User talk:Shisha-Tom

Updating impact factors
Hi, Thanks for updating several journal impact factors. One request: when you do so, please don't only update the infobox, but also the IF if it is mentioned in the body of text. In the latter case, the reference needs to be updated, too, and if any rankings are given, these will likely have changed and should also be checked and updated if necessary. Thanks. Happy editing! --Guillaume2303 (talk) 11:35, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the warm wellcome. In the future I will take care of all updates and changes in the references. Shisha-Tom (talk) 10:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Perfect, thanks! Don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page if you need any help. WP can sometimes be pretty daunting in the beginning... --Guillaume2303 (talk) 10:42, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 16
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Primidone, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Lancet and Journal of Chromatography (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). 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) 09:45, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Molecular Biology and Evolution
Hi Shisha-Tom, I think that there are some problems with your last edit to this article:

1/ " Journal Citation Reports ": we have an article on the Journal Citation Reports, so piping it to Web of Science is confusing. WoS is a portal giving access to several databases and publications of which the JCR is but one. In addition, the JCR is a publication and its name should be italicized. 2/ "Mol. Biol. Evol.": There is no reason to use the ISO abbreviation (which is in the infobox anyway). It should not be bolded either, if used at all, it should be in italics. However, just using "It" in a short article like this is clear enough and shorter. 3/ "an impact factor of 5.550 as reported in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports by Thomson Reuters": 2011 does not belong with the JCR but with the IF, because these are the 2011 factors that were published in the 2012 JCR, not the 2011 one. The 2011 JCR had the 2010 impact factors. Writing here "the 2012 JCR" would only cause more confusion because readers would interpret this as meaning that these are the 2012 impact factors (which will not be available for a few months yet). If "JCR" is properly linked, that article presents the fact that it is published by Thomson Reuters, which is also indicated in the reference. So, "by Thomson Reuters" can easily be omitted and readers will not think that some person named "Thomson Reuters" wrote the JCR. 4/ "“Biochemistry & Molecular Biology”": simple quotation marks (") should be used, not “ and ”. These category names should not be italicized as you did further on in this paragraph. 5/ "received 28,313 total citations": In some other articles, you wrote "collected". "Received"" is indeed much better as "to collect" more or less implies an activity, as if the journal has been going out to people to ask them to cite it. Apart from that, however, there are more problems. I am not referring to my opinion that "number of citations" is a rather meaningless statistic (discussion at the WP Journals talk page), but to the fact that it is absolutely unclear what this figure relates to. Are these all citations to all articles ever published that this journal has attracted over its total lifetime? Are these the citations in 2011 to all articles published in 2011? Are these the citations in 2011 to all articles published in the previous year (2010)? Are these the citations in 2011 to all articles ever published? Are these the citations in 2011 to articles published in 2010 and 2009 (the number used in the calculation of the impact factor)? All these data can be extracted from the JCR and all are equally "valid". Better to leave all of them out, I think, but if you insist on putting them in, then at least say what the figure represents.

Let me know if you disagree with anything that I wrote above. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 21:41, 26 March 2013 (UTC)


 * Morning Randykitty, you have plenty of remarks to my edit. Give me some time, I will answer today or tomorrow. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 06:57, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
 * No hurry! And please don't think that I do not appreciate your efforts to improve journal articles! I'm just a stickler for details :-) --Randykitty (talk) 10:03, 27 March 2013 (UTC)


 * 1/ " Journal Citation Reports ": we have an article on the Journal Citation Reports, so piping it to Web of Science is confusing. WoS is a portal giving access to several databases and publications of which the JCR is but one. In addition, the JCR is a publication and its name should be italicized.
 * I agree.
 * 2/ "Mol. Biol. Evol.": There is no reason to use the ISO abbreviation (which is in the infobox anyway). It should not be bolded either, if used at all, it should be in italics. However, just using "It" in a short article like this is clear enough and shorter.
 * I agree.
 * 3/ "an impact factor of 5.550 as reported in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports by Thomson Reuters": 2011 does not belong with the JCR but with the IF, because these are the 2011 factors that were published in the 2012 JCR, not the 2011 one. The 2011 JCR had the 2010 impact factors. Writing here "the 2012 JCR" would only cause more confusion because readers would interpret this as meaning that these are the 2012 impact factors (which will not be available for a few months yet). If "JCR" is properly linked, that article presents the fact that it is published by Thomson Reuters, which is also indicated in the reference. So, "by Thomson Reuters" can easily be omitted and readers will not think that some person named "Thomson Reuters" wrote the JCR.
 * I disagree, since I use the citation recommended by JCR. However, I will check on this.
 * 4/ "“Biochemistry & Molecular Biology”": simple quotation marks (") should be used, not “ and ”. These category names should not be italicized as you did further on in this paragraph.
 * I agree.
 * 5/ "received 28,313 total citations": In some other articles, you wrote "collected". "Received"" is indeed much better as "to collect" more or less implies an activity, as if the journal has been going out to people to ask them to cite it. Apart from that, however, there are more problems. I am not referring to my opinion that "number of citations" is a rather meaningless statistic (discussion at the WP Journals talk page), but to the fact that it is absolutely unclear what this figure relates to. Are these all citations to all articles ever published that this journal has attracted over its total lifetime? Are these the citations in 2011 to all articles published in 2011? Are these the citations in 2011 to all articles published in the previous year (2010)? Are these the citations in 2011 to all articles ever published? Are these the citations in 2011 to articles published in 2010 and 2009 (the number used in the calculation of the impact factor)? All these data can be extracted from the JCR and all are equally "valid". Better to leave all of them out, I think, but if you insist on putting them in, then at least say what the figure represents.
 * Your critic in my wording is correct. I should stick with received. I have also to check the base of the figures.
 * At the moment, I will apply the corrections I agreed to. I will deal with the open questions during the next week since I will be off during Easter. Have a nice time and thank you for your critical review. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 22:27, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Tom, could you have a look at this now? I just noted that in Drug and Chemical Toxicology you again linked "ISI" to Web of Science, even though the latter is just a portal and we do have an article on ISI itself (and I don't think it needs mentioning anyway, just linking to the JCR should be enough; including that many links to Thomson Reuters related articles is a bit promotional, I'd say). Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 11:22, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi Randykitty. Thanks for your patience. It was a kind of routine but I fixed it now and removed also the surplus wikilinks to Thomson Reuters. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 17:05, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * OK, perfect! BTW, I was told that we should not fill in the "accessdate" field for a "stationary" publication like this (you may have noticed the hidden cat at the bottom of the page saying that this is a page with a reference using an accessdate without a URL). I have corrected this in the journal writing guide and on my user page, perhaps you should do the same. Happy editing! --Randykitty (talk) 17:27, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Chemistry World
Hi Shisha-Tom,

Many thanks for helping edit the Chemistry World page. I work for Chemistry World, so as I'm sure you can understand, I don't want to interferre with potentially non-NPOV edits. If you would like to add anything though, I'm happy to help provide any info you can't find elsewhere. BRValsler (talk) 13:46, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi BRValsler,
 * thank you for your kind feedback. At the moment I have no further intention to work on the Chemistry World. But thank you for your offer. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 18:06, 19 December 2013 (UTC)


 * That's no problem. Thanks again for your help! BRValsler (talk) 09:59, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thanks a lot. --Shisha-Tom (talk) 19:26, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi there
Did you ever think of talking to the person who created the article, instead of impressing your male friends by insulting me with your dead scientist comment? I tried to Wikilink someone named Stephen J. Gould, who is a real person who teaches at a notable university. Is it my fault you male editors never got around to creating an article for a significant person? Think once or twice with the head on top of your neck before biting newcomers. Have a great day! BlackSoxFan2015 (talk) 00:09, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Did you ever check your wikilinks? It is not sufficient, that the word appears in blue letters, you should also check, if your target is correct. By the way, it was not my intention, to insult you with my comment but to prepare a short edit summary. Shisha-Tom (talk) 18:52, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Seralina affair
Hi Shisha. I removed the ref parameters from one of your talk page posts as it was transcluding the reference at the bottom of the page (see ). This would continue to appear at the bottom of the page until archiving. The ref is still linked next the comment it was applied to. Regards AIR corn (talk) 18:37, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Brokers of junk science?
Thought you'd find this interesting: Brokers of junk science? From the Center for Public Integrity, about journals Critical Reviews in Toxicology and Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. fgnievinski (talk) 20:28, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into the local language

Thanks again :) -- Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)