User talk:Boghog/Archive 15

Reference Formatting
Hey Boghog! I've noticed you made some changes to the references on the page (Calpain-2) that I recently edited. That was my first contribution to Wikipedia, so I am still not clear on how to tell what the difference between your and my version in source view is, and whether you corrected something I did incorrectly by mistake. Could you please explain those points so I can make better contributions in the future? Thank you, Ivan Shapovalov (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Ivan. You did nothing wrong.  The only problem is with the tool that you are using to add reference templates makes some errors.  For example PMC1171751 should be 1171751, 2011-05 should be May 2011.  Also there were introduced several redundant urls that duplicated external links that pmid, pmc, or doi. Finally the previously established citation style used vauthors. Boghog (talk) 19:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

About Transcription factors and intracellular receptors
Hi! Boghog I've edited this template many times, although I don't know the reference of (1.1), (1.2)--Htmlzycq (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. The classification of the entire template including sections 1.1 and 1.2 is based on the TRANSFAC database (see also Transcription_factor and references contained within). Boghog (talk) 13:25, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * thank you! And why TRANSFAC put the Paired box (3.2) apart from Homeobox domain (3.1)? In a review PMID:26464018, PRD, PRD-LIKE is in the group of Homeodomain proteins. --Htmlzycq (talk) 15:26, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Phylogenic analysis often is splitting hairs, especially when deciding when to split subgroups. Selection of the number of clusters in a dendrogram is somewhat arbitrary. Small tweaks in parameters can produce fewer or more number of families. Boghog (talk) 21:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

Although I'm not an expert in this field, PMID:26464018, this article mentions that compared with PRD-like, PRD loses its Homeobox domain, maybe that's why TRANSFAC database put it out of Homeobox domain (3.1). However, according to the phylogenetic tree of evolution, TALE should be older and widely existed in both plants and animals, still belong to (3.1).--Htmlzycq (talk) 12:28, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

GFP in other organisms
Greetings Boghog! I notice you have altered key information on the GFP page pertaining to copepods and lancelets. Your source does mention copepods and lancelets but I don't know if it elaborates beyond that. The sources you removed led to incorrect citations in the In Nature section, and these sources were secondary review-like articles over the specific topics mentioned in this section. Please let me know if I am wrong in this, as I only want to accurately represent GFPs in nature. I don't think information in this section should be removed completely either, as it is both intriguing and consistently verifiable. Single Eukaryote T / C 14:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * While this paper is a primary source for a set of experiments on cephalochordates, I do not focus on that. I write from the areas where it cites and elaborates on previous research on GFP in other organisms. From this paper's introduction: "Endogenous GFPs have been found in at least three-dozen cnidarians (many of them non-luminous), six non-luminous copepods and three non-luminous cephalochordate species in the genus Branchiostoma." Forgive me because I have a lot to learn about Wikipedia, but I do want to understand what I did wrong here. Single Eukaryote  T / C 16:52, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I have restored the two later primary cites that contain more specific information in this edit. It seemed to me if one is discussing what other species that GFP is expressed in, it would be better to use a more up-to-date secondary source (review article) that has a wider perspective (see for example WP:SCIRS).  Intros to primary sources can function as a secondary sources, but it is better to use a secondary source if one is available.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:22, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Cite Q revert
Hello,

Please don't cherry-pick words to try and make your own point. Cite Q is used in over 43k pages and this is a stable use case. The quote on there links to a TfD from 2017 when it was still rather new. The template has recently had significant work to improve and stabilise it, as per the talk that is linked from the very same documentation page. The real issue with that template is enwiki users still holding out over every inch of integration with Wikidata, as was noted in the TfD which was closed with no consensus.

--Lewis Cawte (Talk) 21:34, 5 February 2021 (UTC)


 * The fact that the TfD closed without concensus by definition means that the template does not yet have community support for wide scale deployment. Also per WP:CITEVAR, why doesn't Cite Q support vanc? That needs to be fixed. If you use Cite Q in an article where the predominate author style follows the Vancouver system, please don't forget to add vanc Boghog (talk) 05:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

V. O. Kalinenko
Hi. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question. I was planning to create an article regarding structures produced by a Soviet biochemist, V. O. Kalinenko; however, I have given up so far, since firstly, I am a layman (i.e., just an amateyr) and secondly, my knowledge of English is at an intermediate level. The refs: 1, 2, 3. I know you are a very experienced Wikipedia user; therefore, I am really interested in your opinion on that matter. Is it worth having its own article, and is there any possible way to request its creation? Thank you very much. --Pinoczet (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Usually we don't have articles on compounds (e.g., Jeewanu) made by a certain chemist.  It would be more usual to have an article on the chemist and mention the notable compounds that the chemist made or perhaps a class of structurally related compounds.  Please also note that there are certain notability guidelines for academics Notability (academics).  If you feel that V. O. Kalinenko meet these guidelines, I think the most straight forward is to create an article on the chemist.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:41, 2 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Since you are a very experienced user in terms of the proper references formatting, may I ask you for help to prepare the following works: Thanks a lot! Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi. Here is an attempt. Boghog (talk) 18:10, 4 February 2021 (UTC)
 * 1) Kalinenko, V. O.: BIO-LIKE STRUCTURES [BIOPODOBNYYE STRUKTURY]. Jan 1965 12 pp Transl into ENGLISH from Nauka i Zhizn' (Moscow). no 8, 1963 p 67-70.
 * 2) Kalinenko, V. O.: EXPERIMENTAL FORMATION OF BIO-LIKE STRUCTURES [EKSPERIMENTAL'NOYE FORMIROVANIYE BIOPODOBNYKH STRUKTUR]. Jan 1965 15 pp Transl into ENGLISH from Mikrobiologiya (Moscow) vol 33, no 2, 1964 p 356-363.
 * 3) Meisel, M.N.; Remezova, T.; Medvedeva, G.A.; Pomoshchnikova, N.A.; Poglazova, M.N.: O PRIRODE OBRAZOVANI I, POLUCHAEMYKH V. O. KALINENKO V DISTILLIROVANNO I VODE POD VLIIANIEM 'ELEKTRICHESKOGO TOKA [On the Nature of Structures Obtained by V. O. Kalinenko in Distilled Water Under the Influence of An Electric Current]. Mikrobiologiya. 1964 mar-apr; 33(2): 364-367. Russian.
 * 4) Caren LD, Ponnamperuma C (1967). A review of some experiments on the synthesis of 'Jeewanu' (PDF). NASA Technical Memorandum X-1439. Moffett Field, California: Ames Research Center.


 * Hi. Since you are already familiar with the matter as well as a member of WikiProject Articles for creation and an expert in the field of biochemistry, could you review the draft I have created, please? I am aware it might be rejected or deleted, but I decided to be "bold" and "go for it". I really feel that the subject meets the basic formal requirements (notability, verifiability). I have cited two primary and four secondary sources. However, I have to admit that it is possible to make the opposite conclusion. I did not publish the article directly in the mainspace. My intention is to improve Wikipedia, and not to dirsupt it. If you find some time to have a look at it, I will greatly appreciate your help. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 22:30, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Your draft was very well written, and after a few minor edits, I have moved it to main space. I had some concerns about notability, but you have included at least one independent secondary source that cites the original work, so that should be sufficient. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I did my best. Thank you very much. --Pinoczet (talk) 19:00, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Reference formatting
Hi,

I noticed that you cleaned up the references that the bot automatically generated from in Ferredoxin. Do you do this manually or is there some tool that I could use too to automatically expand it correctly? there is a bit of a lag with the bot and it would be convenient to see what my references actually are while I am editing.

Thanks and keep up the good work :)


 * And thank you for your contributions. The only tool that I am aware of that can generate citations that use vauthors parameter is the citation filling tool. But this tool requires a PMID as input.  I have a command line Python script that process raw wiki text to convert citation authors into the vauthors format, but it is complicated to install on another computer. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:39, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Boghog, I came here to ask this same question after seeing your recent edit on Global mental health. I was thinking of writing a script to do the same thing, or at least looking to see if I can find one somewhere. Do you know of any that are open source or otherwise publicly available? Thanks, Levivich harass/hound 07:26, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your question. The python script that I am using calls mwparserfromhell to edit Wikipedia cite templates. I also use the Bio.Entrez package to download citation data from PubMed.  The current state of the script is a bit of a mess.  I have been meaning to rewrite the script from scratch and move it from Python 2 to 3, and add habanero so that citation data can also be retrieved from Crossref, in addition to PubMed.  I currently don't have time for this, but hopefully this summer and can get this done.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 08:03, 12 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the links! Levivich harass/hound 08:19, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

AfC
Hi again. I hope you are doing well. If you find some time, could you review the draft I have created, please? Thank you. --Pinoczet (talk) 15:15, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks in good shape, but somebody else beat me to it. Nice work. Boghog (talk) 20:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

21-Hydroxylase Good Article Nomination
I will edit the 21-Hydroxylase page to resolve the objections mentioned in Talk:21-Hydroxylase/GA1 - Just to let you know. You may also edit the page in the meanwhile if you wish, also to resolve the objections or for any other reason you wish, including the citation reference formatting or style Maxim Masiutin (talk) 11:50, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I've added the phylogenetic tree of SARS-CoV-2 related coronaviruses to the RaTG13
After that, I think it's too cumbersome to directly add host, discovery place and other information after the text. I want to present them in the form of tables.

See: SARS-CoV-2 related coronavirus, but how to make sure that a clade in phylogenetic tree is synchronized with the corresponding column in table?

--Htmlzycq (talk) 11:01, 10 March 2021 (UTC)


 * That is a difficult problem and I don't see any easy way to solve it. The only thing that might work is to store all the data in Wikidata and create new versions of clade and table that can pull the data from Wikidata. But that is likely to be a significant amount of work that is beyond my scripting abilities. Boghog (talk) 18:55, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

Heme oxygenase
Hi BogHog,

I’d like to significantly expand upon the history section in the heme oxygenase article, particularly focused on origins leading up to Tenhunen et al characterization of the enzyme. As you are active on the page and a veteran Wikipedian, if I prepare a draft in the talk section would you mind reviewing the content?

Cheers SloppyTots (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi . Sure. Please note that Wikipedia prefers secondary sources and  is primary.  The primary source has been cited approximately 1500 times, 74 of which are secondary.  Hence it should be straight forward to identify secondary sources to expand the section.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:33, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natural product
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Natural product you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 06:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Natural product
The article Natural product you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Natural product for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of David Eppstein -- David Eppstein (talk) 07:21, 23 March 2021 (UTC)


 * . Thanks for taking a look at the article. I will add the missing citations and resubmit. Boghog (talk) 07:45, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

21-Hydroxylase Full Structure
Thank you for putting an image with transparent background at https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File:Full_Structure_of_21-Hydroxylase.png - however, it is one of the three identical subunits, not the full structure. Could you please make an image of the whole protein, containing of all three subunits to this picture? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. Thanks for working to bring 21-Hydroxylase up to good article status. Concerning the crystallographic structure, in addition to modifying the graphic, I also modified the text to remove mention of the trimeric structure.  The trimeric structure is an artifact of the crystallography.  The trimer does not form within cells.  It only forms under very high enzyme concentrations necessary to form crystals. In other words, the trimer is not biologically relevant. Boghog (talk) 22:51, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the picture that you have provided. The reviewer has assigned the "Good Article" status today. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to chat?
Hi there! Hope you're doing well. I'm a journalist, and I'm working on a story about Wikipedia pages with COVID vaccine information. I'd love to find time to talk, if you're willing. Feel free to shoot me a note here, or email me at ggedye@washingtonmonthly.com. For reference, here's another story I've written about Wikipedia: https://washingtonmonthly.com/2021/02/04/when-the-capitol-was-attacked-wikipedia-went-to-work/ Spelunkerr (talk) 16:18, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Nerve Growth Factor NR4A1
Sorry, I made a mistake when trying to retitle to the current consensus name for this Nerve Growth Factor, which is Nerve Growth Factor NR4A1. Can you help me move the wikidata to the newly titled article? Sbelknap (talk) 16:12, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. If you want to rename a page, please don't copy and paste into a new article name, rather follow HELP:MOVE.  I also don't understand why you want to rename the article in the first place. Per WP:TITLE, one generally wants to stick with the shortest unambiguous name. Thanks. Boghog (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * The official name is Nuclear Receptor NR4A1. See: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/gene/3164 Sbelknap (talk) 17:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * These Gene Wiki are about both the gene and the protein that is encoded by that gene. So there are generally two official names, the first for the official Hugo gene name (NR4A1), and the second, for the UniProt recommended name (Nuclear receptor subfamily 4 group A member 1). When I created this page back in 2007, I think the UniProt recommended name was "Nerve growth factor IB" which has now change to "Nuclear receptor subfamily 4 group A member 1".  So I stand corrected. Your proposed name "Nerve Growth Factor NR4A1" is a hybrid. Generally the way these disputes are settled is to refer to reliable secondary sources. Is there a secondary source that supports the name "Nerve Growth Factor NR4A1"? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:44, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Here's the best secondary source I know, pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25555471/ How about "Nuclear receptor NR4A1"? Sbelknap (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Also, it seems to me that the title of "Nuclear receptor related-1 protein" -> "Nuclear receptor NR4A2" Sbelknap (talk) 18:59, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * And "Neuron-derived orphan receptor 1" -> "Nuclear Receptor NR4A3" Sbelknap (talk) 19:01, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, there does not appear to be an ideal name. "Nuclear Receptor NR4A1" is a bit redundant (Nuclear Receptor = NR). Are "Nuclear receptor 4A1", "Nuclear receptor 4A2", and "Nuclear receptor 4A3" acceptable? Boghog (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that "Nuclear Receptor NR4A1" is redundant, although widely used. Either one is acceptable to me. Sbelknap (talk) 19:54, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes made. I hope this is OK. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
 * LGTM. Thanks! Sbelknap (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

your tool is breaking cs1|2 citation templates
at about line 187 where your tool removed part of date (this citation).

Please fix your tool.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)


 * . Sorry about that. The tool is fine.  Need to fix my manual edits that I am combining with the tool. Boghog (talk) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * What I really should do is automate more of my manual edits with the tool. I think know how to do this, but the scripting is somewhat involved. I will try to implement this when I have more time. Boghog (talk) 16:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be good. Thanks.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 17:18, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

A tool to generate 3d enzyme images with transparent background
You have uploaded a very good image at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Full_Structure_of_21-Hydroxylase.png Could you please suggest me a tool that generates such images so I could upload them to wikimedia, i.e. the tool should not have any legal restrictions to do that, or where can I find images aready made of human enxymes with thranparent background which are in public domain? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi. I have been using PyMOL to create high resolution ray-traced images or proteins.  There are precompiled binaries, but you have to pay to have access to these. Source code is available as open source software, but it is some work to compile these.  In you are using Window, this might help.  A prerequisite, is that you have to have Python installed. To get good quality ray-tracing with a white background, place the following commands in a file called pymolrc in your top level directory:

set ray_trace_fog,0 set ray_shadows,0 set antialias,1

I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Removing peoples content
Hey, why are you removing people's content?

There are thousands of recent publications in high quality journals discussing the use of hydroxytyrosol in clinical trials. Why are you removing any references that are added? I and several of my friends and colleagues are becoming very annoyed at your actions and will continue to add good quality, understandable material to the Hydroxytyrosol page.


 * Hi. Per WP:MEDRS, when it comes to medical claims, it is essential that they be backed up by reliable secondary sources (i.e., review articles).  The reason for this is clear.  An alarmingly high percentage of biomedical research simply cannot be repeated and the results of clinical trials often contradict each other.  Review articles weigh the available evidence and only come to a definitive conclusion if the evidence warrants it. Boghog (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I removed non-MEDRS content at Hydroxytyrosol today. David notMD (talk) 13:22, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Appreciation
Your tireless work on a slew of science and health articles is always appreciated. David notMD (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Likewise, thank you for your diligence. It takes teamwork to uphold Wikipedia standards. I appreciate your help. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:59, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

What's your main motivation for the rare parameters in your "consistent citation formatting"?
Hi. I've noticed that you're using scripts to rapidly edit the citation templates for science and technology articles, changing the author parameters from "firstx", "lastx", and "authorx" to "vauthors", always with the edit summary "consistent citation formatting". Why do you do this? No offense, but in most cases, the formatting is already consistent, but you replace wholesale more commonly used author parameters with one that otherwise isn't used very often. I wonder why you seem to prefer the "vauthors" parameter over something used far more often, and even want to use scripts to add replace more traditional parameters en masse. I'm not criticizing your work; I'm just wondering about that particular quirk. Thanks in advance. 49.144.202.125 (talk) 15:17, 4 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your question. Within the scope of biomedical articles, the Vancouver system author format is not rare. It is the format that many journals within the field use. This author format is documented in:
 * Before RefToolbar was implemented, many editors used Wikipedia template filling tool that followed the Vancouver system. Editors are now using RefToolbar, not necessarily because they prefer Harvard referencing, but because the toolbar is more convent to use. Furthermore, the maintainers of the RefToolbar have refused to support Vancouver system authors, not because there is consensus for Harvard referencing, but because they do not want to support more than one format in the RefToolbar.
 * There are a number of advantages of vauthors over firstn, lastn, not the least of which is that the former is much more concise. In addition, vauthors has strict error checking which ensures that the author format is completely consistent. firstn in contrast allows first full and middle name, first initials with or without periods.  In addition, firstn and lastn allows complete "!@#$%^&*" gibberish.  In contrast vauthors will thrown an error if the parameter values are not Roman characters and the first initials are not exactly one or two uppercase characters with no intervening punctuation or space.  It is also important to mention that the CS1 citation templates parse vauthors to produce clean meta data and are completely compatible with author-link and display-authors parameters.
 * Finally I wanted to mention that the script cleans up many CS1 errors and that many of my script assisted edits also include a number of manual edits to fix additional miscellaneous problems. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! 49.144.202.125 (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Finally I wanted to mention that the script cleans up many CS1 errors and that many of my script assisted edits also include a number of manual edits to fix additional miscellaneous problems. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks! 49.144.202.125 (talk) 01:21, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Abdala vaccine (CIGB-66) content removal
I think you have been a bit too strict. I guess that you want reliable sources but for example the think with a Cuba's delegation inspecting a venezuela factory I didn't see why you removed it. Is it goood if i Add a section Production abroad and in Cuba ? Or is it simply not allowed at all. It's kinda of hard to find mainstream or external sources with such niche topics !Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 14:02, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. If you take a close look at my edit, I actually didn't remove anything, just reformatted.  Some material right after my edit was condensed.  Please keep in mind that per WP:MEDRS, medical claims need to be supported by secondary sources. Boghog (talk) 14:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes sorry I was wrong. Tech-ScienceAddict (talk) 08:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Color vision
I haven't checked your edits in any detail, but reverted some to get behind vandalism in the lead paragraph. Please take a look. Dicklyon (talk) 05:27, 12 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up and for catching the vandalism which I completely missed. I have made some minor adjustments after your edit.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

QX39
Would it be possible to change the heading in the entry from QX39 to CA77.1? We are worried that by using the wrong name it is going to create confusion in the field. I have not be able to figure out how to change the entry name, so if you could help with that it would be great. Thanks very much. Ana Maria


 * Yes, I can easily rename the page. However there is some conflicting information on the structure/name correspondence. For example, CA77.1 Cat. No.:  DC5304 lists a different structure than is currently found in the QX39. Is the structure disclosed in ?  Unfortunately I do not access to the paper, so I cannot verify the structure and name. Boghog (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

vauthors
Please don't change all citations to "Vancouver style" (like ). While this citation style is formally allowed in Wikipedia, it contradicts MOS:INITIALS, involves unnecessary loss of information, and is less familiar to general audience. Please also read WP:CITEVAR carefully. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 12:00, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. MOS:INITIALS is part of Manual of Style/Biography and applies to biographies and not necessarily citations. If someone really is interested in the first names, they will probably want to look at the original source and numerous links to those sources are included in the citations. It is debatable whether Vancouver style is any less recognizable to a general audience, but regardless, a general audience should be able to instantly parse it. Finally, before my edit, there was a mix of styles, and now there is a consistent style. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 9 May 2021 (UTC)


 * MOS:INITIALS is only technically located in "Biography", but is a general rule referenced from WP:INITS. Regarding "there was a mix of styles": before your edit, there were no Vancouver-style citations, so your change in definitely against WP:CITEVAR. And, as I said, since Vancouver style incurs more loss of information than any other style, there is absolutely no reason to cast everything to it. Maybe it was invented to save paper, but we are not limited by these issues, and readers' convenience is more important than minimalistic formats. Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 13:28, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Citations are specifically exempted from MOS:INITIALS. Also, there was at least one Vancouver style citation before your edit. And finally, Vancouver authors are a cleaner, more modern author style with a more concise template syntax which makes it easier for both editors and readers. It also has strict syntax and the template throws a error message if violated, which insures a consistency. first in contrast is essentially free format.Boghog (talk) 14:38, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The Vancouver-style citation before my edit was the only one, inconsistent with the other 21 references, so I've changed it for consistency with the article's established citation style. After that point, your conversion of everything to the Vancouver style is a clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. So please undo it, otherwise I'll have to revert your edit.
 * "More modern author style" is a completely irrelevant statement; it doesn't mean that this style is any better or should be preferred. The fact that "first ... is essentially free format" is actually a great benefit – if you haven't read the famous "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names", please do so and think about it. While not everything there is relevant here, it clearly demonstrates that any system that tries to put personal names in some sort of a Procrustean bed is broken by design and should be avoided as much as possible. The claim that "the template throws a error message if violated" is also wrong, even for this arbitrary set of unjustified rules. For example, it accepts "Ångström AJ", which is not valid, but rejects "Tsakalos GTh", which is valid. Most importantly, it does not prevent typos or other errors in author names, so this "validation" gives no benefit and only forces to cripple people's names. — Mikhail Ryazanov (talk) 19:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What I meant by a "more modern author style" it is a flat design not clutter by unneeded punctuation which becomes increasingly distracting as the number of authors increases. The design is not broken, it is minimalist.  While the Wikipedia Vancouver style differs slightly from the published National Library of Medicine documentation, it is 100% internally consistent. As a consequence, if vauthors are used throughout a Wikipedia article, the author format is guaranteed to be 100% consistent and will throw an error if it deviates from the "Wikipedia Vancouver" style.  Free format is a disadvantage when it comes to consistency, which is one of the purposes of using cite journal templates in the first place. Finally CITEVAR states that "imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles" is "generally considered helpful" and that is what I did. Please note that in addition to imposing a consistent citation style, I made a number of other improvements including adding missing authors, templating cites, and copyedits. Boghog (talk) 20:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * it does not prevent typos or other errors in author names – false. firstn and lastn will accept complete "!@#$%^&*" gibberish.  In contrast vauthors will throw an error if any non-Roman characters are included. Boghog (talk) 20:18, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * If "Falsehoods Programmers Believe About Names" were applied literally to Wikipedia citations, then we would need to get rid of firstx and lastx and replace with authorx. In the case of Olestra, as far as I can tell, every single author has a western name published in a western journal or website, and hence none of the exceptions raised by "Falsehoods" apply. Boghog (talk) 05:20, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * In this edit by replacing vauthors with authors, you have introduced a Category:CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list error. If you insist, I have introduced bloated cite parameters in this edit including full first author names that you failed to add yourself. Boghog (talk) 18:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * All of the above discussion because you believe that "Last, F. M." is superior to "Last FM"? Why are the periods and extra comma so vitally important??? This makes absolutely no sense. Boghog (talk) 18:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that "J. R. R. Tolkien" is better than "Tolkien JR", that "Isidor Isaac Rabi" or even "Rabi I. I." is better than "Rabi II", that "Nicolas de Condorcet" or "Marquis de Condorcet" is better than "[de] Condorcet MJ", and so on. Regarding "complete '!@#$%^&*' gibberish": first, I meant errors like "Monet" instead of "Manet"; second, any "gibberish" must be allowed – some works are published under pseudonyms, which can look quite "strange", especially in the Internet era (but before it as well; for example, the author of House of Dolls must be writen as "Ka-Tsetnik 135633", which is impossible with vauthors); works from non-Enlgish authors also need to be cited sometimes. If you wish the most consistent and concise style, then completely omitting any author information would be ideal. :–) In other words, you are trying to solve a problem that does not exist and by very poor means. Generally, I believe that, in principle, the visible formatting of all citations should be controllable from user preferences, and thus the wikicode should contain the fullest bibliographic information. This was very much possible already in 1985, so implementing this in Wikipedia requires only somebody to take care of it. Your edits, however, make this improvement more and more difficult and thus I consider them counterproductive.


 * We will have to agree to disagree on the need for initials to be followed by periods. For unusual names, one can wrap in double parenthesis to suppress the error message (e.g. ((Ka-Tsetnik 135633))).  I strongly agree with you that the style of citations should be an option that can be set in user preferences.  Long term, citations are likely to be stored in WikiData. Furthermore, in biomedical research, a large majority of sources are available in databases like PubMed.  Because Wikipedia citations are subject to typos and vandalism, it will be much safer to download citation data from PubMed rather than to harvest them from Wikipedia. These databases store full names, so there will be no loss of information. Boghog (talk) 10:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation style change
How did you make this edit? Thanks. TrangaBellam (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your question. Historically the citations many Wikipedia biomedical articles were created with User:Diberri's  Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions).  This tool formats authors in Vancouver style and has been updated to use the vauthors parameter.  Unfortunately most of the other citation tools like WP:Citoid and WP:RefToolbar have no option to create Vancouver style author lists, which results in articles with an inconsistent citation style.  I have been using Diberri's tool which is still functional to create citations. I also have a Python script that pulls citation data from PubMed.  However the installation of that script is rather involved and I really don't have the time to publish and properly support it.  Cheers Boghog (talk) 13:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

"consistent citation formatting"
How is this "consistent citation formatting" - diff. And there are more examples. You just change one citation formatting to another. It is not the same as "making it consistent". Could you please stop doing that? I understand that you like this citation formatting, but it doesn't mean you need force it everywhere.-- Renat 19:21, 25 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Management of schizophrenia had a mix of styles (including 37 cites using vauthors), now it is one style, and the same style that established by the first major contributor, so my edit was completely consistent with WP:CITEVAR. Boghog (talk) 19:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am afraid that it wasn't. It is 37 out of 149. You just changed the dominant citation style to another one.-- Renat 19:37, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Why did other editors change the style from the first established style? Their edits were not consistent with WP:CITEVAR, mine was. Boghog (talk) 19:40, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * They have been doing it for ~14 years (based on the diff you gave me). The style change that took 14 years is a natural process. You changed it in 1 day or less. It is not the same. There are millions of articles that originally used one citation style and now use a different one. Should we check which style was ten years ago if it is different now? The answer is no.-- Renat 20:01, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It was not a natural process, it was editor laziness, and unwillingness of the maintainers of citations tools to provide vauthors as an alternative. The style was inconsistent and I returned it to the originally established style which is 100% consistent with WP:CITEVAR which states defer to the style used by the first major contributor. Boghog (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ... it was editor laziness ... - doesn't matter why this happened. And CITEWAR states: As with spelling differences, it is normal practice to defer to the style used by the first major contributor or adopted by the consensus of editors already working on the page, unless a change in consensus has been achieved. It has nothing to do with this situation. Read this - Citing_sources. You changed the dominant style to another one.-- Renat 20:28, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It has everything to do with this situation. If there is a disagreement, the default position is return to the style used by the first major contributor. WP:CITEVAR also states Generally considered helpful – imposing one style on an article with inconsistent citation styles. Boghog (talk) 20:33, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Edits to Massive perivillous fibrin deposition
Hi ! You recently made an edit to Massive perivillous fibrin deposition in clear violation of WP:CITEVAR. As the dominant contributor to the article, I established the dominant citation style where authors are listed individually using "|lastX=" and "|firstX=". I used this for all 11 references. You proceeded to change every single reference to Vancouver style, including the removal of first names. As none of the references used Vancouver style beforehand, the edit is not made in good faith, as your edit prioritises your personal preference for Vancouver style over the guidelines expressed in WP:CITEVAR. There is also a track record of this type of edit. For an article about a very rare disease where researchers are well-known in the field, removal of first names is particularly harmful - the more expert readers will rely on reading a researcher's full name to recognise their work, and they are unlikely to further research their article without knowing them first. Pending further discussion, I will be reverting the edit. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:01, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * OK, I have reverted by edit. We will have to agree to disagree of the necessity for first author names. I don't think they are essential for identifying an author. Boghog (talk) 13:13, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Thank you for considering this. I do agree with you that including first names for references for all articles is verbose, and your edits on other articles have benefited reference readability. I also accept the removal of "|via=" information, which is less relevant. Thanks! Bibeyjj (talk) 13:50, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Merge proposal of Biosynthesis of Cyclopiazonic Acid
I noticed you tagged these pages for merging but didn't actually start a merge proposal discussion on the talk page. I realize you probably noticed the need for a merge in passing and quickly tagged them and moved on, and in this case you were successful in alerting another user (me), but if you want the merge to occur without boldly doing it yourself, I urge you to actually propose the merge on the talk page per WP:MERGE. Then there is a better chance that someone will come along, see there are no objections to a merge, and actually do it. Just tagging pages accomplishes little. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 19:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Citation format for patents
Hi Boghog. I notice that when you standardise the citation for patents, you change the link to point to Espacenet rather than WIPO or Google patents which I prefer to use. Is there a policy reason for this or just personal preference? Personally I never use Espacenet as they don't allow downloading of the full text of the patent as a single pdf file, they serve it to you one page at a time, and for modern pharmaceutical patents which are often hundreds of pages long this can be a real pain especially when it comes to quickly searching through them to find a particular bit of information. Would it be possible for you to use links to WIPO or Google patents instead? Meodipt (talk) 19:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Meodipt. There is no policy reason for using Espacenet.  You definitely can however download the full pdf as a single file (see Downloading documents) from Espacenet.  On the "original document" page, by default it displays a single page at a time, but right below the title of the patent, on the right hand side is a "download" button. After pressing the button, you have to answer a  six digit CAPTCHA question to verify that your not a bot.  After answering the question, the download starts.  It may take 15 seconds or so before you notice any activity, so please be patient.  The reason I like Espacenet is its "INPADOC legal status" and "INPADOC patent family" pages.  Also they run the pdf through character recognition to produce searchable text in the "Description" and "Claims" section. That being said, one can alway override the link to Espacenet by adding a url parameter to the cite patent template.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:06, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

Question about your modification of my edits on an article
Hey man I made a series of updates in the article for the drug Risdiplam, I didn't add new text I just added more parameters to the already-existing sources and I added a new source; however you removed the editors for all of my sources, why is that? Am I supposed to include only 1 editor or is there a limit or something like that? Also, you didn't erase my sources, right? I mean you just removed the editors but left the sources, is that correct? Thanks in advance, 177.227.43.209 (talk) 22:05, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, concerning my edits to Risdiplam, I left an explain on the article's talk page. In short, I did not remove any of your sources.  They are all still there.  I did remove what looked like the full editorial boards of journals and the management group from press releases, because not all these individuals were involved in reviewing the publication and the sources themselves did specify who edited the publication.  I hope this make sense.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 01:51, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Questions about Review Articles for Hydroxytyrosol
Hi Boghog. When you have a minute, could you please clarify for me whether or not material published by the National Cancer Institute within the US National Institute of Health is considered trustworthy. For example, please read the opening sentence on the following link: https://www.cancer.gov/publications/dictionaries/cancer-drug/def/hydroxytyrosol

I had some instances when you removed my posting and one from my friend when we added content that did not use review articles. I now accept the reason and I have tried to use good quality review articles from high quality journals. I am confused as to why even they are removed. It is beginning to seem as though Wikipedia does not want anything posted to the Hydroxytyrosol page. There are dozens of high quality review articles from high quality peer-reviewed journals, including Springer, Oxford, Cambridge, the NIH, etc., reporting on clinical trials. But any attempt to post this material results in immediate deletions. Jbtuk (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2021‎


 * Hi Jbtuk. I think the NCI is generally a reliable source, but you need to be careful not to extrapolate beyond what they state. For example hydroxytyrosol summarizes in vitro studies that demonstrate its effects on inflammatory cytokines and the induction of apoptosis in cancer cells. So it could be used to support material in a research section, but the context must be clear that these are in vitro studies and avoid implying that these results might translate into humans.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Jbtuk is now blocked: socking. Drmies (talk) 14:26, 3 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Drmies for the heads up. A rather confusing series of edits by Jbtuk. I thought they were moving in the right direction, but socking is obviously unacceptable. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Articles for Creation July 2021 Backlog Elimination Drive
 Hello :

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a  month long Backlog Drive!

The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running until 31 July 2021.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is currently a backlog of over articles, so start reviewing articles. We're looking forward to your help!

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) on behalf of WikiProject Articles for Creation at 21:53, 7 July 2021 (UTC). If you do not wish to recieve future notification, please remove your name from the mailing list.

Disambiguation link notification for July 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cutaneous manifestations of COVID-19, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Still's disease and Basal cell.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Chembox
Hi Boghog. Do you know if there is a way to put legal status into a chembox, as opposed to a drugbox? The US state of Maine recently banned all perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances with a fairly broad definition, which means all of the dozens of pages we have for such compounds all now have a relevant legal status to note, but they all have chemboxes not drugboxes as they are not generally regarded as pharmaceuticals. I was sure there must be a compound with a chembox that says it is illegal but I can't seem to find any examples.Meodipt (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Meodipt. The sub template Chembox Pharmacology contains a number of parameters for legal status.  However this use would be a kludge since it would be listed under the pharmacology subheading.  Other than that, there doesn't seem to be any fields specifically for environmentally banned chemicals. For example, DDT is banned in many counties, but its chembox doesn't mention it is banned. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:04, 16 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Well it's one of those borderline cases really, the toxicological basis for them being banned is that they turn out to be exquisitely potent endocrine disruptors even at tiny trace concentrations, which is very much a pharmacological effect. But then their everyday use is as non stick coatings and waterproofing agents which is clearly a materials chemistry application. On a broader level though there are heaps of chemicals banned under environmental laws, probably more by number than psychoactive drugs controlled under drug laws. Surely we should be able to list this in the chembox. Do you know what is the process for adding new parameters to the template? Who is "in charge" of these templates round here? Meodipt (talk) 03:19, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh wait I see what you mean. That is fine, I don't mind a kludge if it works. Meodipt (talk) 03:23, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Your addition to Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid has a strong US-centric perspective. As can be read under Perfluorooctanesulfonic acid, PFOS has been added to the Stockholm Convention more than ten years ago. More than hundred countries have ratified the PFOS amendments, meaning that only very few uses are possible in those countries. The act introduced in Maine becomes effective in 2023/2030 only and applies to all PFASs, but unavoidable uses may be exempted. --Leyo 08:32, 17 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Point taken. It is ironic that while born in the USA, I lived in Stockholm when the convention was signed and put into force ;-) Boghog (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

I just saw the Maine law come up in the news. Actually I shall intend to add relevant legal statuses to all sorts of these banned environmental chemicals for whatever jurisdictions they are banned in, but that will take a long time and time is not something of which I have a great deal to spare right now. No US-centricism intended though I assure you. Meodipt (talk) 20:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Ivermectin
Boghog, I'm concerned about the information bias on the Ivermectin page and can't edit because I have too few edits. I'm reaching out to see if you be willing to see this large research paper that substantiates the effectiveness of Ivermectin as a medicine for the prevention and treatment of Covid-19, which is a peer-reviewed Meta-analysis: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8248252/.

In Wikipedia, the medicine is listed as a parasite treatment in spite of its use over many years in anti-inflammation & anti-viral applications for which it has been used to combat Dengue, Zika, West Nile, etc with literally billions of doses.

This research clarifies Ivermectin's efficacy and appropriateness for preventing and treating Covid-19, though understandably and industry that is making $billions off new drugs would not be interested in an off-patent medicine.

Thanks for considering this correction/update to a site that appears to be managed to meet a political preference rather than facts.


 * Sorry, but I am extremely skeptical. The basic problem is that this meta-anlaysis does not include any large, well-designed, rigorous double-blind randomized clinical trials. It also included at least once trial by Elgazzar that has been retracted. Hence garbage-in, garbage out. This review has been mentioned in the following sources, and they point out numerous problems with it:


 * Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 2
 * Ivermectin is the new hydroxychloroquine, take 3: Conspiracy theories vs. science
 * Boghog (talk) 12:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Plasmids
Hi again. I hope you're doing well. Since you are a very experienced user in terms of the proper references formatting, may I ask you for help to prepare the following work: RNA Plasmids? Also, if you don't mind, I'd like to ask for your advice. I am planning to briefly describe 'RNA plasmids' in the article Plasmid; where exactly should I do this? Thanks a lot! Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 22:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your message.  the following should work:
 * Where to put it is a good question as the article currently defines a plasmid as extrachromosomal DNA and doesn't even mention RNA. Perhaps it could be placed in a new subsection of Classifications and types entitled "RNA plasmids".  Cheers, Boghog (talk) 05:59, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot! I apologise to bother you once again, but I have no idea how to properly prepare the following reference: Plant Virology (p. 199). Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 10:35, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The following should work:
 * I used the the RefToolbar to create the book cite and I did additional manual edits to add the chapter, etc. For the journal cite, I used User:Diberri's  Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions).  The later needs a PMID or PMC ID, but will return a fully populated citation template that can be copy and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I used the the RefToolbar to create the book cite and I did additional manual edits to add the chapter, etc. For the journal cite, I used User:Diberri's  Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions).  The later needs a PMID or PMC ID, but will return a fully populated citation template that can be copy and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I used the the RefToolbar to create the book cite and I did additional manual edits to add the chapter, etc. For the journal cite, I used User:Diberri's  Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions).  The later needs a PMID or PMC ID, but will return a fully populated citation template that can be copy and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 11:57, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Michel Sadelain Article Updates
Hello again : I came across your name again reading the Gene therapy article. Michel Sadelain has new articles about his work in the space and I noticed inaccuracies and typos on his Wikipedia article. I used the secondary sources to clean up the article and made additions to the article. Would you be open to reviewing my sandbox?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:41, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Chefmikesf. Thank you for your contributions. Your edits to the Michel Sadelain article look good to me.  My only comment is to watch out for WP:PEACOCK terms, such as " ample use", " was pivotal in the design of designed ",  " effective target", and "Sadelain also devised how to design ed ". Cheers. Boghog (talk) 03:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback. Let me do another round of edits and I'll reach back out.--Chefmikesf (talk) 16:28, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I made your suggested edits to the sandbox, would you feel comfortable at this point to replace the current version of the article with this sandbox version?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:15, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for editing your draft. It now looks good to move to main space.  Cheers.
 * Since I have a COI with the subject, would you allow me to make the updates? If so, I will repost this conversation on the article talk page. If not, I will wait for you to update the article.--Chefmikesf (talk) 17:35, 2 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for clarifying that you have a conflict of interest. After reviewing your sandbox, I have no objections if you make the updates and feel free to reference this discussion.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:41, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

New Page Patrol newsletter September 2021
Hello ,

Please join this discussion - there is increase in the abuse of Wikipedia and its processes by POV pushers, Paid Editors, and by holders of various user rights including Autopatrolled. Even our review systems themselves at AfC and NPR have been infiltrated. The good news is that detection is improving, but the downside is that it creates the need for a huge clean up - which of course adds to backlogs.

Copyright violations are also a serious issue. Most non-regular contributors do not understand why, and most of our  Reviewers are not experts on copyright law - and can't be expected to be, but  there is excellent, easy-to-follow advice on COPYVIO detection here.

At the time of the last newsletter (#25, December 2020) the backlog was only just over 2,000 articles. New Page Review is an official system. It's the only firewall against the inclusion of new, improper pages.

There are currently 706 New Page Reviewers plus a further 1,080 admins, but as much as nearly 90% of the patrolling is still being done by around only the 20 or so most regular patrollers.

If you are no longer very active on Wikipedia or you no longer wish to be part of the New Page Reviewer user group, please consider asking any admin to remove you from the list. This will enable NPP to have a better overview of its performance and what improvements need to be made to the process or its software. Various awards are due to be allocated by the end of the year and barnstars are overdue. If you would like to manage this, please let us know. Indeed, if you are interested in coordinating NPR, it does not involve much time and the tasks are described here. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here. Sent to 827 users. 04:30, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

FAR listing of Autism
I have nominated Autism for a featured article review here. Please join the discussion on whether this article meets featured article criteria. Articles are typically reviewed for two weeks. If substantial concerns are not addressed during the review period, the article will be moved to the Featured Article Removal Candidates list for a further period, where editors may declare "Keep" or "Delist" the article's featured status. The instructions for the review process are here. Bangalamania (talk) 13:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

Terminology in sex-specific articles
When you see edits like this, please revert them. Site-wide consensus is against that, per this discussion. Several reasons are given there (and at WP:GNL), but the foremost one has to be that the overwhelming majority of sources do not use this terminology. Another one is WP:NOTADVOCACY; those WP:Student editors should not be allowed to use Wikipedia to impose a language-reform agenda. Thank you. Crossroads -talk- 04:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads up. I didn't notice these edits and I strongly agree with the consensus.  I have reverted.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much and I am very glad to hear this. This particular class has been a huge pain. Almost every editor in this massive class who worked on an article related to sexed anatomy inserted this language and/or advocated for it on the talk page, to such an extent that I wonder whether some instructor told them to do it. I asked the main instructor, and got a vague answer. I reverted such terminology at several articles a few days ago, but yesterday and today it was reinserted at all or nearly all of them by students. Apparently today was the last day of class, so they are less likely to return again, but it's still really annoying. If you catch any others and fix them, that's much appreciated. And please keep an eye out for it in other articles outside of those edited by this class, as other newbies may try to push for it as well. Crossroads -talk- 04:24, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

citation-template-filling error
when using the citation-template-filling tool the ISBN option always produces the Error: Could not find requested source. 1Veertje (talk) 16:34, 22 September 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi. Thanks for your question.  I did not write the original tool.  I was only able to port to the tool to toolforge and was only able to get a subset of the options (PubMed, PubMedCenteral, and PubChem) working.  I did try to get the ISBN option working, but with no success. I should probably remove the nonfunctioning options, but do not have time at the moment. I will try to do this when I have time.  Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:10, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Ref-format changes
Hi Boghog,

Could you re-check your edit to the citations in 2,4-Diacetylphloroglucinol? Three independent issues caught my eye. Generally, you made them consistent to your preference, not consistent with how the article originally was and not generally in keeping with MOS. Please let me know if there's something I'm missing, or if you know of a MOS that is in opposition to the standard ones that needs to be addressed. DMacks (talk) 10:56, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * All current MOS seem to instruct to use the full number for the ends of ranges, so your change of "pages=2429–2438" to "pages = 2429–38" and others is not compliant with MOS:PAGERANGE or any cite journal example I see, nor guidelines for either WP:MED and WP:CHEM. Prior to your edit, 8/10 of the refs were compliant. I see this issue has been mentioned to you multiple times, but I don't see a basis other than inertia (it was indeed formerly MOS to do that) and lack of MOS instruction for or against. But MOS has been clearly against for several years now.
 * Prior to your change, 8/10 refs were "|first= |last=" (and that seems to be how the earliest ones were), but you changed them all to "|vauthors=". While that's a valid format, so was the format of those refs prior to your edit. Per WP:CITEVAR, things should be generally made consistent with how the article generally was and/or how it started, with later-added ones updated, or maybe a rare outlier adjusted to match the rest.
 * You removed italics from genus/species names. That's against MOS as well (MOS:ITALSCINAMES). I don't see any MOS that instructs us not to use standard MOS for the text of an article-title, and even the refs themselves do use those italics in their titles. Some databases might not know how to do non-plaintext, but that's their own flaw.


 * OK, I have changed back the to full page numbers for end of ranges. 10/10 should now be compliant. I have also restored the italics for species (and added a few more that were missing before my edit).  Finally I have restored the first/last parameters. Before my edit, most of the authors first names were initials.  Now all of them are. The advantage of vauthors is that it is much more concise and insures that the author format is completely consistent.  first will accept anything including initials with or without periods, with or with out spaces, full first names, and even complete "*&^@*^$@" gibberish. If gibberish is included in vauthors, it will generate an error message. Boghog (talk) 11:43, 10 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Now implemented full numbers at end of page range in script (see for example). Boghog (talk) 20:10, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:KEGG enzyme 2
Template:KEGG enzyme 2 has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. WikiCleanerMan (talk) 20:53, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Citation templates
Hey, thank you for the suggestion to use the PMID number rather than the whole citation. Will have to learn it! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scienditor (talk • contribs) 19:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Dear Boghog, prior to your suggestion, I used the "cite" widget on the PUBMED page; it automatically produces citations. Is the final result different? Thank you, Scienditor (talk) 11:30, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

The PubMed widget produces a citation in a similar format, but it is not templated using the cite journal. The advantage of templated citations is that they are more uniform, they contain hyperlinks back to the PubMed for example, and they produce metadata that can be harvested by citation managers. So for example, the PubMed widget produces: Whereas, the template filling tool produces: which renders as Boghog (talk) 12:17, 12 November 2021 (UTC) boghog: thank you - it is better indeed. I have much to learn! Scienditor (talk) 12:25, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Boyadjiev SA, Fromme JC, Ben J, Chong SS, Nauta C, Hur DJ, Zhang G, Hamamoto S, Schekman R, Ravazzola M, Orci L, Eyaid W. Cranio-lenticulo-sutural dysplasia is caused by a SEC23A mutation leading to abnormal endoplasmic-reticulum-to-Golgi trafficking. Nat Genet. 2006 Oct;38(10):1192-7. doi: 10.1038/ng1876. Epub 2006 Sep 17. PMID: 16980979

Thanks for tweaking the student cites
Hi User Boghog, thank you for helping to clean up one of the student edited articles Amyloidosis. I have just logged in and will be reviewing and cleaning up all the student edits. I am looking forward to this as their work on the talk pages looked amazing. Thanks again! JenOttawa (talk) 20:46, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of a large number of MCB related articles related to RNA motifs
Hi User:Boghog,

I wonder if you might be willing to wade into the discussion about deletion of a large number of RNA motif related articles that look like being put for deletion.

See WP:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard

It would seem a shame to lose all of them.

Thanks Alexbateman (talk) 16:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Nomination for deletion of Template:Homologene2uniprot
Template:Homologene2uniprot has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the entry on the Templates for discussion page. Gonnym (talk) 14:13, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Angiotensin-converting enzyme 2
Hi Boghog! Thanks for participating in the review of the ACE2 page. You've done a lot of work in there! Fabulous. Including editing my edit by moved Zipeto review to a more appropriate section. Except I can't find WHERE you moved the review to? I couldn't find anything related to Zipeto in TALK. And I couldn't find anything related to Zipeto in the actual page. Where did you move it to? Thanks in advance. I've made only a couple of edits in my time. Willing to learn how this game is played. :)

yaktam — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yaktam (talk • contribs) 06:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Yaktam. Thank you for your contributions. I moved the Zipeto review to the Coronavirus entry point section. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:04, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi Boghog! Obviously, I am blind. Thank you so much! It does make better sense in that section! Stay well. Stay hydrated! :) yaktam

Transposable elements
Hello. I strongly apologise to bother you, but if you do not mind, I would like to ask a question regarding the article Transposable element. I believe it should include some information on the so-called Class III TEs (see: Pierre Capy et al., Dynamics and Evolution of Transposable Elements, 1998). If you find some time, could you briefly describe Class III TEs, please? I was about to do it myself at the end of the Classification section, but I must admit I have difficulty with the correct wording of this paragraph so that it is acceptable according to Wikipedia standards. Since you are an expert in the field of molecular biology and an experienced Wikipedia user, I decided to contact you and rely on your knowledge here. Thank you very much. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 19:45, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
 * E.g. some papers refer to MITEs as Class III: Multigenome analysis implicates miniature inverted-repeat transposable elements (MITEs) in metabolic diversification in eudicots.
 * Another example may be Foldback (FB) elements, see e.g.: The transposable elements of the Drosophila melanogaster euchromatin: a genomics perspective.
 * John Baez (2017) described Class III TEs as a grab-bag consisting of transposons that don't clearly fit into the other two categories, and added: Examples include the "Foldback" elements in fruit flies, the "Tu" elements in sea urchins, and "MITEs", or "miniature inverted repeat transposable elements", which are found mainly in plants and fungi.




 * Thank you for the templated cites. Since I have some time now, I will finally edit the article. Could you help me to prepare two additonal references: DINE-1, the highest copy number repeats in Drosophila melanogaster are non-autonomous endonuclease-encoding rolling-circle transposable elements (Helentrons) and Plasmids of Eukaryotes: Fundamentals and Applications, please? I would like to keep the citation formatting consistent, and I know you are an expert in this field. Thanks a lot! --Pinoczet (talk) 23:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi, here is the templated cite:
 * The above source is primary. Secondary (review articles) should be used a sources where ever possible. Here are some related review articles:
 * Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Could you also help me to prepare the second reference I linked to above, please? It is a well-written science book on eukaryotic plasmids. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit books are a pain to cite. I wanted to use the following references: Plasmids of Eukaryotes: Fundamentals and Applications and the part entitled "Mitochondrial and Chloroplast Plasmids" of Extrachromosomal Elements in Lower Eukaryotes. If you find some time to help me to prepare them, I will be more than grateful. Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Cheers. Boghog (talk) 05:03, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much. Could you also help me to prepare the second reference I linked to above, please? It is a well-written science book on eukaryotic plasmids. Kind regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 09:20, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit books are a pain to cite. I wanted to use the following references: Plasmids of Eukaryotes: Fundamentals and Applications and the part entitled "Mitochondrial and Chloroplast Plasmids" of Extrachromosomal Elements in Lower Eukaryotes. If you find some time to help me to prepare them, I will be more than grateful. Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I must admit books are a pain to cite. I wanted to use the following references: Plasmids of Eukaryotes: Fundamentals and Applications and the part entitled "Mitochondrial and Chloroplast Plasmids" of Extrachromosomal Elements in Lower Eukaryotes. If you find some time to help me to prepare them, I will be more than grateful. Regards, --Pinoczet (talk) 21:05, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

Hi, here are the citations. The second one is a book section that contains 5 different chapters. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 04:43, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! You are a really nice guy, and I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Since I want to use it as a general reference on organellar plasmids, will it be acceptable if I cite the book section itself? Cheers, --Pinoczet (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a technical issue, there is no problem using:
 * Thanks! You are a really nice guy, and I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Since I want to use it as a general reference on organellar plasmids, will it be acceptable if I cite the book section itself? Cheers, --Pinoczet (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a technical issue, there is no problem using:
 * Thanks! You are a really nice guy, and I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Since I want to use it as a general reference on organellar plasmids, will it be acceptable if I cite the book section itself? Cheers, --Pinoczet (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a technical issue, there is no problem using:
 * Thanks! You are a really nice guy, and I appreciate your contributions to Wikipedia. Since I want to use it as a general reference on organellar plasmids, will it be acceptable if I cite the book section itself? Cheers, --Pinoczet (talk) 14:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * As a technical issue, there is no problem using:


 * But from a sourcing issue, it would be preferable to use a more specific citation if possible. Boghog (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
 * But from a sourcing issue, it would be preferable to use a more specific citation if possible. Boghog (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Requested move of Embolic and thrombotic events after COVID-19 vaccination
Hi, you're one of the top 10 contributors to this article, can you comment on the move request? Thanks — Omegatron (talk) 00:56, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

You're a (barn) star!

 * Thanks for the barn star! And that you for your tireless battling of misinformation and poor sourcing in medical articles. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Minor Updates to Philip Kantoff
Hi again Boghog, there are a few recent inaccuracies on Philip Kantoff's Wikipedia article. If I present you corrections, could you help make the edits?--Chefmikesf (talk) 19:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Sure, I will take a look. Please post your proposed corrections on the article talk page, so that everyone can follow the discussion. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 21:13, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Variability in PSA Measurement
I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.102.203 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2014

Links

 * WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development).
 * Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon.
 * As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata.
 * GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions.
 * Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months.
 * Olivia Solon in San Francisco, the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian'' on 11 July.

Neurogenic Claudication References
Hello Boghog, thank you for the editing and formatting of some of the references.