User talk:Dcrjsr

Removing references
Hi there! Thank you for your work on Jane S. Richardson. I've noticed that you often remove a previously existing reference when you add another one. It's fine to have more than one reference for a statement, so this is unnecessary. You can find more about correctly formatting references here. Thanks again for the help. If you have any questions about this or anything else, drop me a line on my talk page. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi again!
Said I'd give you a message here over on Commons. Shoemaker&#39;s Holiday (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply
Thanks for all the explanations. I wasn't sure earlier, from the edit summary, whether the revert was inadvertent or whether I really had said the wrong things. Next time I'll be sure to ask for feedback up front - but I think the bio is in pretty good shape, so it may not be an issue now, altho I might add another figure.

One problem is that I will probably revert to ignoring my Talk and everything else here for long stretches of time (it's incredibly seductive doing this stuff, but I do need to get back to the lab science!). So please don't take it amiss if I'm silent.

I'm currently working on putting a little more of the history into the Ribbon diagrams page. I added a retrospective reference about the history; also a lot of the nitty-gritty details are in the Methods in Enzymology article previously referenced there - but I don't think that's at all easily available, so I may put in a few sentences and pictures. But it may also motivate us to scan it in and serve it up on our web site, as we did with the Anatax article. This is, of course, an endless process! But it's fun to chip away at pieces of it. I'm also having fun uploading some of my plant, animal, and place photos to Commons. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Dcrjsr. I just popped by to let you know that instead of starting a new section with "== Reply ==" each time you post a reply on a talk page, you can simply start a new paragraph, preceeded with a colon, as I have done here. It makes the paragraph indented.
 * Subsequent replies
 * Use additional colons.
 * Feel free to ask me any questions about Wikipedia processes; I'll try to help. I saw your spiral drawing at Featured picture candidates. It's a nice picture, but I don't understand it! Heh. Happy editing, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

POTD notification
Hi Dr Richardson,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo mat.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-11-19. Thank you for making your work freely available for anyone to use!  howcheng  {chat} 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Bravo!
I was admiring that ribbon diagram you drew and I see you actually invented the things! The featured picture today is as beautiful as an Ernst Haeckel print. Nice work. --Sean 12:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thank you
And congrats yourself on a fine showing, given how little time there was for most people to get to know the candidates. I regret that I didn't get to do that quick interview with you! Perhaps we can do something like that as a followup to the elections - also answering some of the lingering questions of "how else can we realize the good ideas that come up at election time". Like transforming how we work with professional organizations. – SJ + 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! I certainly like knowing that someone else appreciates the images - and I'm sure the two of us enjoy many of the same places. Dcrjsr (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

fyi
Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology. I'll see if anyone responds over the next few days and if not we can just start a project (it can always get redirected later).
 * also see the rather cool Outline of biophysics! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you may find this helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Broader impacts
Dcrjsr, it is is good to see a real expert starting up WikiProject Biophysics. My area of expertise is geophysics, and when I write NSF proposals I am tempted to include contributions to Wikipedia as an example of broader impacts. Unfortunately, my colleagues are very skeptical. They are especially concerned that anyone can edit these pages. How did you sell the idea to your colleagues? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

links and things
Hi -- yes, I think links would be just fine! I haven't added links to the education project yet, but certainly mean to.

Also, there's a new endeavor at Teahouse -- we can point people there if they have questions too! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Engh & Huber
Sorry about that - I thought you'd removed it from Further Reading by mistake. Now I understand what you're doing. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem! It'll be interesting, actually, to figure out what things should go in Further reading.  Is it OK to have it all come from things in the ref list?  But presumably ones that have more meat than what they're cited for? Dcrjsr (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There are no rules about it. My tendency is to just put anything that is repeatedly cited in Further Reading. Or sometimes I divide them into Notes and References instead of References and Further Reading. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

DNA nanotechnology FAC
Thanks for your comments on DNA nanotechnology at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biophysics. I'd really appreciate it if you could share your views at the FAC page as well, as it would be really nice to have some input from someone who knows about nucleic acid structure, since subject matter experts are kind of hard to come by in this subject. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Frederic M. Richards
I just saw your request on the peer review of Frederic M. Richards - I have not done many GAN reviews and am really pressed for time lately, so I will pass - sorry, but good luck. Ruhrfisch &gt;&lt;&gt; &deg; &deg; 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for letting me know. Dcrjsr (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Frederic M. Richards
The article Frederic M. Richards you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frederic M. Richards for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks very much for all your good suggestions, and of course for passing it! I've made comments on 3 or 4 GAN and FAN; once I get thru my talk, I'll try to do an official GAN eval. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject
Hi! I came across your Commons user page and thought you may be interested in a new WikiProject, WikiProject Women scientists. Sorry to drop in out of the blue like that - I've seen your ribbon diagrams and they're awesome! (I may or may not have spent quite a bit of time on Commons today...oops.) Anyways, if you're interested, we'd love to have you. Either way, happy editing! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 04:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Hey, we're so happy to have you! I'm not sure about using that image on the list too, people tend to be pretty strict about fair use images just being used on the one page. However, images aren't my specialty, so I'd ask on WP:AN to be sure. :) I'm actually just an undergrad, so I had no idea that existed! Are young ones allowed to come? Anyways, I'm happy to be a part of the project and will definitely be working on biophysicists' articles. Thanks again for joining WPWS! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 15:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds amazing! I would love to go to Philadelphia and meet up with you all - I've never actually met any Wikipedians in real life. Do I need to be a member in order to go? Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I found the BPS website and meeting information. I'll go talk to my department head about joining up; thank you so much for alerting me to this opportunity! Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 16:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Biophysical Society Meeting
I'm very interested! Can I contact you from my university address to discuss the details? It sounds amazing! Thank you. I'm so very grateful. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 03:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Karolin Luger
That looks great, thanks for adding it! Also, thanks for the edits clarifying what exactly she did...I need to read her papers in detail it seems. :) I'll send her an email today as well - hopefully she'll have something. Best, Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

A page you started has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Manuel Morales, Dcrjsr!

Wikipedia editor Anne Delong just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

"Hello, Dcrjsr. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Your article about Manuel Morales is well written. If you can find outside sources that talk about Mr. Morales and his work it will help to round out the article.  Good luck.  &mdash;Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)"

To reply, leave a comment on Anne Delong's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Re: Manuel Morales
Hi Dcrjsr -- The main reason for moving the primary references to a key articles section is that primary papers are poor evidence that the author was the first person to publish this result (even if it is claimed in the paper), whereas the secondary reference of the obituary gives the required third-party confirmation. Additionally, I think it makes it easier for readers to notice the articles -- a lot of non-technical readers won't so much as glance at the references. However, what do you think about putting them in both? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think that's a great idea. Dcrjsr (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've restored them -- hopefully I've got them the right way round! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's good. Thanks very much! Also, with this arrangement I can just add some later papers to the "key" set now, and get the text about them done later. Dcrjsr (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I've added another 5 key papers, and reordered the first 2 chronologically (I made a goof and ended up with the messiest short series of edits I can ever remember doing!) I've also deleted the redlinks to Hill and Podolsky, since a Google search looks as tho neither is notable on his own (the Hill coefficient is A.V. Hill). Dcrjsr (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I think the usual convention for key publications is to do them reverse chronologically, but it might differ by subject. Not a big deal, either way, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes, I think that would make sense. But I'll probably wait on reversing them until I get the further info from Julian Borejdo. Dcrjsr (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Biophysics in the Signpost
The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Biophysics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Biophysics project
Is this still running? Sevendigits (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes - the contest is open thru July 15. So if you'd like to enter, there's still more than a month to do something interesting. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The Atlantic story
I just read this. Thanks for all you're doing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Frederic M. Richards
I have nominated Frederic M. Richards for featured article. Gamaliel ( talk ) 18:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much! Is it reasonable, during this process, to add some information from the Atlantic article (which was already added by Carrite to a Further Reading section)? Dcrjsr (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. I'm not terribly familiar with the FA process, but I assume regular editing can continue as it would normally.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 20:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have to add my congratulations on bringing this article to such a standard. If you really want it to be a featured article (I could understand why some wouldn't), a peer review would be very useful, to pick out what flaws there are. I know an editor who has done work with articles on (non-bio) physicists like J. Robert Oppenheimer, so he would perhaps (a very guarded perhaps) know the language well enough to help present it accurately but accessibly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much for your congratulations and especially for the advice. I do indeed want to proceed with improving the biography, but can't do anything on it for a while.  I'd also like to go by New Haven some time and search newspapers, talk to the conservation contacts, and see if I can get more help at Yale.  I'll hope to get back to you and your physicist contact some time in the new year. Dcrjsr (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. I don't think Hawkeye7 (the editor I mentioned) is a physicist by trade, but he's familiar with the field. Look forward to the follow up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

April Fools? Nope! Welcome to the Women Scientists worldwide online edit-a-thon during Year of Science
(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage

Need help with bot-changed categories
The categories for a new women scientist biography I've started (Elizabeth A. McMahan) have gotten changed, some very incorrectly, I presume by bots. For instance, she was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill and I assigned the UNCCH faculty category, but it got changed to UNCCH alumni. What can I either do differently, or allow me to change the mistakes? Thanks very much for help anyone is able to give! Dcrjsr (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The issue was you had been using – brackets which are template containers, categories are contained in . I have fixed the issue for you you can see the difference here .McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 14:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much for the quick response! And I apologize for the stupid mistake - I do know better. Dcrjsr (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, an open access peer reviewed journal with no charges, invites you to participate
Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:
 * Publish an article to the journal.
 * Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
 * Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
 * Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
 * Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
 * Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
 * Join the editorial board.
 * Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
 * Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
 * Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
 * Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
 * Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to . If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at.
 * Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

 D ip ta ns hu Talk 10:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 10
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tonestus peirsonii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Involucre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

List of biophysicists
Dcrjsr, it seems to me that you overdid it when you "condensed" the descriptions for Michael Rossman and Louise Johnson to nothing - unless maybe those entries were incorrect? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads-up -- but if I deleted those it was certainly not intentional. I can't find that they ever did have descriptions, but I have now added brief ones. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Maybe it's good that you didn't find the old descriptions - yours are better. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of biophysicists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Phillips. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Ribbon drawing 2examples.jpg


The file File:Ribbon drawing 2examples.jpg has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "unused, low-res, no obvious use"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

This bot DID NOT nominate any file(s) for deletion; please refer to the page history of each individual file for details. Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 00:02, 30 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The image, at higher resolution (800x1430), is indeed on Wikimedia Commons. But it was by accident given a slightly different name of File:Ribbon-drawing technique two examples.jpg. In its original use on Wikipedia, on the Ribbon diaagram page, it was replaced by an image showing all 3 principal representations (beta sheet as well as alpha helix and loops), so there is indeed now no real need for it.  So I don't have any objection to its deletion. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)