User talk:Dr Aaron

Welcome!
Welcome to my talk page. I try to respond to queries in a timely fashion.

Sclerostin
Can Sclerostin be categorized as a growth factor? --JWSchmidt 00:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally wouldn't classify it as a growth factor. Growth factors like IGF, FGF, PDGF etc. all hit specific receptors that tend to activate signalling cascades involved with cell division and increased protein synthesis. Sclerostin affects Wnt signalling, which isn't typically associated with growth.


 * Moreover, sclerostin is expressed in mature bone cells and is believed to be involved with the maturation process. This would make it a differentiation factor.


 * Finally, loss of sclerostin leads to increased bone growth in human disease. This strongly implies that it does not act as a growth factor as loss of most growth factors leads to decreased growth. Dr Aaron 07:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

GDF-9
We have Growth differentiation factor-9 in the category called "growth factors". Should we make a new category called "differentiation factors" or should we make more specific categories such as "Wnt signaling"? --JWSchmidt 15:33, 2 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Many growth factors stimulate differentiation (e.g. bone morphogenic proteins make bone, VEGF promotes angiogenesis etc.). A good web definition of a growth factor is:


 * A naturally occurring protein chemical that stimulates cell division, proliferation and differentiation.


 * The key word here is proliferation. Based on what I've heard/read, sclerostin inhibits proliferation and promotes terminal differentiation. As GDF9 increases cell division, it should still be considered a growth factor. Whether or not you decide to further classify factors into families based on their signalling targets is another issue.
 * Dr Aaron 06:53, 3 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I've made some changes to the growth factors page. I think it is a bit tidier now. Dr Aaron 07:30, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Phyllis Eisenstein
Hi there - nice to see a fellow fan (I assume) of this sadly neglected author. I wonder if you'd be willing to help me expand the breadth of wikipedia's articles about her work - I've finished one article so far and I plan to do some more, but I'd like some outside input, especially as I haven't read all of her books (some of them are rather hard to find). Specifically, though, I wanted to ask what you meant when you wrote "for the past two and a half years". It seems that on wikipedia it might be better to say "since xxxx" instead of using that phrasing, because as the months go by it won't be two and a half years anymore. Keep up the excellent work. :) --Esn 22:02, 23 August 2006 (UTC).


 * I've enjoyed her works, although I was disappointed that there was no sequel (yet) to her other fantasy series focused on Alaric the minstrel. I sourced much of the info on her from the links I included - I need to find out when they were written so I could actually find out whether "two and a half years" is accurate. I was planning on writing synopses for the other books of hers that I read. I like the level of info you put in for Sorceror's Son. Dr Aaron 23:14, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Ghost Riders (wine) page
If you are referring to Image:Ghost-riders-wines.jpg, it was deleted under WP:CSD.

There was a notice like this in the image page (as soon as you created the page) before it was deleted, please read it and you'd understand why it is deleted.

If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. If you have any more questions, please feel free to contact me. --WinHunter (talk) 23:15, 4 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for getting back to me - the notice you posted did not come up when the page was created. I grant you were adhering to Wikipedia policy, however I think the policy of not allowing images where permission has been given (to Wikipedia only) is nonsensical. It is certainly a better justification in my opinion than "fair use". Dr Aaron 00:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

This month's WP:MCB Article Improvement Drive article
– ClockworkSoul 21:03, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Progenitor cell
Hi, feel free to do what you see fit with the progenitor cell article. I've been very busy in the last couple of months and haven't had a chance to contribute much. I created the stub in a rush when I wanted to refer to it from another page. I think it might be best to say that "progenitor" is a term reserved for cells, the "stemness" of which is not well established, and mention a few examples from various contexts to illustrate the distinction. Peter Z.Talk 21:54, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

One more vote for the coordinator of the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject
Since two of the three editors nominated for Coordinator of the MCB Wikiproject declined their nominations, one more vote has been posted: should the remaining nominee, ClockworkSoul, be named as the coordinator, or should nominations be reopened? Every opinion counts, so please vote! – ClockworkSoul 17:51, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Obsessed with proteins
I took your question a few weeks back about the project being obsessed with proteins to heart, and decided to unilaterally redraft the main MCB project page to present a much broader vision of what we intend to do here. What do you think? Cheers! – ClockworkSoul 23:39, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you for taking a look: I appreciate it very much. It's all too true that our articles can tend towards excessive density. As specialists in our various fields we have a tendency to write articles at a very high level, a trend that I've been consiciously trying to attenuate, especially in our "fundamental" subjects. After all, primary and secondary school kids do read these articles, and I feel strongly that they shouldn't be excluded by our pursuit of exhaustive completionism. – ClockworkSoul 13:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Help!
Hi Dr Aaron,

I’m sending this message out to about 4-5 people I’ve worked with here on Wikipedia. You may remember me as I've done a few diagrams for the MCB project? This isn't a blind carbon copy to 1000 people. Sorry its only partially wiki-related...

Basically as you may know I make a lot of diagrams for use on Wikipedia in my spare time while studying a Biochemistry BSc (hons) degree at the University of Sussex in the UK. Next year (in my final year) I’m planning on starting up a medical graphics company. Its been suggested to me more than once that some of my diagrams are as good as, if not better than those presently in research papers and text books, so it seems like a good logical progression (and more so something I enjoy!) to start up a company producing them.

But without a reputation, and as a nameless student work will be stagnant or non-existent. So I’m desperately trying to make a small name for myself and to build a credible reputation as both a scientist and artist. So to cut to the chase what I’m messaging people about is just to say please please please, if you or any of your colleagues are publishing research articles/text books etc. and need bespoke diagrams please get them in touch, I would be forever grateful! I’m very very happy to do the jobs for free as I enjoy them anyway and the exposure would help me no end! They have nothing to lose, if they don’t like what I produce its not like they paid for it, and are under no obligation to use it. I can’t stress how helpful a diagram in a published work would be for me. I do have a portfolio of generally better work than the pics here on Wikipedia, but examples to show colleagues are those such as:



Anyway, as always if you need any diagrams done here on Wikipedia, I’m an email away! If you do by any chance know of anyone seeking a scientist/artist then please be sure to get them onto me!

WikipedianProlific(Talk) 15:10, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: The controversy...
What a great story! I bet you never thought that Wikipedia would make you famous! Honestly, though, with the profile Wikipedia has been getting, I'm surprised that this kind of thing doesn't happen more often.

Regarding stem cell controversy, its inclusion in the MCB project is something of a judgement call. On one hand, yes, the debate revolves around stem cells; on the other hand, the dabate is largely political in nature. You know something, though? We, as scientists, can afford to be more involved in politics. I say go ahead and add it. – ClockworkSoul 16:49, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is proteasome!
– ClockworkSoul 22:09, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

In universe perspective
I thought Manual of Style (writing about fiction) gave a decent explanation, actually - the main issue is that Byron (Babylon 5) is primarily a biography of a fictional person. Since Wikipedia isn't really about the world of Babylon 5, but about the real world, we're less interested in biographies of fictional people and more interested in articles about, if you will, the real lives of those fictional people. So the story of Byron is mostly uninteresting to Wikipedia, except insofar as it provides context for understanding that, for instance, he was a controversial character from the last season of Babylon 5 used as part of the plot to set up the Telepath War, which itself forms a major untold story in the Babylon 5 universe. Note that this foregrounds out-of-universe perspectives - his controversial role among fans, his thematic use in the story of Babylon 5, his use to set up an anticipated and untold story, etc. A good example of an article that does this is Captain Marvel (DC Comics). Or, within the Babylon 5 world, Spoo, though even it has, to my mind, a bit of a lengthy in-universe section. Phil Sandifer 15:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Re: MoS (fiction)
I was just putting together a new bit re: mib's 3 points when I refreshed and saw you were visiting yourself. I wholeheartedly agree with what you said about driving away users, but I'd even go one step further. Wikipedia's got a convergence of three significant things:


 * Widespread publicity - a large number of readers
 * A significant number of subject matter experts on thousands of topics (including fiction)
 * Excellent policies and guidelines for editorial quality

With all three of these, we are in the perfect position to host some of the highest quality fiction articles that could be found on the net. After all, how many websites could honestly meet those three criteria?

I'd be delighted to work on a draft with you - can you send me an email when you get the chance? I would like to let the debate play out a bit longer first, though, just to see how we handle any new criticisms that pop up along the way. Quack 688 11:46, 19 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry to see you're giving up. I actually did the same; I've reached the conclusion that it's easier to ignore the guideline than fix it. DCB4W 00:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

Editor review
Thank you for your feedback on my editor review! Thought I'd leave you a copy of the answer to your question as well.


 * Answer Not at all-quite often, the time when an article is created and newpage patrol catches it is the first time any necessary maintenance tags (cleanup, wikification, sourcing, and so on) can be placed. If the article were to remain unsourced, this would alert other users to the need for the information to be sourced-and in many cases, it is indeed another user who comes along to help with the needs. The maintenance notices are certainly not intended as an attack on anyone, just an easy way to categorize articles that might need some work, and is really no different then placing or categorizing a stub tag immediately. Seraphimblade 11:47, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This month's winner is RNA interference!
– ClockworkSoul 14:31, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

MCB grading
Thank you for your help. :) – ClockworkSoul 15:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Stem Cell Debate - Debatepedia.com
Noticed your strong contributions to the stem cell research article, and thought it might be worth mentioning a debate article on stem cell research in Debatepedia.com. A large number of wiki users have been working on this, and I thought you might be interested.Loudsirens 22:40, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Cell Culture Assays
Thank you for your input, your point is absolutely valid, cell culture assays are most certainly used for many things other than biomaterials testing. More to come in time! Thanks Again —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Owenjm2 (talk • contribs) 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC). Owenjm2 12:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MCB stub discussion
Woah! This has absolutely NOTHING to do with the fact that I am a new admin. If you'll look at what's currently on WP:SFD, most of those things that I've put up there are from before I became an admin. I'm trying to clear out the stub discoveries page by putting a lot of things up for deletion. Please do not go around pointing fingers at new admins. That is completely unrelated.

I've commented about MCB-stub on the project page. ~ Amalas rawr  =^_^=  14:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

This month's MCB Collaboration of the Month article is Peripheral membrane protein!
– ClockworkSoul 18:51, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

OI and NF1
I saw your edits to the OI article, and I had a question. But then I read your page and it said you were a researcher in both OI and NF1.

I have the OI article on my watch list, as my best friend's son has this, and we are constantly on the lookout for new developments and treatment (he currently has two broken elbows, the poor dear). But I found you interesting too because I happen to have NF1, and you happen to be researching both. So I might have questions to ask you from time to time!

Anyway, the question I wanted to ask you was about the pamidronic acid treatment. The boy has been offered this experimental treatment at Vanderbilt (they happen to live in Nashville). He is old enough to start participating in his medical deisions, and he was really nervous about it. I was wondering what information you might have on it. How sucessful has it been? Are there long-term side effects? How long has it been in clinical trials (either in the US or in Canada or anywhere else)?

Thaks! nut-meg 07:19, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Stem Cell debate
You claim that the stem cell controversy surrounds all stem cell research, as opposed to only embryonic research. Considering that virtually everone I know and virtually everyone I've ever heard of or met has no problem with any stem cells BUT embryonic ones, the burden of proof is on you. No one is clamoring over the loss of some adult's bone marrow in the effort to get adult stem cells and form tissues from those cells. The debate surrounds the destruction of embryos for the purpose of research, and whether embryos are defined as human life, as they have the potential to become sentient beings. Adult stem cells are cells that have no possibility of becoming an entire entity by themselves. I have NEVER heard of anyone with a problem with adult stem cells.

Please provide PROOF that the issue surrounds the entire field of stem cells before expressing your personal views via a page on an encyclopedia.

shrinkshooter 03:03, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with shrinkshooter on this one.

Daswerth 03:11, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

No, doctor, he is not a so-called sockpuppet, although your suspicion is highly understandable. While it does no real advantage to my point of view, being as he listed no points or references that support my opinion, the most it does is show that one other person agrees with me, but like I said: being that he didn't actually say anything of real value, I would consider his support for me basically a moot point.

Also, could you perhaps provide a link or a reference to an explanation of your point of view? You say that controversy surrounds the entire field of stem cell research as a whole, and although this may come down as a debate over a technicality involving the masses and their misconceptions of stem cell research, I am, for the moment, at a lack of details for why you think this way. shrinkshooter 21:34, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Sucession Boxes For fictional characters
You misunderstood the links... the succession boxes have already been removed from those pages. Template:Lotr was never in contention. Check the history of say, for instance Bilbo Baggins and you'll see what I was talking about.--Dr who1975 17:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I was just clarifying the fact that many of the current pages cited as using succession boxes have templates - just in case not everyone is aware of the difference. Dr Aaron 07:15, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Byron-bab5.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to Image:Byron-bab5.jpg. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Suggestions on how to do so can be found here.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Videmus Omnia Talk  04:22, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Byron-bab5.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Byron-bab5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 00:50, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:WAF/Pro wrestling
It must come as shocking news to you, particularly as a scientist, and I'm sorry to be the one who breaks it to you, but some aspects of pro wrestling could be said to be not consistently grounded in reality. Just imagine how I felt when I found out at the age of twelve. It was like losing Santa a second time. But it also prepared me for losing God, which kind of makes up for what I went through at the time. —AldeBaer 12:44, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Seriously though, Shudde's comment at WT:WAF has my full support. Maybe there should be a guideline on "writing as a fan", regardless of the topic. Sorta like WP:COI, but with emphasis on stylistic aspects. I'm not a deletionist, but the guidelines have a similar job as the Holy Father in Rome, or the stereotypical constantly worried mother: Telling people to curb their enthusiasm, or better yet rethink it. RL experience tells me that most people have basically no professional enthusiasm whatsoever, and don't even see any difference to their own fan enthusiasm. To illustrate this with an inept as well as confusing example: Many don't seem to realise that e.g. calling Beethoven a "world famous composer" is ludicrous precisely because he is far, far too famous to be called that. "Jesus of Nazareth, the world famous religious figure"... —AldeBaer 13:09, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Cell Signaling
Hi there. I noticed you listed Cell signaling/Signal transduction as an interest on WikiProject Molecular and Cellular Biology. I'd like to invite you to join WikiProject Cell Signaling. Biochemza, 22:38, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ghost Riders (wine)


The article Ghost Riders (wine) has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * Non-notable winery that does not pass WP:CORP. Search for reliable sources to expand the article leads to a dead in. Doesn't seem to have any of the trademark flags of notability for WP:WINERY.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles 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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AgneCheese/Wine 02:43, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:Ghost-riders-wines.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:Ghost-riders-wines.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. FileBot (talk) 05:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Byron (Babylon 5)


The article Byron (Babylon 5) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "No evidence of notability. Consider soft redirecting to List of Babylon 5 characters (nothing to merge as this is entirely unreferenced...)."

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 article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address 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 articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:16, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of Byron (Babylon 5) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Byron (Babylon 5) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Byron (Babylon 5) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 07:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Byron-bab5.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:Byron-bab5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 03:32, 14 November 2019 (UTC)