User talk:JeanOhm

Welcome!
Hello, JeanOhm, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:
 * Introduction and Getting started
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome!

Your submission at Articles for creation: Exomer has been accepted
 Exomer, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! SwisterTwister  talk  00:03, 15 April 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.
 * Hello. Thank you for accepting exomer. I noticed on the article AP2 adaptor complex that it is in the MCB project, so I changed exomer to that project. I'm a newcomer, so I hope that was OK. If it needs to remain as you defined it, feel free to change it back. Thank you again. JeanOhm (talk) 03:37, 15 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 18
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Adaptor proteins, vesicular transport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Delta. 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) 09:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Some style suggestions


Hi JeanOhm,

It's great to see another biologist join the community. Good work on the Vesicular transport adaptor proteins page. I can't fault the content that you're adding. I think you explain the concepts well, and although it's not my field, I can't see any obvious omissions of key information. One suggestion I could make is stylistic, in that the encyclopedia aims (though doesn't always achieve!) a slightly different writing style to a traditional scientific review. I wrote in the exact same way when I started editing (catalytic triad and protease).

I made a short presentation on some of the similarities and differences to the scientific writing format that might interest you (you know most of the info in the talk, but might still be useful). I look forward to your further edits and updates! T.Shafee(Evo &#38; Evo)talk 00:41, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Thomas! I've already seen your short presentation. Apparently, I'm ignoring parts of it...8-) I have debated whether or not to write this, but decided I will. I've changed my user name in order to get the hell away from an obnoxious, bullying, editor. BTW, I'm working on a major upgrade to the golgi article. I think it is pretty poor as it stands now. I took a break from the upgrade to deal with the AP complexes so that I didn't have to in the golgi article. When I'm satisfied with it, I'll invite a bunch of editors to take a look at while it is in my sandbox, so that we can come to a consensus and then transfer it in bulk to replace the current article . If you want to take a preliminary look, it's at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JeanOhm/golgi it is only "done" up to "exit..." section. JeanOhm (talk) 01:40, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Also, if you haven't seen this yet, check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool. Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a formatted citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:30, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh my goodness, that is sooooo easy! Hopefully you won't have to make any more "consistent citation formatting" edits on my work! JeanOhm (talk) 19:28, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

AfC notification: Draft:Golgi matrix has a new comment
 I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Golgi matrix. Thanks! Robert McClenon (talk) 04:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Golgi matrix has been accepted
 Golgi matrix, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article. You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. . Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia! Robert McClenon (talk) 17:33, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  .
 * If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Re: External images
Hi JeanOhm, I'm not too familiar with Wikipedia's policy/standards on external image linking. You might want to check out the Template:External media page or consider uploading the images to Wikipedia. --Posted by Pikamander2   (Talk)  at 23:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

BRD not BRRD, and appropriate talk page discussion
About this and this, it is BRD not BRRD. And about this talk page remark - completely inappropriate. I will not be responding there due to that, but if you would like to amend your remarks to focus on content I would be happy to. Jytdog (talk) 17:15, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * COMPLETELY? wow. I wonder if others will agree that it is COMPLETELY inappropriate. Is there a specific part that you feel is inappropriate? What I think is completely inappropriate is an editor that makes edits at 2:48, 2:52, two at 2:55 AND THEN two at 2:57, judging that a video seminar the editor has apparently not taken the time to view is inappropriate for wp.JeanOhm (talk) 17:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, completely. It is easy to get emotional when editing, but attacking other editors is unproductive, challenging an edit is not "censoring" as we use that term in WP, basing edits on your personal authority is not OK here, and as I noted above it is BRD not BRRD.  Taking those elements out of your remark, leaves nothing to respond to.
 * We edit and discuss per reliable sources based on the policies and guidelines. And while there is no obligation to be nicey-nice, allowing your anger and disdain to show as you did there just pours sand in the gears of trying to get work done.
 * Finally, two general notes. Final 1 --  In general if you want to introduce something across several articles it is good to get consensus beforehand - not necessary, but good; and you should not be surprised if something you introduce across more than one article is challenged.  Final 2 - you may not be aware that MSK very actively promotes itself and its faculty in Wikipedia.  They pay an editor (a very good editor who minds the policies and guidelines) to work on their main article and many faculty member's WP pages are promotional/conflicted.  I have no idea if you have any connection with MSK but your edits ~looked like~ more of the same.    Jytdog (talk) 17:37, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * I have no connection to MSK, the NIH, or any current scientists or even science that I write about. I'm retired. Never amounted to much, but my scientific career could have been way worse. NOW I think I understand why you had the knee jerk reaction and eliminated the link without apparently watching it. I bet you won't offer one, but I'll take that explanation as an apology and accept it.JeanOhm (talk)
 * I wasn't asking if you did, I was just saying what your edit ~looked like~, in part. I see that you decided to go deeper into discussing contributors.   Getting things done in WP  - especially gaining consensus to add stuff - requires persuading people.  What you are writing at the Talk page, is not doing anything to persuade experienced editors, but it is instead raising questions about whether you understand how to work in Wikipedia.  Please do review WP:TPG and WP:DR. Jytdog (talk) 18:12, 24 June 2017 (UTC)
 * It is rather insulting to claim that somebody hasn't actually read content they have challenged, and this is something else you should be wary of doing. Of course I watched the video - it a very typical scientists' talk, addressed to other scientists. (this is what the NIH series is for - to keep NIH scientists up to date)
 * The mission of Wikipedia is described in WP:NOTEVERYTHING, which is part of WP:NOT. Our mission is to provide articles that summarize accepted knowledge, working in a community of editors.  One of things that Wikipedia is not, is a scientific journal.  The WP:NOTJOURNAL section of NOT talks about this.  WP:TECHNICAL goes a bit deeper.  As much as possible, WP articles should be aimed at a general readership.  There are lots of organizations like HHMI that seek to educate the public about science - an HHMI video by Tom Cech is in the EL of the Ribozyme article for example. Jytdog (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2017 (UTC)

Golgi apparatus
Hi Jean, I was saddened to see your comment on the article's talk page, as it's evident you have much to contribute.

There are several things to be said here, the first of which is simply not to get too upset about Wikipedia's ways: as everywhere in life, there are good people, quick people, hasty people, kind people, rude people and all the rest. Most editors intend to improve the encyclopedia; many have their personal agendas (articles on the front page, whatever), some have personal hangups. Twas ever thus. I don't know what in particular provoked your wrath; I see that back in September an admin protected the article, effectively halting vandalism; but I can't see any sign that you edited the article in the years before then or took part in anti-vandalism efforts so it's hard to understand why you should be 'exhausted' by trying to maintain it: perhaps you were referring to a group of articles in the area?

The second thing is that the article is not especially bad: whatever I learnt about the Golgi apparatus was a very long time ago, and there's much to learn from what's in the article currently; it is not badly illustrated, and it seems to be reliably cited, all the way back to Golgi himself, not a bad start.

Thirdly, there is no prescription on Wikipedia that articles should be only for higher education, as of graduate students. The point of an encyclopedia is to make information available to all. Articles should be accurate, but also informative and comprehensible. When material is necessarily very technical, at least the lead section and perhaps also a general overview should be accessible to all. Just my tuppence worth. Chiswick Chap (talk) 06:21, 27 June 2017 (UTC)