User:Jakob Suckale/talk archive 06 07

West Nile Virus

Did you make this edit? http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=West_Nile_virus&diff=163226716&oldid=162828020

The editor User:Jasu has only one edit and the talk page links here. However the factual change seems to be incorrect. (See http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/290/4/511) I am concerned that this may be a "subtle vandal" trying to use you good reputation. Rmhermen 13:13, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks Rmhermen for pointing that out. I wasn't editing on that day and I have never worked on that article. See my contribution list [1]. I did however change my user name from Jasu to the current. Maybe this change is related to this incidence which seems like an act of sock puppetry. Jakob Suckale 15:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• also replied on Rmhermen's discussion page: [2] Jakob Suckale 16:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

h-index

nice job. excellent reorganization, excellent fix of details. I see yu've started in at the article on CiteULike--I hope you can do as well--I do not personally know how widely it is used, but you probably do. At this point there still seems to be some COI about the developers. DGG (talk) 06:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm goingto tag it accordingly.DGG (talk) 08:04, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Note to self: asked which sections are conflict of interest to rework (see User_talk:DGG#h-index_and_CiteULike) Jakob Suckale 4 October 2007 (UTC)

the COI is that the articles seemed indicated by excessive discussion of how it was developed & the guys who developed it . -- its a reason for checking. However, since I am checking, I think I can remove the tag. But I've replaced it with a tag for "newsrelease": by which I mean the overly promotional tone, which is the closest of the standard tags. By this I mean the general tone which seems a little more like a sales brochure than an encyclopedia article, such as the description in the 2nd person of what "you" can do with it, and the links to various parts of the main site for things that can reasonably be expected to be there. I fixed the reference part by highlighting the refs. to Ariadne and D-lib, which I consider Reliable 3rd party sources, though not quite peer-reviewed in the traditional sense. The inline outside links are strongly depreciated here. some were unnecessary, the others need rewording. I started on them. Incidentally, it's usual to link only the first reference to another Wikipedia article--it shouldn't look like hypertext. (And--local talk page style--when you write a note to yourself here, which is quite usual, please sign it with the customary 4 tildes so it's clear who said what)-- and you can't link to a talk page from an article, so I'm trying to figure out how to discuss the funding situation. And I did some general copyediting for compactness and to fit the local rather eccentric Manual of Style. With a little more cleanup as indicated, I think there is no real danger someone will try to remove it as an advertisement. Incidentally, I'd like to get in touch with you--could you either email me from my talk page, or enable your email in the user preferences panel. DGG (talk) 15:50, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

replied by email; Jakob Suckale 11:02, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

article assessment - difference between GA/A unclear

posted here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment#A.2FGA_difference_unclear_-_please_clarify

"Dear all, After trying to understand the Project Medicine rating scheme, I'm left with doubts about the separation of the A and GA categories. The other categories are reasonably ordered by quality: stub < start < b < a/ga?? < fa. Could you explain the difference between GA (good article) and A class? Is A better than GA? Does A also require a formal peer review process? Thanks and best regards, Jakob Suckale 15:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)"

awaiting reply

PMID in cite journal template

I'm just coming to grips with citing in the wikipedia and started using citation templates. {{cite journal}} caught my eye since it includes PMIDs which I consider one of the best ways to quickly track an article online. Names and titles are often not specific enough in a search. PMIDs are also easier to copy/paste.

So, I got started with the template only to note that the PMID field I specified in the in-line citations was then ignored in the generation of the end-of-article reference section??? What's the point of having that field if it is not used? How can I make the PMID show up as a link in the references?

Hope you have some advice for me.

Best,

Jasu 14:32, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

It should show up. Maybe it broke. I'll look at it. Ask on Template talk:Cite journal too. — Omegatron 14:34, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've answered Jasu. The variable is "pmid", not "PMID".Circeus 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Your problem is that while within the source, it must be "PMID 15300417" to work, cite_X templates must have all their variable in lowercase only: "pmid=15300417". Cheers. Circeus 14:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for the help. Jasu 15:25, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, you may already be aware of this, but I find this tool really helpful. Just keep it open and paste a PubMed ID number into the box. When you click "Submit", it spits out a fully formatted citation (using {{cite journal}}) which you can cut-and-paste into the article. Let me know if you have any questions - sounds like you're finding your way around pretty well. MastCell ^Talk 15:44, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

gallery removal

mirrored from Nick's talk pages (admin who deleted gallery):

Why did you remove the image gallery. You wrote CSD U3 in the deletion log. It took me quite a while to find it [3]. Would have been nice if you had left a more obvious reference. On that page it reads: "Galleries in the user space which consist mostly of non-free images." That's not true for the gallery you deleted. Why was it deleted then?

Best, Jasu 23:32, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

No idea what page your referring too, but if that's what it said in the deletion summary, that's why it was deleted. -- Nick ^t 23:49, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm referring to this page [4], bottom panel of this [5]. Would you care to elaborate? CSD-U3 might be an admin's everyday's vocab but it's not clear to me. I kept self-made and uploaded images in that panel as a reference. Now, since you deleted the page I cannot count, but many of the pictures were free. Why exactly did you deleted the gallery and what kind of gallery could I keep there. It would be very helpful to users if the U3 policy were explained on the page mentioned above [6]. The one-liner there is not clear. Hope to hear from you. Best, Jasu 12:16, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

CSD-U3 is where a page located in your userspace, such as the one I deleted, contains a number of fair use images. Our fair use policy prevents users from displaying fair use images, even ones they have uploaded themselves, in userspace. It's perfectly OK to have free images, stuff under GFDL, Creative Commons and similar licences along with public domain material, just not fair use images. Our fair use policy outlines what is and isn't fair use and where you can and cannot use such material. Hope this clears up your concerns. -- Nick ^t 13:21, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Perfectly. Thanks a lot. Now, how can I reconstruct a gallery only with the free images. Can I get hold of the code you deleted and remove the fair-use images from the gallery. Or do I have to start from scratch? This would mean quite some time lost for me. Jasu 13:03, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I've restored the page. Hope this helps. -- Nick ^t 13:04, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. Btw, I adapted your lucid explanation for the relevant policy page, so others can easily find and profit from the info. Wikipedia:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#User_pages Best, Jasu 13:17, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Gene targeting

Hi! I just noticed this article on gene targeting that you have written. Currently, Homologous recombination redirects to Chromosomal crossover, which I found confusing because I often encounter the term used to refer to artificial homologous recombination. I felt the "chromosomal crossover" article should be moved to "homologous recombination" so this information could be added. But only one person voted, and they voted against because that information wasn't already in the article, so the move proposal was rejected. (I hadn't added that information, because I felt it would be out of place with the current title.)

So, frustrated, I decided I would add that information even if it didn't belong. I was researching and getting some references on artificial homologous recombination, but then I notice you've already started an article on gene targeting. What do you think about joining artificial and natural homologous recombination into a "homologous recombination" article? Would you like to copy your stuff over to the "chromosomal crossover" article? Then you can be on record for your material, I can edit it further, and apply for the move over again.

If you don't think that sounds good, I'll set up homologous recombination as a disambiguation page between chromosomal crossover and gene targeting. Personally, I don't like using the phrase "gene targeting" because you don't necessarily have to target a gene with it, or can target more than one, but I guess that's a minor preference on my part.  :-) -- Madeleine 00:26, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Gene article

Huge increase by User:Opabinia_regalis; many important sections added; statment headings changed to word headings; modern concept section removed without replacement?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gene&oldid=93314448

my comments and replies copied from his user page:

Dear Opabinia,

I like your rework of the article Gene. Maybe we can make this article feature standard again. I realise you are not a fan of statement headings as common in some textbooks, e.g. you changed "The genome contains most genes of an organism" to "The genome". I would like to argue that the longer statement headings are more thought-stimulating than the word headings you used. But I realise that this is a matter of taste. Maybe you can explain your preference for short headings.

Also, I would like to ask why you deleted the section on the evolving concepts of the gene without integration, replacement or comment? Or did I overlook it? I think it's very interesting information and the most up-to-date part of the article. Please explain.

Best, Jasu 11:13, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Hm, the headers are easy - stylistic consistency. The vast majority of wikipedia articles use descriptive noun phrases as headers. (One of the cases where my biases agree with convention.) Shorter headers have a more 'encyclopedic' tone and make the TOC easier to read.

More generally, I got distracted and never really finished what I was doing with that article, so it's not currently in what I'd consider good form. I think the stuff on DNA replication and inheritance needs compression; it has to be in the article to link Mendelian and molecular inheritance, but there's just too much off-topic material in there taking up space. I never did anything with 'evolutionary concept of a gene' either, and major topics - pseudogenes, lateral gene transfer, various issues surrounding the definitions of RNA genes, etc. - are missing. The content in the 'evolving concepts' section (reproduced on the talk page) had been flagged in a comment by another editor as being entirely too specific, and I agree. That sort of material should certainly be in the article - especially RNA-based inheritance - but that way of presenting it is awkward, especially in an article that's realistically going to be read mostly by high school students. Some of the other stuff might better be placed in gene regulation. I just never got around to that part of the rewrite.

If you're interested in editing/expanding/improving this article, don't worry about me 'owning' it or anything - I was asked to review it in August and have been trying to punt it ever since :) Opabinia regalis 01:57, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

After your work on gene, will you be working on Gene Gene the Dancing Machine ?--Filll 02:39, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just a little bit :) Opabinia regalis 06:21, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

A "small" challenge for you

Hi Jasu, it's me again. I nominated Medicine in Ancient Greece recently for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week. It is this week's MCOTW. I was thinking in you because of your fine and quick work with the diagrams of Fauna and Flora. I have asked for a diagram that illustrates the Four humours for this article Medicine in Ancient Greece, that is... So I thought it might be a small challenge for you if you have a look at the article and create a diagram of the Four humours. I see that you have an interest also in medicine, so if you want to contribute to an article on a part of the history of medicine, you are welcome. Thanks anyway, though... --Francisco Valverde 20:49, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

It's simple, but I think it looks good! Anyway, the diagram is just for that section, no need to get complex. Great "small" job...! Thanks once again!I have edited the caption and added links for each humour.--Francisco Valverde 18:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

In reference to Bio-barnstar proposal: What is the next move?

There was much talk lately about the bio-barnstar proposal, but these past 5 days there hasn't been more said. What is next? What is there to be done? Can we move this foward...? It is the first time I involve myself in a barnstar proposal and I do not know what is the procedure. I seem to read there is quite a support for a bio-barnstar and a considerable preference for the second proposal... Please, could someone tell me what next? Thanks.--Francisco Valverde 17:38, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your kind words, I really apretiate them. Sometimes one can forget that this is a community... I am also very happy to be able to work with you and many others. I hope to continue the good work with you. I'd like to comment that in the case of the bio-barnstar, I really like the 2nd alternative compared with your design, but anyway, you've been a great help in this and it seems we will have a bio-barnstar after all...--Francisco Valverde 11:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Bio-barnstar

Jasu, thanks for the explanation. Let me explain my thinking.

When you are representing something as a star, you are playing a numbers game: how many spikes does the star have, and what does that number represent. Examples of good numbers are 5 (kingdoms) and 3 (domains); I was also thinking about the logo of the Institute of Biology, which includes (I'm sorry the jpeg is such a low resolution) the principles of water as the elixir, the sun as the source of energy; water, land and air; mammal, bird and reptile; a crown with five spikes to represent the kingdoms; the tree of life; the Galapagos reptile as a reference to Darwin and the process of evolution; and probably several other elements that escape my mind now.

That's what I had at the back of my mind.

I'm happy with liquidGhoul's suggestion, which is elegant and easy even for children to grasp. It strikes me your design may be better suited as a molecular biology barnstar.

Samsara (talk • contribs) 15:51, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jasu! Thanks for the sollicitation, I didn't make myself very clear. I think that in its present shape, your barnstar proposal isn't easy to understand, particularly for non-biologists. The center being taken up by the cells , there's not much room left in the spikes for the other photos. I like LiquidGhoul's proposition, because it is simple, yet elaborate. I think a barnstar is too small to put too many things in it, and simplicity and aesthetics are the main concern. Trying to fit in the 5 kingdoms, etc., seems to me to be unnecessarily complex.

Attempting to suit every biologist on Wikipedia is a difficult task, but I think that a design derived from an animal or plant is general enough (and potentially pretty!) to work on something along these ligns, a bit like LiquidGhoul did. I don't know if it's possible to fit in both a plant and an animal, but that could be an idea.

Isn't it possible to have 2 or more barnstars for the same subject? Because in that case we could have an animal barnstar and a plant barnstar to choose from, for example. Please ask me if you need something, advice, help, or anything else. IronChris | (talk) 16:33, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Flora or Fat

Jasu, I think you voted for Fat instead of Flora (plants). Both are very close and I have also voted for both. Anyway, there has been discussion that Flora(plants) article is really a stub even though it has a considerable length. I have tagged Flora (plants) as a stub, as a first step to change it to a WP:COTW nomination. I personally believe there should be a complete re-write of the article. So if everyone agrees we could change the nomination to a WP:COTW. Fauna (animals) is at the moment a COTW candidate, so they could do an interesting pair... --Francisco Valverde 08:01, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

• Thanks for pointing that out, Francisco. I had a weird error with firefox where the edit buttons would not open the section their were next to. Remedied. I voted for flora and fauna. They definitely go together as a pair - from the sound of the word and in common usage. Jasu 17:09, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

COTW Project

You voted for Fauna (animals), this week's Collaboration of the week. Please come and help it become a featured-standard article. -Scottwiki 09:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Bio-barnstar

Image	Name	Description!
	The Bio-Barnstar	Bio-Barnstar - suggestion for a new barnstar given in recognition of exceptional article contributions in the life sciences. from the barnstar proposal page

It's meant to represent different areas of biology from 12 o'clock: neurons, fur (for mammals), yeast cells, EM of cell, light microscopy of cell. The centre is blastocyst injection. Consider this just a first draft. These things take a lot of time to design while you need hardly any time to criticise. So, please be kind and constructive. --Jasu 13:41, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your proposal for a bio-barnstar. I was going to propose it in the Biology Portal, but I still haven't got to it. What do you think? I was told that the Scientific barnstar already exists... but I was proposing that being the biology area so big we could have a bio-barnstar. Anyway, there is a wikispecies project, so it is big. I would like it, to be able to be used not only in the normal wikipedia but also in wikispecies. I think your barnstar looks good, but I was thinking in something more like an "egg and flower" barnstar: simbolizing animal and plant life... What do you think? Anyway, we could both propose this barnstar.

On another thing, I see you have special interest in biology. I would like to let you know that I have proposed Flora (plants) as WP:AID and also that Fauna (animals) has been proposed to WP:COTW. Your vote and any contribution to both articles would be great.

Thanks. --Francisco Valverde 17:23, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Your mention of flowers/fauna made me think that the graphic that I prepared does not yet include anything green & planty. An egg and a flower would be nice symbolism; the one that I sketched out is a bit closer to actual research - microscopy, cell culture, etc. Thanks for pointing out the two articles. I just voted for flora. It needs the improvement. I also wrote to ClockworkSoul - you talked to him on the barnstar proposal page - let's see what he says. Jasu 13:30, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

• I have proposed the bio-barnstar to the Portal talk:Biology. Let's see if we can move this barnstar foward and gather more support, I had left the idea a little bit behind this last week. --Francisco Valverde 17:07, 22 April 2006 (UTC)