User talk:Anypodetos/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |
|
Re: Logos = ?
"the translation "to talk about kidney" sounds a bit strange to me - what about something like "the description of the kidney"" Well it sounds strange to me too, but then it is supposed to be the literal translation of nephrology, and literal translations are often a little weird. If you think "description" is better, you will have to source that I guess.
"shouldn't this be unified somehow?" Absolutely. To my mind Nephrology, Andrology, Biology and all the other -ologies, all come from logos so there needs to be some unification.
"I just copied the sentence as it is given on other pages" That's okay. I was just using the definiton on Logos where it didn't use "knowledge". Whatever logos does mean, some articles on Wikipedia have to be wrong one way or the other. Maybe this could be taken up with at a higher level to get some standardization underway? Wikipedia:WikiProject Science maybe? Deamon138 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
PS. Do you really know 54 digits of Pi? Deamon138 (talk) 17:28, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
- "How do I do this, just posting the problem on their talk page?" Yeah I think that would be alright. Let me know when you've done it, and I'll make sure to join in the discussion this will (hopefully) produce. Thanks. Deamon138 (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
- Yeah I'm still interested. I'm surprised nobody has got back to you about this. Anyway, I don't think this would be reckless, it's been nearly a week, and silence implies consensus. That seemed like the best place to raise this issue, but since no-one has replied, it would seem to me acceptable to do this and see if any discussion comes of it. If any discussion does occur, let me know, and I'll se if I can join in. Cheers. Deamon138 (talk) 15:37, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm writing about your change of etymology on the Anthropology page. Could you please specify on the Anthropology page why you chose to take the etymology back to the Greek dependent suffix -λογία, rather than the independent noun λόγος from which the suffix is derived? This does not seem to be the convention with other pages (e.g. bionomics, economics...) where the final morpheme is etymologically traced back to a full, independent noun (e.g. νόμος). Calypygian (talk) 10:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
KDS4444 here. I am writing to express my approval of and thanks for your correction of my etymological use of "logos" on the Apiology page. My Greek is weaker than my Latin, and my sense of certainty about such things breaks down further when the two languages get used in the same scientific term. What's been done here seems like the right thing to me.--KDS4444 10:59, 19 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by KDS4444 (talk • contribs)
Pharmacology stubs
Hi there, and thank you for your recent creations! I've replied to your query over at WT:PHARM. Keep up the good work, and please don't hesitate to ask if you have any further questions. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Apricitabine
Nice work, thanks! I've decided to nominate the article for DYK. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 01:26, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
- Thank you! Please consider this a welcome to WikiProject Pharmacology :)
|
The Exceptional Newcomer Award | |
| For your excellent article creation and improvement efforts and your willingness to help out aty WP:PHARM. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:28, 2 September 2008 (UTC) |
9/08/08 DYK
|
On 8 September, 2008, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Apricitabine, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Congratulations! -- RyRy (talk) 00:46, 8 September 2008 (UTC)
Pharma stubs
Hmm. There's no clear-cut guideline on the notability of drugs; long story short, it should be assessed on a case-by-case basis. We do have articles on several compounds that didn't make it to market. One such article is Torcetrapib, which provides a good example of what you should keep in mind: torcetrapib was hailed as a major breakthrough during development, even in the popular press, and there's plenty of literature about it. Good questions to ask yourself when wondering whether a certain compound merits an article are (1) is there enough available literature to write more than a "permanent stub"? (2) did this drug have any impact despite (or even due to) termination of its development? (3) was it ever mentioned in the popular press or the general medical journals, or was it just a "blip" in the company's pipeline, reported here and there? :)
Then again, that's just my set of opinions; there's been some discussion on this in the past, and I recommend a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Pharmacology/Archive 1#When does a drug become notable? and the WT:PHARM and WT:MED archives for context. You can always ask again at the projects if you have something specific in mind. I personally think there's enough for a decent write-up of tolevamer.
As for your second question: the navboxes basically provide easy navigation of the ATC system, and I only add a drug to its class navbox if it has been assigned an ATC code. Again, there's no real guideline or restriction; many navboxes, such as {{HIVpharm}} and {{Chemotherapeutic agents}}, link to drugs still in development, and I don't really have a problem with that! Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 20:27, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Reply
Okay, thanks for doing that. Sorry I haven't done any work on this list for a while, I've had things I've been busy with elsewhere (e.g. a GAN), but I will be back over there and helping out soon. (BTW, is it just me, or was Wikipedia just down for a while?!) Deamon138 (talk) 18:07, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Proposed deletion of List of sciences ending in -logy
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of sciences ending in -logy, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
- Well, I'm still ambivalent of having a list of words ending in -logy. That really does seem like something that is much more appropriate for a dictionary than Wikipedia. However, I'll remove the PROD since this is a content fork. TallNapoleon (talk) 15:47, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
List of Proto-Indo-European roots
You could just leave it - it's not doing any harm. If you still want it to be deleted then the correct place is WP:RFD, not WP:AFD. Hut 8.5 17:55, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Remogliflozin structure
See m:Talk:SVG fonts#New fonts. I suggest you open the file in Inkscape and convert all text to paths—that's what I've been doing. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
- It doesn't mean I stop checking my Watchlist—it just means I'm sadly unable to act on most of what I see! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
AfD nomination of List of sciences ending in -logy
I have nominated List of sciences ending in -logy, an article you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sciences ending in -logy. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time. PHARMBOY ( moo ) ( plop ) 17:26, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Renin-angiotensin system
Excellent references added to Renin-angiotensin system : ) Wisdom89 (T / C) 21:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
Licofelone
Looks like it is indeed still in development. Anyway, Arcadian beat me to it; he's added some recent references and a chembox. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:39, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
SEGRAs
I don't think we have anything—but then again, I've never heard of them :) Will have to do some reading...
Unfortunately, we have many stubs on med/pharm topics that are hard to keep track of because they are missing a drugbox, sorted incorrectly (e.g. a stub on a drug tagged with {{biochemistry-stub}} instead of {{pharma-stub}}), or not categorized at all, so we may already have something.Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:55, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
- By the way, nice work :) However, most ball-and-stick/space-filling models for use on Wikipedia have white or transparent backgrounds—people seem to think it's easier on the eyes (since we use a white background). You don't have to change this one, I just thought you'd like to know. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:08, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
- If that was your first try, I'm very impressed! It took me weeks to get the basics and even longer to produce something acceptable when I switched over from DS Visualizer to PyMOL. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's no hard and fast rule. For a short while, I created as many as I could, but now I feel that 3D models are only "necessary" when they can elucidate some structural feature that doesn't (or can't) show properly on a 2D formula. There have also been some accuracy concerns; Ben Mills, who created (and still creates) most of our 3D models, now works almost exclusively from crystal structure data and avoids scratch-made models. By the way, do you know why the German Wikipedia opposes the use of 3D models? I don't know nearly enough German to find out, and I've always wondered if it was due to an aesthetic choice or an accuracy concern. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- Thanks for the explanation—so it is indeed an accuracy issue! Calotte models (Kalottenmodelle) are known as space-filling models. The German guide on chemical structures looks very comprehensive... Is there any more interesting information? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 12:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
- Well, there's no hard and fast rule. For a short while, I created as many as I could, but now I feel that 3D models are only "necessary" when they can elucidate some structural feature that doesn't (or can't) show properly on a 2D formula. There have also been some accuracy concerns; Ben Mills, who created (and still creates) most of our 3D models, now works almost exclusively from crystal structure data and avoids scratch-made models. By the way, do you know why the German Wikipedia opposes the use of 3D models? I don't know nearly enough German to find out, and I've always wondered if it was due to an aesthetic choice or an accuracy concern. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 19:19, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
- If that was your first try, I'm very impressed! It took me weeks to get the basics and even longer to produce something acceptable when I switched over from DS Visualizer to PyMOL. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:04, 22 November 2008 (UTC)
{{Gallery}}
Thanks for your response, I've made several corrections as you've cited (thanks), however I feel that there are several more. The Gallery tag has issues I feel that were not adequately addressed. For one, it is fixed width meaning that people with lower resolution monitors (below 1024) will be forced to use horizontal scroll, and people with high resolution monitors will posses an unsightly blank space between the right side of the gallery and the right side of the screen. The Gallery Template ({{Gallery}}), however, allows for the number of columns and rows to be determined by the number of images and their widths. Furthermore, since it is a template, code maintenance and updates are easier than a tag embedded into Wikimedia's software. Most of it is for technical purposes, and perhaps I need to start bringing it to WP:Accessibility to depreciate the tag.
Also to correct the template so that the caption is not cut off, change the "lines" attribute from "1" to "2", see the gallery documentation for the rest of the attributes. I don't know what to tell for the right image, other than if we remove it, it won't be a gallery anymore. There used to be a number of images (see page history), however they were removed. ChyranandChloe (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2008 (UTC)
FK506
I have no idea :) In "FKBP", it simply stands for "FK-506 binding protein", but the "FK" is beyond me. A lot of these prefixes are esoteric (like "R" for Janssen—no idea where that came from). Maybe one of the early papers on tacrolimus development, like PMID 2445721, has some information? Fvasconcellos (t·c) 16:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
- FK comes from Fermentek Ltd. In their catalog, all numbers start with FK. Tacrolimus is catalog number FK506. --Lantonov (talk) 16:10, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
By the way
Proparacaine = proxymetacaine ;) Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:13, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
- Merry Christmas to you and yours as well. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 18:49, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
And now, for Fvasconcellos' traditional nonsectarian holiday greeting!
|
Wherever you are, and whether you're celebrating something or not, there is always a reason to spread the holiday spirit! So, may you have a great day, and may all your wishes be fulfilled in 2009! Fvasconcellos (t·c) 14:22, 24 December 2008 (UTC) |
Pharmacologic categorization
I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. Also, could you please pass word of this discussion to any other editors you think might consider contribution to the conversation? kilbad (talk) 01:13, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
- I added some additional comments and feedback at WT:PHARM:CAT. Thanks again for all your help! kilbad (talk) 18:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Sunscreening agents
And what about the selected trade names, do you think those are necessary in the template? kilbad (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I have your support
I wanted to know if you would support a recent CfD that I proposed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_January_26#Category:Diseases_of_skin_appendages? kilbad (talk) 12:12, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
Done --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:17, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
bhuH-
Does Rix really reconstruct this specifically with h2? Does he say why? AFAIK there's no evidence as to which laryngeal it might have been. —Angr 22:11, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
I wanted to know if the you would review a recent CFD I posted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_21#Category:Endocrine-related_diseases_and_the_skin. I am looking to get more opinions. kilbad (talk) 04:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
- Done I hope you don't mind that I opposed, but I really think Cgingold is right. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:18, 22 February 2009 (UTC)
Re
I replied on my talk page. kilbad (talk) 16:17, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
WP:PHARM:CAT: I am ok with moving forward...
I left a response to some editors' comments and am ok moving forward with the categorization of pharmacology articles at this point. I wanted to let you know in case you wanted to help assist with this re/categorization. kilbad (talk) 17:58, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
- I have a deadline hanging over me, but I will help as time allows. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Also, with regard to "sunscreen agents," now that we have the categorization scheme developed, I think the category should instead be called "Emollients and protectives." Would you mind if I proposed a CfD? kilbad (talk) 22:33, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- No, I don't mind; but I'm not sure the sunscreening agents belong in the ATC based category tree since they have no ATC codes (except one, I can't remember which at the moment). But we can still discuss this while implementing. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:01, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
Would you help me outline the third and fourth level ATC-mirroring dermatology categories at WP:PHARM:CAT? I would like to get a working outline before I move forward. kilbad (talk) 00:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I can't promise much for the next few days, but I'll be back on WP:PHARM:CAT as soon as possible. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:05, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- No rush... thanks again for all your help. kilbad (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
- I replied again. Sorry about the delay. ---kilbad (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- No matter. I am procrastinating as well... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- As you have, I also asked a few editors for their comments at WP:PHARM:CAT. I totally agree that we need more opinions. Thanks again. Always nice working with you. ---kilbad (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
- No matter. I am procrastinating as well... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
- I replied again. Sorry about the delay. ---kilbad (talk) 05:02, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
- No rush... thanks again for all your help. kilbad (talk) 11:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Merck & Co.
Hey, Please make sure Merck does not go deleting info on "Telcagepant" as I will keep looking. I took part in that study and have personal knowledge that the info has not been publicly announced yet, so they are trying to protect their stock/cover it up as long as possible..
Sydnicans —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sydnicans (talk • contribs) 01:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
- I have tagged the section as disputed. Have you got any citable sources? If not, the section will have to be removed. Sorry, personal knowledge is irrelevant here as it cannot be verified by our readers (see Wikipedia:Verifiability). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
I will have to scan a document stating that this is in fact what is happening. it is not disputed info, merck is simply looking for their stock not to go down. there is no ambiguity about why the study was stopped. Sydnicans (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
tradenames in boldface
Hi! Just curious whether the change you made to Boldenone follows a precedent on en.wiki, because MOS:BOLD discourages such use except in article titles. -- Timberframe (talk) 14:48, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- Drug articles typically have their trade names in boldface. I suppose this is supported by MOS:BOLD which says "Boldface is used to separate the article name from ordinary text. It is typically used in the first paragraph of an article, used with proper names and common terms for the article topic, including any synonyms and acronyms." Perhaps this should be clarified in WP:MOSMED#Drugs. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:59, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
My reading of that sentence, in its context, is that it applies where a proper name, which forms part of the article's title, appears for the first time in the article. In the article under discussion, the article's name is Boldenone and I'm querying the conversion to boldface of the tradenames associated with it. WP:MOSMED#Drugs puts the BAN name in bold with trade names following in paranthesis; WP:MOSMED#Naming conventions has an example of a proprietary name in parenthesis, and this doesn't use boldface. I've no strong feelings here, and I'm really looking for evidence of a precedent with which we can be consistent. -- Timberframe (talk) 15:29, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- I thought that trade names count as "synonyms" here; however, I was just doing this sort of thing because it's the way it is done on most drug pages I've come across. I am putting a notice on WT:PHARM - perhaps someone knows about this issue. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:45, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
"It's the way it is done on most drug pages" sounds like a consensual precedent to me :). Anyway, let's see what guidance WT:PHARM can offer. Thanks for your answers and you efforts. -- Timberframe (talk) 16:34, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
- You're welcome. Fvasconcellos explained about the bolding on WT:PHARM. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:02, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
Great work
You have done some very nice work with that new ATC template! ---kilbad (talk) 14:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks.
The next step would be introducing the ATCvet-exclusive sections (like ATC code QD51 Products for the treatment of claws and hoofs), but this is more work than I want to do at the moment... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:19, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
- Two things... First, I replied at WP:PHARM:CAT. Second, do you think we could generate ATC code categories (like Category:D01AA) via the drugbox? I think it would be helpful to have those categories in addition the Category:Drugs by target organ system scheme. What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I answered your second question on WT:PHARM#ATC code categories in the hope of getting answers from people with more technical experience. And I'll post a comment on WT:PHARM:CAT as soon as I've had a proper look at your reply. Keep it up, one day we will have a great drug categorisation scheme! ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- Two things... First, I replied at WP:PHARM:CAT. Second, do you think we could generate ATC code categories (like Category:D01AA) via the drugbox? I think it would be helpful to have those categories in addition the Category:Drugs by target organ system scheme. What do you think? ---kilbad (talk) 03:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
- I moved your comment to a "background" section. Do you want to expand that section just a little based on what there is already prior consensus on? ---kilbad (talk) 20:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- Alright, well let's try to get some people interested in this discussion. ---kilbad (talk) 20:30, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
- I am just working at the background section, please have a look at it when I am ready. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:33, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
Sorry I left you yesterday without a word. I realised pretty suddenly I need some sleep ... at least a bit sometimes ... I will read your last edits and post my vote sometime today. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 06:23, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Yours is a very good wording. I hope my chart doesn't ruin the clarity of the page, but I wanted a more extensive example. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:09, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
Code to category conversion table
First, let me say that it has was a pleasure working on that consensus question with you. Whether the result is strict adherence to the ATC system or, more likely, a consolidated version, I enjoyed collaborating on that text.
- I can only return that compliment. I hope we will continue working on that project together regardless of the outcome of the question. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
With that being said, regardless of the outcome, I think it may be helpful to have an ATC code to category conversion table so people can look up an ATC code and figure out which category it belongs. How does that idea sound to you? ---kilbad (talk) 18:31, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that is certainly a good idea. We should also link to the categories from the ATC pages. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Should we make it a subpage of the category page? If so, what should the page be called? ---kilbad (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Do you mean a subpage of WP:PHARM:CAT? Yes, that might be the appropriate place. Perhaps we should place the whole WP:PHARM:CAT#Categorization scheme in that subpage, with the corresponding ATC code next to each entry? Or do you have a better idea for the layout? As for the name: What about "ATC code to category conversion table" :-) or simply "Drug categorization scheme" (with the link from WP:PHARM:CAT pointing out that it contains the ATC codes as well)? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:08, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Should we make it a subpage of the category page? If so, what should the page be called? ---kilbad (talk) 13:30, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization/Scheme, and edited the main WP:PHARM:CAT a little as well. Now we just have to make the actual table at the bottom of the new page. ---kilbad (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good. The table will have to wait till the consensus process is closed, though.
- Regarding the item "Articles pertaining to drugs without ATC codes should be categorized...": Do you remember whether there is consensus to place these drugs into the ATC cat where they fit best, or shall we leave this open for the moment? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
- Ok, I created Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pharmacology/Categorization/Scheme, and edited the main WP:PHARM:CAT a little as well. Now we just have to make the actual table at the bottom of the new page. ---kilbad (talk) 13:24, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Stub reorganization
I just wanted to let the community know that there is a move to reorganize pharm article stubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Stub_sorting/Proposals/2009/June. ---kilbad (talk) 12:44, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
ATCvet code QI
Hello
If you can insert the little more detail from the page u directed me to. I think you are professional and you know what you are talking about but if anyone who doesnt know much about the topic opens the article, at least he should know what it is all about.
I mean just a brief line describing ATCvet.
Thanks for your time...... Oniongas (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Indo-European Numerals
These are well known attested roots from PIE. Any student of IE studies know these are IE roots. There are plenty of sources. Albanian numerals 1 through 10 and 20 are PIE roots as well as the Welsh forms are PIE roots. Just look in either Pokorny or Indo-European Numerals by Jadranka Gvozdanovic (Editor). I added the Gvozdanovic source as a reference. I removed the unsourced extinct language data like Dacian, Thracian, Illyrian. It is unsourced and most of the forms are disputed. Azalea pomp (talk) 21:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
the Graffiti matters
i agree that if one deletes or adds content of an article or of a page then the reason should be provided for such edit. However, you activities seem also like a person who does not understand a topic but wants to seek creative attention as you did many times on the page "copulative verb". The information i placed was the important information to understand the basic linguistics. The rest of the information is non-linguistics but interesting. The page "copula" also a good page, but has been vandalized by few whose artistic side of minds also slightly of art of graffiti.
However, some of your information that you noted in finding edit errors are very useful.
- Hi, Nevill Fernando / 24.79.78.169! I did not edit the article Copulative verb. What I did was restoring information you deleted from Copula (linguistics) (a hatnote and some other text). Also, I have no idea what you mean by "you activities seem also like a person who does not understand a topic but wants to seek creative attention" – what edit(s) are you referring to? Finally, why do you add exactly the same message to the talk pages of different editors [1]? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Dear Anypodetos, I just noticed that he missed the copula on the sentence "The page 'copula' also a good page, but has been vandalized by few whose artistic side of minds also slightly of art of graffiti." Thus, 'is' should be added after the word copula and 'are' should be added after the word minds. Also, the comma should be avoided before the coordinating conjunction 'but' as the both clauses are not independent. Susan ```` —Preceding unsigned comment added by Susan White (talk • contribs) 02:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks. If that were the only problems in communicating with Nevill... --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I have continued to work on the list of skin-related conditions, and recently nominated it for FL status. If available, your comments would be greatly appreciated at the nomination page. Regardless, thank you again for your work on wikipedia. ---kilbad (talk) 06:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
- Great work, that – however, I do not know enough about dermatology to be of much use here. Please feel free to contact me again if you need feedback or comments about anything else! Best regards, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Drugbox/Chembox
Hi! I saw on IRC that you changed a box from {{chembox}} to {{drugbox}} (here). I understand and expect that that is a normal process, as there are undoubtedly pages which are more 'correct' with one than with the other ..
But .. That change has an effect on an effort that we have on Wikipedia, where we try to validate the data in these two infoboxes (see Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Chembox validation). Some of the pages have the data in a verified chembox, which is now not there anymore as it has moved to the drugbox .. which 'breaks' our bot ... (well, it just can't 'find' the verified data anymore).
CheMoBot is following both {{drugbox}} and {{chembox}}, based on verified revids. For the Drugbox they are in Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index, for chembox in Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index. Some of the values in those boxes are checked against the official data (at the moment, it only involves the CAS-number, but there are other values which we will verify in the future, like e.g. boiling and melting points, etc.). CheMoBot checks whether editors are changing the CASNo in an edit, and if it is then the same as in the verified revid that is listed in said indexes.
In a way, it is a matter of updating the data in these indexes, and I would like to ask you if you were willing to help us in those cases where there is a verified revid (the best would be, delete the entry in the old list, and list a new revid with the current revid in the new list). Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- I apologise for the inconvenience, I wasn't aware of this validation process. Am I doing the right thing if I
- check whether an article I switch from chembox to drugbox is listed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemicals/Index
- get the oldid from my edit
- add "<pagename>=<oldid>" to Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology/Index?
- And did I get you right – you do not object if I replace chemboxes with drugboxes? For your information: I am currently updating the ATC codes and ATCvet codes. My main reason for the replacement is that chemboxes do not take ATCvet codes as parameters. (Besides, drugboxes are arguably the better choice for substances listed in the ATC Classification). Thanks for your help --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yep, the process is correct. Any help here would be greatly appreciated. There are also still many boxes out there which we would like to have verified (the bot is watching 9464 boxes!).
Hmm, I am ambivalent about the changes sometimes (and this is an example ..). Chembox does not have the ATCvet-code, but that could easily be added to the parameters. It has a module {{Chembox Pharmacology}}, which took the same parameters as the drugbox, quite some time ago. And there are every now and then remarks to merge {{chembox}} and {{drugbox}} in some way. Also, for quite some compounds it is questionable if they need to have a drugbox, as the chemical part is (way) more important, or they are simply not drugs.
Would you have access to IRC? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
(Oi, ATCvet needs to go into {{Chembox Identifiers}}, of course.) --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- No, I haven't got access to IRC. As for adding ATCvet codes to chemboxes, what do you think of this? Not very elegant, but it shows correctly. Or would you care to add ATCvet support to {{Chembox Identifiers}} (I can't, not being an admin)? Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I think I will do that when I get the time .. busy and almost holiday. Coding that will not be too difficult. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- The code used in {{drugbox}} is here, if that helps. Thanks for taking the trouble! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I added it to the Identifiers section. Parameter 'ATCvet'. That is given through to {{Chembox_ATCCode}} as parameter 'value4'. That one can be edited by you, it now accepts the value4, adding a simple Q to the ATC-code here and there. It may need some rewording, and maybe external links need to be adapted, could you have a look? --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:55, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks, great! Have a nice holiday. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 13:23, 2 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi. I noticed that the transrepression was on your "to do" list. I just converted this entry from a redirect to repression which I believe was quite misleading to an article about the ability of one protein to inhibit the ability of a second protein to upregulate gene expression. However there may be other uses of the term which I am less familiar. In addition, I am having trouble tracking down a definitive reference that documents who first coined this term and in what context (as currently stated in the article, I believe it is GR and AP-1, but I could be wrong). Any help that you could provide in refining or expanding this stub would be greatly appreciated. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
- Good stub, I haven't much to add. I only know the term from the GR; LXR and PPAR transrepression are new to me. This is of course no prove that the term was coined in the context of GR :-), I cannot help you there. I'm not sure whether SEGRAs are related closely enough to the topic. If you disagree, just remove my "see also" section. Cheers --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:45, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
We need an admin to close out that consensus question. Do you have any admin editors in mind? ---kilbad (talk) 12:30, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
- I have asked all pharmacologically active admins I know to participate, so we'd need someone else. The first I come to think of is Beetstra who works in WP Chemistry. But I am fine with anyone else if you have an idea. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 15:25, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
regulator time line issues
I have posted a reasonable solution to the regulator time line issues on the levaquin talk page (taking note of all the suggestions made thus far) that I believe addresses all issues raised here. This suggestion would apply to all of the fluoroquinolone drug specific articles. Those who have an interest should take a look and see what they think of what I have proposed.Davidtfull (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
DYK for nasal infix
|
|
On August 4, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article nasal infix, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Royalbroil 20:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 20:17, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
I am still with you!
Real life stuff has been crazy lately. Give me two to three days to respond over at WP:PHARM:CAT. I apologize for the delay. ---kilbad (talk) 18:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
- No hurry! I'll be away from about August 24 to September 12, so you have loads of time. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
Staurosporine / ATC code / what for?
Why do we need that? staurosporine is not a drug, never was or will be, though it might be a starting material for future drugs... AbuAmir (talk) 13:00, 24 August 2009 (UTC)
- {{drugbox}}es always have got an ATC code entry. Leaving it empty results in ATC code ?, meaning it isn't known (hasn't been checked); ATC_prefix=none results in ATC code none, meaning there is none (e. g. for the reasons you mentioned). If you don't want any ATC entry to show, the only solution I can think of is to replace the {{drugbox}} with a {{chembox}}, which arguably would be the better choice for staurosporine. --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:45, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
Dextrorphan
Whoops my bad. Feel free to go ahead and fix it. And in the future, you really don't need to ask about things like this =) 16:35, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
Hey there! If you have the time, check out page 24. I'd like to expand it myself, but things have again been hectic (and not in the best of ways). Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 05:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
- Hm. Google Books won't let me read page 24. Thanks anyway, at least I could confirm that it binds to CD40. Hoping you will have better times soon, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 11:54, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
By the way...
Before I forget:
|
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar |
| For your extensive efforts towards implementing ATCvet codes and cleaning up the stubs left behind from this. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 02:08, 4 October 2009 (UTC) |
- Wow, thanks a lot! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:07, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
rollback access
Hello. I've granted you access to the rollback tool. :) --Ixfd64 (talk) 18:07, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:39, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
DYK nomination of Mifamurtide
Hello! Your submission of Mifamurtide at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and there still are some issues that may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Geraldk (talk) 23:02, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
DYK for Mifamurtide
|
|
On November 18, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Mifamurtide, which you created or substantially expanded. You are welcome to check how many hits your article got while on the front page (here's how) and add it to DYKSTATS if it got over 5,000. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page. |
Materialscientist (talk) 12:49, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Curiosity
Out of curiousity, how did you come to know about mifamurtide? Remember (talk) 14:29, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- There is a lecture on new drugs twice a year, held by two pharmacists from the Goethe University Frankfurt. I always check whether the mentioned drugs are covered on Wikipedia :-) --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 16:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hey there
A discussion that could use your input: Talk:Metformin#Deletion of Trade Names. Best, Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Protein and gene names
Hi. Concerning putting the approved name first, please note that the approved UniProt protein name differs from the HUGO gene name. Therefore it would be more accurate to write:
- Ephrin type-A receptor 1 is a protein that in humans is encoded by the EPHA1 (EPH receptor A1) gene.
Although I admit this is somewhat awkward. Your thoughts? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:13, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Oops. I missed that, since the articles' titles were already the HUGO names. Is there any consensus whether these articles should be named after the proteins or the genes? (By the way, cathepsin C has the UniProt name dipeptidyl peptidase 1.)
- What about this version of the lead sentence?
- Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:55, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yes, your version looks better. Concerning whether these articles should be named after the gene or the protein, historically they were named after the gene. At the same time, it was understood but not explicitly stated that these articles are about both the genes and the proteins encoded by these genes. There was consensus here and here on modifying the lead sentence to make clear that the scope of the article covers both the gene and the protein. Based on this consensus, User:BogBot systematically went through the Gene Wiki articles to modify the lead sentence. However there is still the question of the article name. In many cases, the gene and protein name are identical, so this is not a problem. In cases where they do differ, this can easily been handled by adding a redirect. Since these articles are for the most part named after the gene, my suggestion is to leave it that way and add a redirect from the protein name if necessary. Does that sound reasonable? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
- I know the discussions about the lead sentence, and I think it was a good idea to implement gene and corresponding protein this way. Naming articles after the gene is fine with me, but then my suggestion for the lead sentence has the disadvantage of not bolding the title. What about this:
- since, if I recall correctly, gene names should be in italics (or does this only apply to the symbols?) Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 12:54, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good except that it appears that gene names are not italicized (see here). So the lead sentence should probably be formatted as follows:
- Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:13, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Then we have arrived at your initial proposition :-) I'll change the sentences, but not today. By the way, could the gene/protein articles (all of them) moved from the abbreviations to the full gene names by bot? (I'm aware that this would mean work for you, since BogBot is the obvious candidate...)
- Merry Christmas, or whatever winter solstice related event you are celebrating! – ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like we are going around in circles ;-) In any case, it appears that we are in agreement. And yes, a further tweaking of the lead sentence by BogBot would seem to be in order. But before doing that, I will again ask for community comment. Likewise, fröhliche Weihnachten und frohes neues Jahr! Boghog (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Er, thinking again: I'd be rather bewildered by a lead sentence like
- What about this, in analogy to drugs with different INNs and USANs:
- It might be rather difficult to find a phrasing simple enough for for the lead sentence which explains that "EPH receptor A1" is a gene. Do you think the links to the HGNC and UniProt articles will suffice? ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 08:24, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- It looks like we are going around in circles ;-) In any case, it appears that we are in agreement. And yes, a further tweaking of the lead sentence by BogBot would seem to be in order. But before doing that, I will again ask for community comment. Likewise, fröhliche Weihnachten und frohes neues Jahr! Boghog (talk) 20:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for your response. Yes, your version looks better. Concerning whether these articles should be named after the gene or the protein, historically they were named after the gene. At the same time, it was understood but not explicitly stated that these articles are about both the genes and the proteins encoded by these genes. There was consensus here and here on modifying the lead sentence to make clear that the scope of the article covers both the gene and the protein. Based on this consensus, User:BogBot systematically went through the Gene Wiki articles to modify the lead sentence. However there is still the question of the article name. In many cases, the gene and protein name are identical, so this is not a problem. In cases where they do differ, this can easily been handled by adding a redirect. Since these articles are for the most part named after the gene, my suggestion is to leave it that way and add a redirect from the protein name if necessary. Does that sound reasonable? Cheers. Boghog (talk) 14:08, 23 December 2009 (UTC)
(unindent) Yes, this gets rather confusing. The problem with:
- Cathepsin C (HGNC) or dipeptidyl peptidase 1 (UniProt) is a protein that in humans is encoded by the CTSC gene.
is that it doesn't clearly distinguish between the gene and protein and their respective names (i.e., it literally reads "... <HGNC gene name> is a protein"). In this particular example, I think it would be more accurate to write:
- Dipeptidyl peptidase 1 also known as cathepsin C is a protein that in humans is encoded by the CTSC gene.
since "cathepsin C" is listed as an alternate UniProt name. In addition, the more general term "protein" could be replaced with "enzyme". I need to think more carefully how to word this so that it is accurate, clear, concise, and can be implemented by a bot. Further suggestions are certainly welcome. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- One possible coding solution that partially addressed the problem is to measure the Damerau–Levenshtein distance (python module) between the HUGO gene name and all the alternative UniProt names. If there is a UniProt alternative protein name that is closer to the gene name than the recommended UniProt name (as is the case with "cathepsin C"), then insert "also known as <alt_UniProt_name>" into the lead sentence. However this doesn't solve the problem with the EPH receptor A1 gene/protein. In this case there are no closer alternative names than the recommend name. Furthermore the UniProt and HUGO names differ significantly. In this case, I think returning to the following is the best solution:
- This could also be coded. If the Levenshtein distance between the closest alternative UniProt name and HUGO gene name are above a certain cutoff, include the HUGO gene name explicitly as in the example directly above. If it is below a certain distance cutoff (to allow for both identical and close "fuzzy" matches), insert the "also known as" clause. If the recommend UniProt and HUGO gene names are identical, then there is no problem and we can leave the lead sentence that BogBot wrote as is. Does this sound reasonable? Boghog (talk) 17:01, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds perfect! Some thoughts:
- I think the phrase "also known as cathepsin C" goes between commas, but don't rely on my English grammar!
- Should I move the articles from symbols (EPHA6) to HUGO names (EPH receptor A6), or will BogBot be doing this?
- Same for redirects (like UniProt names: Ephrin type-A receptor 6): Is it of any use if I create some, or will this be covered by BogBot anyway?
- We shouldn't forget to pipe the links in the navboxes once the articles have been moved.
- ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:50, 25 December 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, that sounds perfect! Some thoughts:
And now... yes, you've guessed it
|
Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:03, 25 December 2009 (UTC) |
Grazie!!!
From an italian user... Thank you! --Ceccomaster (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
- Di niente! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 17:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
| This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | → | Archive 5 |