User talk:Math-ghamhainn

November 2010
Welcome!

Hello, Math-ghamhainn, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome!  Davtra  (talk) 11:10, 14 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page and How to develop articles
 * How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
 * Manual of Style

Gattaca
Hello, Math-ghamhainn, and thanks for your interest in the article Gattaca. You recently made an addition to that article, and another editor removed it. At that point the proper thing to do would have been to go to the talk page and discuss the issue, not to re-add your addition. See the essay WP:BRD which suggests that we should be Bold in our editing (which you were), that if someone objects they Revert (that's what the other editor did), and that then the article is left alone while the issue is Discussed at the article's talk page. I reverted your re-addition of the wording, and I want to explain why. It was not because I agreed or disagreed with it; it was because it was time to discuss rather than getting into an edit war. I hope you will come to the talk page and let's figure out whether we want to put this in the article and if so how. Thanks! --MelanieN (talk) 20:18, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand. That makes sense to me. I haven't been involved in one of these edit/revert/edit exchanges before.

Phosphorylation sites
Hi. I noticed that you have been adding the following citation to a large number of articles:



with the statement that a phosphorylation site within this protein has been identified without any indication why this phosphorylation is significant. These article are about individual proteins, not phosphorylation sites. Material and supporting citations should only be added to a Wikipedia article if the material is significant. From the source, It appears the function of these phosphorylation sites is not yet know. If the function is not known, then the material is by definition not significant. Furthermore the above is a WP:PRIMARY source whereas Wikipedia prefers secondary sources (review articles). The reason for this is two fold. Not all research can be repeated and not all research is notable. Research that has been reviewed in review articles increases both the reliability and notability of the results. Finally adding the same citation to a number of articles suggests that you may have a conflict of interest. Hence I have reverted the addition of this material. Boghog (talk) 14:04, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

March 2018
Hello, I'm I dream of horses. I wanted to let you know that I removed one or more external links you added to the main body of GALA Choruses. Generally, any relevant external links should be listed in an "External links" section at the end of the article and meet the external links guidelines. Links within the body of an article should be internal Wikilinks. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. I dream of horses If you reply here, please ping me by adding to your message (talk to me) (My edits) @  00:20, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure that's true of general wikipedia articles but this is a list of choruses and the vast majority of them do not have wikipedia pages. It would seem silly to construct this page as a list of choruses and then have all the links in the external links section. It seems like the links should be in there only once and make sense in the section with the list of choruses. Rules should be applied when they make sense. I think in this case that rule does not make sense. LGBT choruses are important for many people, whether just coming out or moving to a new city or just wanting to be a part of the community. These links will help people looking to join these choruses as well as audience members.

Disambiguation link notification for June 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
 * Protein kinase domain ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Protein_kinase_domain check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Protein_kinase_domain?client=notify fix with Dab solver])
 * added links pointing to RET, ICK, FES and TTN

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

-- I fixed these. Thank you for letting me know, Mr. Bot.

Disambiguation link notification for November 15
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Herman Branson, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lincoln University ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Herman_Branson check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Herman_Branson?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:29, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 3
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Protein kinase, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages CGMP and Dimer ([//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dablinks.py/Protein_kinase check to confirm] | [//dispenser.info.tm/~dispenser/cgi-bin/dab_solver.py/Protein_kinase?client=notify fix with Dab solver]).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 08:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox Chase Cancer Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Thomas King.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:22, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Backbone-dependent rotamer library has been accepted
 Backbone-dependent rotamer library, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the  [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Articles_for_creation/Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&nosummary=1&preload=Template:AfC_talk/HD_preload&preloadparams%5B%5D=Backbone-dependent_rotamer_library help desk] . Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider.

Thanks again, and happy editing! Opabinia regalis (talk) 04:54, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Suggestions
Thanks for the backbone-dependent rotamer library article! Just a couple of suggestions - it's often recommended that people who have a COI with their article topics, as you indicated in your edits to the article, should use the Articles for Creation process. But it's most suited for topics like biographies, and isn't as effective for technical topics. A better place to get people to look at your work in this area is Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Molecular Biology - the talk page for the most active relevant project. Since this is a pretty obscure subject by general-encyclopedia standards, it'd be great to build out the topic area a little, either with more context in the article itself or in related articles. I don't see that we have much coverage of rotamers in proteins in general, for example. Opabinia regalis (talk) 07:42, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Reply: Thanks. I did sign it up for the Molecular Biology project and Computational Biology project but I didn't put anything on the talk page for those projects. I will do that in the future. Do I need approval in the future? I think the message from wikipedia is that I didn't if I had done enough edits. I am still new to generating articles although I have edited a fair number of pages.

I've thought about a general protein rotamer page, that would include rotamer libraries and the some conformational analysis (why the rotamer populations are not evenly distributed). I have some material on this topic here: http://dunbrack.fccc.edu/bbdep2010/ConformationalAnalysis.php. Then such an article could point to the backbone-dependent rotamer library page for more info on that specifically.

Thanks for approving the article. I look forward to improving it with the help of other wikipedia folks. --Math-ghamhainn (talk) 09:04, 19 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Great! For this kind of topic, I think the wikiproject pages will do better at getting people who are familiar with the area to take a look. For approvals: there's actually two different forms of new-article reviewing. One is the process you used, Articles for Creation, where you first create your article in draft space or in a user sandbox and then submit it for review as a mainspace article. This is often suggested to new editors and is the standard recommendation for topics where you have a COI. This process can take a long time because it has a very large queue, and is especially slow for technical topics because the queue isn't really organized by subject and most reviewers are not topic specialists. However, getting a formal review through this process is optional and you can choose to create articles in mainspace or move them there yourself. The second process, usually called New pages patrol, is applied to all new pages, especially pages that are new to mainspace. These reviewers are also mostly non-specialists and you may get some advice in the form of tags on the page but they will tend to be very general suggestions. Editors who have created a lot of new articles are eligible for a user flag that skips this process. My suggestion is to create a sandbox or draft article for topics where you have a COI and ask editors from relevant wikiprojects to review, since they're more likely to be familiar with the topic than people working through the queues. If your article is on a general subject then it's usually better to just create it in mainspace, or move your sandbox yourself.


 * As for COI: there is some basic practical guidance here about working on subjects where you have a COI, and quite a few pages about being a subject-matter expert on Wikipedia, such as Expert editors, Help:Wikipedia editing for researchers, scholars, and academics, and Ten simple rules for editing Wikipedia (originally from PLOS Comp Bio). Wikipedia is extremely careful about respecting pseudonymity, and no one is expected to identify themselves or their credentials. If you are Roland Dunbrack or a member of his research group, and you choose to identify yourself, you may want to create your user page with this information - and if not, you may still want to add some non-identifying information about your background and interests there, to help others understand your work.


 * When I read your rotamer library article, I wanted to add links to explain some of the terminology, such as χ angles, and I was surprised that we don't seem to really cover this much or have an obvious link target. (We do have an article chi (angle), but it's on a completely different subject than I was expecting!) So I think a general protein rotamer/sidechain article would fill a gap. The page you linked above is much more detailed than we'd typically expect, but would be a great external link. I should mention here the Wikipedia definition of original research, which is a little broader than you'd otherwise expect - a rule of thumb is if something isn't found in the standard literature and couldn't easily be verified by a non-specialist, then it's probably original research in our sense, even if a specialist would find it very straightforward.


 * Hopefully all of that is helpful. Thanks again for your contributions! Opabinia regalis (talk) 19:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for May 20
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Fox Chase Cancer Center, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Robert Briggs.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Tyrosine kinase, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RYK.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:34, 28 November 2023 (UTC)