User talk:C64rocks

Mikhail Blagosklonny
I have reverted your last edit here. Please read WP:POINT and make yourself familiar with WP:RS. The Scientific American is a highly respected magazine and most definitely a reliable source in the sense of WP:RS. Please note that this kind of edits are considered pointy and disruptive and repeating this kind of thing) (especially in a biography of a living person) will get you blocked from editing. --Randykitty (talk) 16:44, 20 November 2016 (UTC)


 * I believe that you have misinterpreted my edit. In no way am I disputing the reputability of Scientific American. The requests for citations were added because none of the current citations were relevant to the claims that I marked. Have you read the cited articles? C64rocks (talk) 16:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC) Addendum: On the AfD page you told me to remove or improve the aging/rapamycin section if I had an issue with it. I marked two areas that I believe needed citations. I would provide better citations myself if I knew where any were. As it appears that someone closely associated to the subject is contributing to the article, perhaps they will see the cit request and provide something better.C64rocks (talk) 17:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * The way to handle something like this is that you make the text reflect the source, not just slap some "citation needed" templates on it. I've just done this, so those templates are not needed any more. Just as an aside, getting so much attention in an article in SciAm AND BusinessWeek suffices to pass WP:BIO and WP:GNG. and your comment in the AfD clearly indicated that you didn't think that SciAm (or BusinessWeek) wdre acceptable sources. --Randykitty (talk) 19:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
 * I recognize that your change is much better and I will make a mental note of the approach you took in fixing this. Thanks. My comment in the AfD regarding SciAm and BusinessWeek was poorly worded. What I was trying to point out was that an editorial in a non-peer reviewed mag by a non-scientist does not establish that "Blagosklonny was instrumental in elucidating the role of TOR signaling in aging and cancer". Of course, the bigger problem was that the article doesn't say this anywhere. I do understand how it could contribute to passing WP:BIO and WP:GNG although I still don't think he passes. (I have had similar coverage in Forbes and some other lesser known magazines. In no way would I think that this was sufficient to make me notable but perhaps I am not interpreting WP:BIO and WP:GNG correctly.) Hundreds of people are mentioned every month in magazines. For being in the field 20+ years, a handful of mentions in the popular sci press just seems really insignificant to me. C64rocks (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Original research ←WRONG
Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Cellular senescence‎. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 19:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * If you continue editing against policy and writing edit notes like this, you are going to end up indefinitely blocked. You cannot edit based on what you know.  This is frustrating for experts, but that is how WP works.  We summarize reliable sources here.  Sources are authoritative - not you, and not me.  Please have a read of WP:EXPERT, which might help you.  We love when experts take the time to understand how Wikipedia works - they can quickly identify places where there is missing content or where there is too much space given to something, and generally know the literature well and can put their hands on high quality sources and can accurately summarize them.  But when experts try to change content based on their own authority -- what they already know -- things go awry.   Jytdog (talk) 20:58, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Sorry but you are entirely out of line here, Jytdog. I'm sorry if you felt that my comment made you look bad but that is your fault not mine. I know you are an experienced editor but, with due respect, perhaps you should slow down the pace of your edits and comments, and give them some more thought to help avoid making mistakes. Your qualm with my edit was the use of the word "seminal". As anyone who has taken BIOL101 should be able to tell you, the work referenced is clearly seminal. (To be honest, I couldn't care one way or the other if that adjective was included or not.) It took seconds for me to locate dozens of references (books, journals, etc.) using exactly the same word (seminal) in the same context. In the comments accompanying your rash edit, you stated unequivocably that my use of the word seminal was "100% WP:OR". You didn't say that it appears to be WP:OR or that it needs a reference to avoid being perceived as WP:OR, you said that it was WP:OR. Clearly you were very wrong. I see that you have backed off your original false claim in light of the multiple references I provided for you (I gave you extras so you could pick your favorites). BTW, I had no problem finding other examples of Wikipedia pages that use the term "seminal" in reference to a work and that did not include references stating such. The need for a reference in this case is not obvious.
 * Your assertion that I am editing "based on what I know" or "based on (my) own authority" is insulting and unfair--but most relevantly it is simply false. Let's not forget that you were the one who was wrong in this particular instance, not me. I'm sure you will take this opportunity to punish me for exposing your mistake by auditing all my recent edits (in fact, I see that you have already done so). Do you think behavior like yours in this instance is helpful to Wikipedia? C64rocks (talk) 22:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * You are trying to turn this into a pissing match instead of trying to learn how Wikipedia works. Here is the diff where you wrote:
 * "Hayflick's discovery that normal cells are mortal overturned a 60-year-old dogma in cell biology that maintained that all cultured cells are immortal. Hayflick found that the only immortal cultured cells are cancer cells."


 * In Wikipedia, we summmarize sources. When you write some content and put a citation behind it, we expect that the cited source will actually support the content.  The paper itself cannot be a source for a claim about the paper.
 * I know, as does every other experienced editor, that people write as you did in the biomedical literature. The author makes a claim, and the citation is very often the thing he or she is commenting on. The source for the author's claim itself is the author.
 * In Wikipedia, this is not allowed under the WP:OR policy. Working in WP is not like writing elsewhere.
 * You will figure this out, or you won't. Jytdog (talk) 16:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * More mealy-mouthed nonsense. I'm not trying to start a pissing match, I'm simply asking you to be honest. This was your comment for the edit in question:


 * This is 100% WP:OR - the claim that Hayflick's work was "seminal" cannot be sourced to Hayflick's paper. That kind of editorial commentary is abolutely (sic) not allowed here. You need a secondary source that says this.


 * What you just wrote on my talk page has absolutely nothing to do with this! This is called a red herring. Instead of admitting that you screwed up, you are trying to shift the blame for your sloppy editing to me by being patronizing and insinuating that I am simply a novice editor that doesn't understand the basics of Wikipedia.


 * Again, you made the mistake in this instance, not me. Self honesty is a virtue, my friend, and apparently has no positive correlation with the number of pages one edits on Wikipedia. C64rocks (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever. If you continue in this manner you will soon have your editing privileges restricted or removed. Everybody makes their own path here. Jytdog (talk) 18:59, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * "Whatever" is a concession, not an intelligent counterargument. I won't allow myself to be bullied, patronized or threatened by editors who think that their supposed experience trumps the facts of a matter. You are regurgitating Wikipedia policy that is irrelevant to the matter at hand, and using it in such a way to intentionally mislead anyone that may read it, to disparage me, and avoid addressing the matter at hand directly. I appreciate the cleverness of your approach, as without context your comments seem harmless. I can see your strategy being very successful here. However, it is extremely dishonest and amounts to bullying. C64rocks (talk) 19:54, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * No, it means this is not worth my time. Experienced editors who see your editing and talk page discussion, understand what is going on.  You are not the first expert who has come here and failed to recognize the difference between writing here and writing elsewhere, and you will not be the last.  I tried to explain and you won't learn. This path leads over a cliff to loss of editing privileges. I have no more to say here. Jytdog (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Well this certainly isn't worth my time either.
 * I understand precisely what you were saying about summarizing sources. Great. So why not fix it instead of butchering the page? You could have made a request for citation and I would have provided what was needed. Instead, your edit swapped a citation technicality for something far worse. I didn't respond to your points because you were engaged in your own discussion on a topic that was irrelevant to that at hand. BTW, there was a similar problem with exactly the same source prior to my edit.
 * I have no more to say here. - Jytdog
 * Neither do I. We will just have to agree to disagree. There's no harm in that. Have a great day! C64rocks (talk) 20:42, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

Cellular Senecense
Hello C64rocks,

Thank you for our comments.

You wrote. "Hi Jstengel, I have reverted your edit to my recent edit. This was your reasoning for your edit: "The adjectives human, fetal and fibroblasts are too limiting. Many normal cell types from different species have this ability."

While your last sentence is true, it is besides the point. Fetal cells will encounter the Hayflick limit before those taken from an older individual. The Hayflick limit can also vary by species. Therefore, if we are going to specify the number of doublings in culture then we need to specify age and species. I used the specifiers that I did because the doubling number that was given related specifically to experiments by Hayflick where the phenomenon of cellular senescence was discovered. I have put back my adjectives but given better context to the sentence in question than before. Thanks!"

My reply: Thank you for improving the wording. You have done what was needed by changing the context of your first edit thereby changing the meaning. It puts the human fetal fibroblasts in perspective with respect to the article and no longer sounds like his discovery is gospel for all normal cells. Good job.

Today I am trying to further improve the page by changing the first sentence. The first sentence is/was not true and contains a non-word that I believe can throw off some readers. Cellular senescence is not "the" phenomenon by which normal "ploid" cells cease to divide. It is not "the" phenomenon, but one of a few. Furthermore, "-ploid" is not a word, it is a suffix and I think it makes the sentence choppy and could throw readers off. It's just not needed in the very first sentence. I also intend to included a link to the WP entry for Apoptosis under the "See also" section. Please polish and expand on this as you see fit. Thanks.Jess (talk) 04:20, 29 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Hi Jess,


 * Good points! I agree with you that the first sentence needed work. There may still be some additional improvements we can make to it. I'll post some thoughts on this on the Cellular Senescence talk page in a bit. Thanks. (BTW, I meant to say in my previous message that fetal cells will require more doublings in culture to encounter the Hayflick limit than those taken from an older individual. I incorrectly stated it the other way around. Blush.png) Thanks! C64rocks (talk) 15:57, 29 April 2018 (UTC)