User talk:Pseudoenzyme

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pseudoenzymes (December 9)
 Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Bradv was:

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.


 * If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Pseudoenzymes and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
 * If you need any assistance, you can ask for help at the or on the.
 * You can also use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

Bradv 19:31, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Pseudoenzymes has been accepted
 Pseudoenzymes, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created. The article has been assessed as Stub-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! GeoffreyT2000 ( talk,  contribs ) 01:41, 16 January 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.

Your contributed article, Pseudoenzyme (Deutsch)


Hello, I noticed that you recently created a new page, Pseudoenzyme (Deutsch). First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page – Pseudoenzyme. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Pseudoenzyme. If you have new information to add, you might want to discuss it at the article's talk page.

If you think the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 08:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Your article Pseudoenzyme (Deutsch)
Welcome, and thank you for contributing the page Pseudoenzyme (Deutsch) to Wikipedia. While you have added the page to the English version of Wikipedia, the article is not in English. We invite you to translate it into English. It has been listed at Pages Needing Translation, but if it is not translated within two weeks, the article will be listed for deletion. Thank you. &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 08:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC) Hello, Pseudoenzyme, and welcome to Wikipedia! While efforts to improve Wikipedia are always welcome, unfortunately your contributions are not written in English that is good enough to be useful. You appear to be more familiar with German; did you know there is a German Wikipedia? You may prefer to contribute there instead. In any case, welcome to the project, and thank you for your efforts! &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 08:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hallo Pseudoenzyme und willkommen bei Wikipedia! Wir freuen uns zwar über alle Beiträge, aber leider ist das Englisch in deinem Beitrag zu fehlerhaft um wirklich hilfreich zu sein. Ich vermute, dass du Deutsch sprichst; weißt du schon, dass es auch eine deutschsprachige Wikipedia gibt? Vielleicht möchtest du dich ja lieber dort beteiligen. Trotzdem herzlich willkommen und vielen Dank für deine Bemühungen! &#124; Naypta✉ opened his mouth at 08:32, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Roy Goodacre
Hi - I took a look at Roy Goodacre earlier. I think that he's probably notable per our WP:NPROF guidelines, but I can't in all honesty mark the page as 'reviewed' in its current state. The article, as it stands, is extremely promotional - it is likely to be nominated for deletion on those grounds. I added the 'reads like an advert' tag, because it's the closest thing we've got to what this is, but really it reads like a CV or a promotional profile. Can I just ask you up-front - is this somebody who you know? Perhaps someone you work for, or with? If so, you should review our COI guidelines. I'll be willing to work with you to craft a decent article, since I believe that the subject is probably notable, but I need to know what your relationship with them is before we proceed. Best Girth Summit  (blether)  19:42, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for this. I am also a professional scientist at The University of Liverpool, and have written several other Wikipedia pages(mostly for female scientists without webpages). The article is not meant to be promotional in the slightest, I write research science for a living (i.e. based on evidence and citations), nor is it meant to be a CV, but it describes the scientific achievements of a leading UK research scientist, and links to a major topic led by the scientist metabolomics. Please could you help me to improve it, the subject is certainly notable? Pseudoenzyme (talk) 21:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi - I'll be happy to help you improve the article. Before embarking on this though, can I ask you whether you have read the COI guidance? If this subject is a colleague of yours - perhaps this is someone whom you know personally? If that is the case, you should probably not be editing the article any further yourself. Let me know your feelings on this, I could probably find some time to work on this myself. There are three areas that I suggest we focus on.
 * Trimming. We simply don't need to include every tiny detail of his achievements - articles are intended to summarise what reliable independent sources say about a subject, not include all the information we possibly can. There are details here that can be relegated to an 'external links' section, and others that should be omitted altogether.
 * Sourcing. There shouldn't be anything in the article that isn't supported by references. For example, the entire 'Early life and education' section is unsourced - there is a reference (to Roger Berkley's profile on the University of Bristol's website), but as far as I can see that doesn't support any of the information in the section, and us merely serving as an external link to explain who Roger Berkley is. That isn't what refs are for - they should be used only to provide a means of verifying the information in the preceding assertion/s.
 * Prose style. There are quite a few instances of what could be described as WP:PUFFERY and WP:EDITORIALIZING. For example we don't signpost to the reader what is important and what is not by starting sentences with words such as 'Notably,' and we don't add words of praise to people and publications ('the noted bacteriologist', 'the respected peer-reviewed scientific journal'.
 * I'd start by going through this quite rigorously and cutting it back. Details like how many students he has taught are probably unnecessary (he's an academic - of course he's taught students); the stuff about his teaching could be considerably condensed (again - he's a full professor, it would be strange if he wasn't an 'experienced teacher and mentor'); and we don't need any prose about his Twitter handle or his ORCID ID, that kind of thing could be put into an External Links section. At the same time as you're doing that, cut out any words that appear to be praising him, or trying to give the reader the impression that he is particularly important or significant. There are various guidelines on how to achieve this, but the most useful one might be Writing better articles.
 * It's not easy to get the tone right if you're used to a different style of writing. I've been taken to task in the past for using the word 'fine' to describe mediaeval stone carvings in historic buildings - it's not that they aren't fine (all my sources use much more effusive language to say how wonderful they are), it's just not the style of writing we are aiming for. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  10:32, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. I had a read COI guidance, and certainly can try to remove any puffery/editorializing (noted and respected, which is what I thought you meant). I agree that some details are unecessary, please help by trimming. In terms of sourcing, it is not really possible to source early life and education, and I struggle to find many articles where this is done well; but this information is really useful because it is never found anywhere else (for free). For professional scientists, it is not possible to have a published source for this, and I don't really understand why or how there can be one. I do know the subject (we work at the same University), but like all scientists, I only really go where the evidence is, and try to cite it. So feel free to remove anything to an external links section. Thanks for your help, my goal is to get as many UK-based scientists (mainly women) up on Wikipedia, your help here would be appreciated. Pseudoenzyme (talk) 10:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
 * One of the pillars of Wikipedia (a very grand title!) is verifiability. Our goal isn't to collate all human knowledge about a subject - it's to summarise what reliable sources say about a subject. If there aren't reliable sources covering an aspect of someone's life, we should remain silent on it. If that means that we have gaps in our article, that's just the way it is. (I accept that there are probably articles on Wikipedia that have similar unsourced information - that's a bug, rather than a feature. You certainly won't find any such article rated as 'Good' with unsourced information like that.) I see you've been editing it this morning - PING me when you're done and I'll take a run through it myself. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  11:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

I had a go to take out anything deemed puffery. If you could have a look, be great. Thanks, Pseudoenzyme (talk) 19:28, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Ways to improve Alexandra Newton
Hello, Pseudoenzyme,

Thank you for creating Alexandra Newton.

I have tagged the page as having some issues to fix, as a part of our page curation process and note that:

"Please make sure that the "Editorials, research honours, scientific service and outreach" is sourced."

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, leave a comment here and prepend it with. And, don't forget to sign your reply with. For broader editing help, please visit the Teahouse.

Delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.

MrClog (talk) 14:34, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Women in Red
Hi there, Pseudoenzyme, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already contributed quite a number of informative biographies of women scientists. I hope there will be many more. Please let me know if you run into any difficulties or need assistance. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for that! I think that biographies of women scientists is my main aim, though many scientists need pages. Thanks for your support Pseudoenzyme (talk) 09:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Hi there, I am having problems with a page I created (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sarah_Coupland). Someone keeps questioning this page, stating it is written as a resume, which seems strange (it is of a female scientific academic who is active, so what else should I write about?). I don't understand why? I am a professional scientist, so understand referencing extremely well (it is central to the papers we write). Any help appreciated. Pat

September Women in Red edithons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:53, 29 August 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

October editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:11, 21 September 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

November edith-a-thons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

December with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

A New Year With Women in Red!
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 03:02, 29 December 2020 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 20:17, 22 March 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

May 2021 at Women in Red
--Rosiestep (talk) 21:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

August Editathons with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

January 2022 Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC) via MassMessaging

February with Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

March editathons
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

April Editathons from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

June events from Women in Red
--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 09:22, 31 May 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in July 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in September 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:37, 31 August 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 15:01, 29 September 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red November 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 17:35, 26 October 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in December 2022
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red January 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:03, 27 December 2022 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red in February 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 12:55, 26 February 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 18:29, 27 April 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - June 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red July 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 07:44, 27 June 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red 8th Anniversary
--Lajmmoore (talk) 11:01, 18 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 19:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

September 2023 at Women in Red
--Victuallers (talk) 16:59, 25 August 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red October 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 10:54, 29 September 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red - November 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 08:23, 26 October 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red December 2023
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red January 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk) 20:18, 28 December 2023 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red February 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red March 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 20:23, 25 February 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red April 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 19:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red May 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:18, 28 April 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red June 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 07:06, 23 May 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging

Women in Red August 2024
--Lajmmoore (talk 14:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC) via MassMessaging