User talk:Myoglobin/Archive 1

How do I clear a typo on a non-editable page? "Rahter" on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Log/newusers


 * Leave  on the page MediaWiki talk:Newuserlogpagetext and a description of what you would like changed. Datbubblegumdoe[talk – contribs] 01:28, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A belated welcome!
Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Myoglobin. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Eman 235 / talk 01:11, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Somatic cell nuclear transfer
Since the therapeutic cloning has been merged with the nuclear transfer, how do you like it if the title of this article would be changed to "Cloning Technique" or a similar name?--!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 12:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * That could work, though if there are other techniques it seems that there should be a separate page listing the techniques, with the SCNT page being one of those listed. I'm not a subject expert on this; just stumbled upon it yesterday, so we might want to discuss this on the SCNT page's talk first to see if anyone else is more familiar with the cloning articles on WP... Myoglobin (talk) 13:11, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks a lot. I'll start a discuss topic on the talk page.--!Panzerkampfwagen! (talk) 08:08, 1 February 2018 (UTC)

Neuropathic arthropathy
You are reverted my elimination of Category:Rheumatology of Neuropathic arthropathy. A link to Category:Rheumatology is unnecessary since Neuropathic arthropathy belongs to   -> Category:Inflammatory polyarthropathies -> Category:Arthritis -> Category:Rheumatology (all arthritis are object of study of Rheumatology). Really, much of the content of Category:Rheumatology must be moved to a new Category:Diseases of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue, just as it exists in Commons:Category:Diseases and disorders of the musculoskeletal system and connective tissue. In this categorization process I have been guided by the ICD-10. Jmarchn (talk) 22:43, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Cytosol vs. ICF
I'm really struggling to find a source that tells the exact difference between cytosol and ICF. The 2 articles that we currently have that touch on this, Cytosol and Fluid_compartments, only say that "most of ICF is cytosol". But none of the articles, and no reliable source that I've been able to find, says exactly what is in the ICF but not in the cytosol. So, are you aware of any reliable sources that say what else is in ICF apart from cytosol? Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 18:48, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm still just a student, so I'm not certain about this, but I always thought that cytosol IS the ICF. The only exception I can think of would be if there was somehow some fluid within the cytosol but not counted as it; e.g. if some fat droplet got stuck inside.  But that would be a liposome, so I'm not sure it would be part of the cytosol.  Anyone with more molec bio experience willing to comment further? Myoglobin (talk) 21:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I've looked at lots of different sources, and they all say that exact same thing I told you about above... "the cytosol constitutes most of the ICF...." so what else is in the ICF then? Been driving me crazy DrVogel (talk) 23:16, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting answer from Quercus solaris: User_talk:Quercus_solaris DrVogel (talk) 01:17, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians who study using Osmosis has been nominated for discussion
Category:Wikipedians who study using Osmosis, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to see if it abides with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. — swpb T go beyond 19:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not remove Categories for discussion notices from category pages, or remove other people's comments in Categories for discussion debates, as you did with Category:Wikipedians who study using Osmosis. Otherwise, it may be difficult to create consensus. If you oppose the deletion, merger, or renaming of a category, please comment at the respective page instead. Thank you. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for reverting this; I wasn't aware that a consensus was needed. I thought that BrownHairedGirl's Keep vote was enough and that the issue had passed since the category had not been migrated to the next day's CFD page. Myoglobin (talk) 18:28, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * CfDs normally run for at least seven days; early closure is only performed in special circumstances, such as an improper nomination or because one of the speedy deletion criteria applied. The closure instructions for a CfD are here, but as an involved person twice over (as the creator of the category, and also as one who has commented at the CfD), you may not close the CfD. A closed CfD looks like e.g. Category:UK Polaris programme on the same page, notice the cyan background and the enclosing box. The most recent example of all the CfDs for a whole day being closed is 5 February. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:43, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It's, by . It ran for 9 days 2 hours, which is not bad considering that some CFDs get left to run for several weeks. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 14:26, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Warnings
When you restored the Percutaneous discectomy page, you violated several policies and guidelines:


 * Information orange.svg Please do not add or change content, as you did at Percutaneous discectomy‎, without citing a reliable source. Please review the guidelines at Citing sources and take this opportunity to add references to the article. Thank you.


 * Information orange.svg Please do not add original research or novel syntheses of published material to articles as you apparently did to Percutaneous discectomy‎. Please cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. Thank you.


 * Information orange.svg Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia, as you did to Percutaneous discectomy‎. While objective prose about beliefs, organisations, people, products or services is acceptable, Wikipedia is not intended to be a vehicle for soapboxing, advertising or promotion. Thank you. Jytdog (talk) 20:17, 24 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Just for the record, I only reverted the page-blanking & redirection as a temporary measure until better references were found. I guess in WP's view it is better to have no content on a topic than allow poorly-sourced content to remain up for any length of time, even if some of it might be valid.  Is there a better way to flag pages that should be re-written like this, to prevent them from being "forgotten" as I was fearing? (I don't have time right now to write entire articles myself; I mostly use WP as a study tool). Myoglobin (talk) 20:23, 24 February 2018 (UTC)