. I unfortunately am leaving soon for holiday for two weeks and am not sure if I'll be able to get to the "manual inspection" phase by the time I leave. Do you want to take a crack at it? The instructions are here, and Banus and Forluvoft seem to have caught on pretty quick. (The log files for your request are dated "03:35, 19 November 2007" and "04:05, 19 November 2007".) If not, I'll see what I can do before I leave and finish up when I get back... AndrewGNF (talk) 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointers! I have claimed the two NRNC manual inspection logs and I will attempt to complete the inspections according to your instructions.  Hopefully I will not have messed things up too much while you are away. ;-) Have a great holiday!  Boghog2 (talk) 19:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Ummm, can I just say that your edits do not remotely resemble anything like "messing things up". Well done on all edits.  I can definitely see the advantage of individuals treating protein families consistently now, especially with respect to naming conventions and wikilinking.  Anyway, bravo...  Almost makes me want to give up my efforts merging pages when you all do it so much better than I do.  (But I won't, since getting the gene page up in a reasonable place is half the battle, and the more hands the better...)  Feel free to edit the volunteer instructions as you see fit.  Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 02:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the assistance and for the encouragement. There is more work to be done with expanding the nuclear receptor pages, but the PBB generated content provides a great start.  Thanks again to you and Jon for providing this unique and powerful tool.   Boghog2 (talk) 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Copy/pasting
You have recently been creating pages for various genes and proteins, such as, most recently, RAR-related orphan receptor gamma, Liver X receptor beta, Retinoic acid receptor beta, and Thyroid hormone receptor beta. These pages seem to be direct copy-pastes from here. While I appreciate your support of Wikipedia, I must point out that editors are discouraged from creating pages that are copy-pasted from other sources. Please go through the pages created in this manner, and rewrite them yourself. Thanks! — Insanity Incarnat  e  01:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the note. I was manually implementing several pages that the User:ProteinBoxBot normally does automatically.  Hundreds of such pages have already been created and thousands of more are planned.  More to the point, Entrez is a governmental site and according to the [disclaimer], "Public domain information on the National Library of Medicine (NLM) Web pages may be freely distributed and copied".  In addition, the source of this information, as required by Entrez, was footnoted on the pages that both ProteinBoxBot and myself have created.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 01:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Even with the citation, it's still good to note that the text came directly from another website. I have created a template, Template:NLM content, to put on the bottom of a page with text from the NLM. — Insanity Incarnat  e  09:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Agreed! Thanks for creating this useful template. I will go back and add it to the PBB pages I have already created and will also be sure to add the template to future PBB generated articles that I create.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 22:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I've noticed that you've been adding them to the top of the page. May I recommend putting them at the bottom of the page, instead? --Arcadian (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree. I don't know what I was thinking when I put the template at the top.  I will move them all to the bottom.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 07:59, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

MBTPS1
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of MBTPS1, and it appears to be a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 07:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The above page is a redirect. I initially forgot to add the redirect template which trigger the error.  This now has been fixed. Boghog2 (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Endothelin receptor type B
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Endothelin receptor type B, and it appears to include a substantial copy of. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 11:30, 25 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Per the discussion above, removed warning and notified maintainer here. Boghog2 (talk) 12:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

RNA expression verification
The problem with this ProteinBoxBot is that in some cases of RNA expression profiles (e.g., Avpr1a and Avpr2), the data are clearly wrong. Therefore, although you are referencing a serious effort, each gene's expression should be verifiable by peer-reviewed sources. Most scientists realize that these "production scale" databases are useful starting points but are not to be taken as gospel. The Wikipedia readers will not be consulting other peer-reviewed sources so it is incumbent upon us to provide reliable information. I have also added this to the site you suggested. Thanks. AlbertHall (talk) 15:28, 16 December 2007 (UTC) (Thanks for moving this!).

Catalase
I see that you replaced the Protein template in Catalase with the GNF Protein bot version. Since the article is largely about Catalase in all organisms, the human gene box seems to be less appropriate. What was your rational for the change? Do you still think the human infobox is the way to go? AnteaterZot (talk) 03:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * The orginal protein box that I replaced was also anthropomorphic. The new box in addition has links to the mouse enzyme so one could argue that the new box is less anthropomorphic than the old.  But I now notice that the EC number (which is not species specific) was included in the old but not the new protein box.  I have now fixed this.  Boghog2 (talk) 04:46, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, how about using the Pfam infobox? AnteaterZot (talk) 04:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, the article now contains both. In addition, please note that the PBB also contains a  link. Boghog2 (talk) 05:18, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Human genes
Just to say thanks for this effort! I'm sure it will be very useful. Have a good Christmas! Pseudomonas(talk) 11:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Likewise, Merry Christmas!  Boghog2 (talk) 12:01, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject and guidelines
I think you’ll like this project:. Also, I think you are writing very good stubs, but if you need to refresh your memory of how to create a stub or article, there are the links telling you how! Kannie | talk 18:29, 25 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the link. I get your drift.  I have been creating a lot of stubs lately and I should also work on destubifying articles.  After I finish with the my current stub creation blitz, I will get back to what  I usually spend most of my time on, and that is improving existing articles.  Cheers.  Boghog2 (talk) 04:03, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Why do expression patterns differ?
Good day. Just wanted to ask why there sometimes are multiple expression patterns for one and the same gene in many bot-generated articles? Mikael Häggström (talk) 21:09, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hej Mikael. Good question!  I was wondering the same thing myself.  My first guess is that these multiple expression patterns were generated from different experiments in different labs.  But I didn't collate the data myself.  I suggest you post your question here.  /mvh Boghog2 (talk) 21:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi gents, just happened to see the question and thought I'd chime in. The multiple expression patterns are because a microarray was used to generate the data, and the microarray sometimes has multiple "probe sets" for a given gene.  (Often, the multiple probe sets interrogate different transcripts of a single gene.)  Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the quick response! Do you have any links, publications, etc. that would explain in more detail how these expression patterns were generated? Boghog2 (talk) 23:17, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sure, the link to the article describing the study is here. We also maintain a related database (linked under the "More reference expression data" tag under the thumbnails) to display that data.  Of course, it doesn't take much detective work to figure out that I could be biased with respect to the quality of that data -- I had a hand in producing it.  Anyway, I've mentioned that link in previous discussions (at BAG, MCB, etc), and so far objection to including the images/link in the PBB pages.  But of course, as with all PBB-added info, feel free to delete any content that is not useful or correct for your particular gene(s) of interest.  AndrewGNF (talk) 01:35, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Again, thanks for the info. I am embarrassed to say that I missed the "more reference expression data" link.  From there, one can find all sorts of additional background information (publications, FAQs).  An impressive amount of work and all very well documented.  There are of course caveats with this type of data, but it nevertheless, it can provide valuable hints as to the function of the proteins encoded by these genes.  Boghog2 (talk) 13:18, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, although it's not the complete truth that is presented in the articles, it is still valuable information. Besides, it is a valuable lesson itself to see that different presentations of one and the same thing varies in the world of science. Mikael Häggström (talk) 10:03, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow Great references on the expression profiling article
Thanks very much. I wanted to get something in there but I didn't know how to do it correctly.

Take care

Tombadog (talk) 05:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Your welcome. This was actually quite easy to do.  Take a look at User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool.  Given a PubMed ID, this tool generates a filled in wikipedia in-line citation template which you can copy and paste into a Wikipedia article.  This tool will also generate book citations and a couple of other useful WP templates. Boghog2 (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh and one other thing -- thanks for the short lead which is nice except for one thing I'd like to eventually change. The original text for this article menthions SAGE and SUPERSAGE kind of like a commercial. It also implies that SUPERSAGE is routinely used in expression profiling. My guess from PubMed is it may have been used 20 times in the history of mankind (I saw 4 references, I am being generous..) But I know this whole SAGE thing is imprtant to somebody out there so I haven't the heart to rip it out because it isn't exactly incorrect, just misleading perhaps.

What's your advice? Cheers. Tombadog (talk) 05:49, 27 December 2007 (UTC)


 * Great job on improving the expression profiling article! WP articles normally start out with a few sentences before the first section which briefly defines the subject.  By all means, if you would like to further edit the lead, please go ahead. I agree that parts of the article sound like an advertisement and this is definitely not appropriate.  I would edit the article myself, but the subject matter is way out of my area of expertise.  I have seen SAGE used at more than one pharmaceutical company, so I think it is an important topic.  On the other hand, I have never heard of SuperSAGE.  Since SAGE and SuperSAGE already have their own articles, I think it would be appropriate shorten the discussion on these two methods but leave in the wiki links.  Perhaps it would be better to add a new "methods" section which lists all the experimental techniques that have been used to generate expression profiling data, one bulleted line per technique, including the appropriate internal links.  Again, great  job on editing the expression profiling article and keep up the good work!  Cheers  Boghog2 (talk) 12:58, 27 December 2007 (UTC)