User talk:Staticd

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello, Staticd, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Swim bladder. 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! Epipelagic (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2011 (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

Another Google search gives you a bunch of sources saying the "Islamist" government of Eritrea is persecuting Christians. The bottom line is that a section without any sources and with accusations of such gravity doesn't belong here. 83.86.123.208 (talk) 09:14, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Re User talk:202.249.50.60
Didn't mean to leave you hanging here...forgot to leave a note I was on vacation. Replied on my talk-page. DMacks (talk) 09:09, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Ioeth (talk contribs twinkle friendly) 14:16, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Talkback
Who.was.phone (talk) 13:55, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I added a comment on W.w.p's talkpage, so I hope you don't miss it. Happy editing and good luck.     ~ AdvertAdam   talk  08:47, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4
Hi. When you recently edited Photoheterotroph, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP (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) 15:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16
Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Budding (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Hydra


 * Starfish (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Fragmentation (biology)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:47, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
§everal⇒|Times 19:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Talkback
Tgeairn (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC) Tgeairn (talk) 21:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Re: File:Grasshopper mouth anatomy.svg
I have fixed it. Hope it's fine now. — westeros91 (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot
SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 16:18, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

July 2012
Thank you for trying to keep Wikipedia free of vandalism. However, one or more edits you labeled as vandalism, such as the edit at Electric catfish, are not considered vandalism under Wikipedia policy. Wikipedia has a stricter definition of the word "vandalism" than common usage, and mislabeling edits as vandalism can discourage newer editors. Please read NOTVAND for more information on what is and is not considered vandalism. Thank you. Electric Catfish 22:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 22
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Phloretin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diuresis (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) 12:35, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 11
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Green coral goby, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Mutualistic (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) 11:46, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

PLOS images
I'm concerned that this may not be a valid license. As one minor point, can you explain why you chose CC-BY 2.5 rather than CC-BY 3.0 or CC-BY-SA 3.0. The latter two are common, you one you chose less so, and I'm just curious how you came to choose it. If you found it at the site, it would be quite helpful. I am not familiar with PLOS, although I gather they are a publisher of scientific papers. I looked for clear terms of use, and did not find a clear statement about copyright. If you have seen one, please point it out.

I did find PLOS ONE Editorial Policies:


 * By submitting to PLOS ONE, authors agree to make freely available any materials and data described in their publication that may be reasonably requested for the purpose of academic, non-commercial research. Authors should make every effort to allow immediate and unrestricted access to all data and replaceable materials that are relevant to an article, except where this would breach confidentiality rules related to human-subject research.

Unfortunately, the word " non-commercial" is inconsistent with CC BY 2.5 I haven't looked closely, so please let me know if you think I've missed something. If I am correct, then the image cannot be added to Commons.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  13:34, 21 February 2013 (UTC) Here is a more positive sign, on their main page PLOS they state:
 * All site content, except where otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License.

It seems their clear intent is to license the material as CC.

That page links to the Cc-by-3.0-us license.

For completeness, it might be nice to write to them and point out the inconsistency between their author guidelines and their license terms, but their main page clearly indicate an intention to use the Creative Commons licensing, except where otherwise noted, and I don’t see any notations of an exception of the source article, so I think you are fine if you replace the license template with Cc-by-3.0-us.-- SPhilbrick  (Talk)  13:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I responded at the help page, but I'll copy my response here:
 * If you go to the text on that page which says "Creative Commons Attribution License." and click on it., you will be led to this page, which is why I suggested using (CC BY 3.0 US). Yes, I think you should make the change.-- SPhilbrick (Talk)  22:27, 24 February 2013

(UTC)


 * Eek. now the link that was 3.0 also leads to a 2.5 license. Staticd (talk) 05:25, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

July 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=565716954 your edit] to Fitness proportionate selection may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s and 1 "[]"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry, just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20-%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 07:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
 * the fitness of the individual. A uniform random number from the range 0,1  is chosen and the inverse of the CDF for that number gives an individual. This corresponds to the

Disambiguation link notification for July 25
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fitness proportionate selection, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Uniform random variable (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) 11:31, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:22, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Mycobiont


The article Mycobiont has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * Little more than a very confusing definition. Have read it several times and cannot make sense of it.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. PriceDL (talk) 18:49, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 21
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Table of standard reduction potentials for half-reactions important in biochemistry, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Lactate. 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.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 06:20, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Fd
Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are: If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 13:52, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.  How many of the thousands of references to Fd do you think we can handlee.
 * Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest.  Many newer editors have difficulties with this rule.  COI behavior is unacceptable.


 * I am sorry if this is violating wikipedia policy. I have been on a bit of a break in researching and updating wikipedia articles so I may be rusty or the interpretations of the policies may have changed over the last five years.


 * The reason I am citing journal articles is that the topics I focus on for wikipedia are the topics that don't have books written about them as they are niche topics. Or the books are not up to date due to the speed the field is moving, or the books are rare and heavily paywalled making verifying the citations hard.


 * As far as possible I have been citing review articles. When I can't I have been trying to use primary articles that have a mini-review in them. e.g, I cited a primary biophysical characterisation paper because they had a table reviewing all the older literature along with their original results. In niche fields, a lot of what counts as secondary sources is hidden in the introduction section of primary research articles. As a last resort I cite primary articles when I have to mention a certain fact or number for completion.


 * the trade off I am looking at is whether i should add this material at all vs citing journal articles. I am making it a point of erring on the side of more rather than fewer citations so readers can easily verify what is written with a quick ctrl+F in the paper. Maybe a future editor will expand this or another article. If someone finds a better citation, they can easily replace it in future. There will be instances where a better citation exists, and I will try replace them as I make further revisions in case no one else catches them first. wikipedia is a collaborative work in progress and I believe that having a substandard citation is better than no citation.


 * Finally: In all my years editing I have never personally experienced the popular culture notion of how editing wikipedia can be toxic and discouraging because of certain editors, but hoo boy do I understand it now. I have published NOTHING in the field of biochemistry so there is no conflict of interest. I've just been keenly interested in the topic for a long time. After spending over twenty hours researching the topic and trying to assemble a set of citations that will make a good starting point for a future reader or editor it is supremely unpleasant to face a thoughtless and unhelpful criticism made without WP:AGF or any effort at all in seeing whether WP:RAP applies here at all. This sort of attitude towards other editors will chase away anyone who is conscientious because writing good content is hard enough when you are triple checking every fact because you worry that you'll write something wrong or incomplete. Keep this up and you will leave behind a barren wasteland of incomplete articles. The only people who will stick around are the people who don't give a shit about the rules anyway and thrive on fighting and carving out their own personal fiefdom.


 * You have a problem with the edits, make a good faith attempt at helping me fix them. If you think they are violating wikipedia policy so egregiously then revert them and report me to the admins. Don't dump an irrelevant template because it's your personal wikilawyering hobbyhorse.


 * Staticd (talk) 19:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 5
An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Green sulfur bacteria, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:09, 5 February 2021 (UTC)