Open main menu


Hello, Fgf10, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! SpencerT♦C 22:22, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


Hi, Fgf10, are you familiar with FGF10? You might wish to change your username. Lotje (talk) 12:39, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

I spent my PhD working on it, so yeah I'm, slightly familiar with it. Fgf10 is the gene, FGF10 is the protein. But cheers anyway! Fgf10 (talk) 12:57, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
 :-) Lotje (talk) 13:23, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
Actually, cheers as well for reminding me that needs a major rewrite and overhaul. Very disappointing article at the moment. Fgf10 (talk) 14:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)


Hi, on the assumption you are looking for a good faith solution, I have removed the references to the US (not the whole comment) as mine comment has been removed. I also hatted the side discussion. diff. If you want to redact any of my comments within the hatting feel free. μηδείς (talk) 00:44, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, only just logged in again. Thanks for the mature solution in the end! Guessing emotions got the better of you? Agree to disagree, I guess Fgf10 (talk) 15:15, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

STAP cellsEdit

Could you take another looks at the STAP cell ITN? At current, the only thing keeping it from being posted is deciding on a blurb. I proposed an altblurb, let me know what you think. --ThaddeusB (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2014 (UTC)


I'm not sure why you keep putting my comment ahead of yours? Comments like that should be ordered in order of when they were posted - you're just making it look like I posted after you did. Redverton (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Ah, I'm not, for some reason it keeps coming out in the wrong order! Very confusing! Fgf10 (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Fair enough, thanks for reply. Redverton (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

The Boat Race nomination at WP:ITN/REdit

Since you participated in the nomination of The 160th Boat Race at WP:ITNC, I am writing to let you know that you might like to participate in the following discussion at WP:ITN/R. (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Signbot on the Ref DeskEdit

Regarding your comment about this edit to the Misc. Ref Desk. I think that Medeis avoided the Signbot by putting in 5 tildes instead of 4. Five produces just the time without a username. They were probably so riled by my comment that they put in one too many tildes and Signbot probably just looks to see if there's a time stamp without verifying that a username is before it. Dismas|(talk) 01:56, 21 May 2014 (UTC)


If you post something on my archive page, I'm not likely to see it anytime soon. In any case, it is VW that has a vendetta against me, for reasons I don't understand, probably because I'm an idiot or something. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 18:38, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Honestly User:Baseball_Bugs, can you tell me how it is, according to you, VW has a vendetta against you? For calling you out on posting incorrect things to the Refdesk? Your behaviour is getting more and more like Medeis every day, and that's most certainly not a good thing. Fgf10 (talk) 18:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I once asked him why he doesn't come to my talk page, and he said it was better to show me up in front of the OP. Now tell me why I should respect someone with that attitude. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:42, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
He's right to be honest. I can't remember the last time you contributed something of any use to the Refdesk. Fgf10 (talk) 20:47, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Then you're not paying attention. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 20:52, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Hehe, oh, you're priceless. Thank you for the entertainment, always good to get a giggle out of this place. :) Fgf10 (talk) 20:54, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
Glad to be of service, any time. :) ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:45, 28 May 2014 (UTC)
I was being sarcastic. People like you have no place on the Refdesk. Fgf10 (talk) 07:31, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censoredEdit

As you know Wikipedia is not censored – save for the Ref Desks alone, where a few self-appointed editors have got together to delete/ hat anything that offends their sensitive sensibilities of wrong and right – which includes your own well measured input. There, wasn't that breath of fresh air... You're not the only one to come face to face with assume good faith policy whilst other editors take advantage and Wikilawyer their way to promote their POV heartfelt beliefs – against your efforts to contribute something worth while to WP.--Aspro (talk) 17:25, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

talk pagesEdit

In case you are unaware, people are allowed to delete what they like from their talk pages, including you this comment. I don't find your sarcasm or confusion regarding oxidizing blood products worth responding to. Please don't comment again on my talk page. μηδείς (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Lack of civility at WP:ITN/CEdit

Hi Fgf10,

I think your comment at WP:ITN/C#First college football playoff ever is completely inappropriate. I'm sure you know that the nomination was serious. Please remember to maintain civility in your posting even when you disagree with others opinions. Calathan (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, it's not at all. I say it like I see it. Nobody could seriously consider that ITN worthy. Therefore I assume good faith and think it's a joke. Most charitable interpretation. Fgf10 (talk) 07:41, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Humanities boardEdit

Hi Fgf10, would you be kind enough to replace the text that was removed before you hatted the subject please? I can't possibly imagine how it could have happened, but clearly it's better to fix the issue than to seek administrative intervention for a number of reasons. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:19, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

No worries, I've added it back in. I would hate to see the user who mistakenly removed my text be indefinitely blocked from Wikipedia over such a trivial matter. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:34, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Snooker questionEdit

Not sure why you felt the need to post a response that basically said exactly the same thing as what I had already said, but whatever. --Viennese Waltz 14:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

To confirm what you said obviously. Surely that's a good thing? Fgf10 (talk) 19:02, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Not really, no. It was the right answer, and it didn't need any confirmation. --Viennese Waltz 19:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
And I'm sure the first poster that answered was convinced their answer was correct as well. Since the correct answer was disputed, conformation was required. Fgf10 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2015 (UTC)


FYI, San Bernadino follow-up story "'Carnage' at California shooting scene" leads BBC at 12:50 UTC Friday. Sca (talk) 12:54, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

 • San Bernadino follow-up story "US 'will not be terrorised' by shooting" leads BBC at 13:30 UTC Saturday. Sca (talk) 13:38, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
I thought this wasn't worth me replying to at all, but for completeness sake, top stories are regionally differentiated. In the UK they were not top stories. Fgf10 (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


means μηδείς (talk) 21:40, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Good to see you have seem to have the mental maturity of a twelve year old, User: Medeis. Preforming to expectation, once again. Fgf10 (talk) 07:59, 8 January 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I actually do probably agree with the notion that brain death is a good way to ascertain "real" or "true" death. However, I am also willing to take your words at face value, and I so I can't help but wonder how this statement -- "As long as the brain is intact and functioning, the person is alive"-- applies to a person who has minimal brain function. Also, I must confess, I was arguing with you a bit to try to goad you into supplying some references! Here's the thing - as far as I can tell, you are smart, and an actual expert on something, and someone who probably knows the value of supporting scientific claims with citations to literature. Forgive me if any of those is incorrect, but I think with those qualifications you could have a very positive impact on the reference desks. If I knew you in person, and knew what your background was, what degrees and jobs you've had, works you've written, research you've conducted, etc., I would probably trust a lot of your claims. But I don't know you in person, and most of us on WP never will. And we shouldn't work via appeal to authority on the reference desk. In addition to that being a very bad system for organizing knowledge, there are also large problems of keeping everyone straight, knowing if you can trust their claimed expertise, etc. So I think this all works much more simply if we can simply cite references, rather than trying to persuade others into the truth of our ideas from first principles. Not even academic writing works that way. I hope you'll agree, and continue to share your (referenced) expertise at the reference desks :) SemanticMantis (talk) 23:42, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

User:SemanticMantis, I'm allergic to people arguing semantics and ethics/legality when the scientific answer is blatantly obvious. Minimal brain function is brain function, no brain function is brain death, easy as. And FYI, BSc and MSc in medical biology, PhD in neuroscience and currently working as a post-doc on neurogenesis and neuroinflammation. Fgf10 (talk) 17:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. I personally am allergic to scientists who dismiss semantics as below them: how are we able to communicate anything if we can't agree on what words mean what? And while brain death is certainly death of a human, you might want to think about how to define death, or if we should define death in certain other clades, like Bdelloidea or Poaceae or Epiphyllum.
Regardless, I'm not really interested in continuing to discuss death, I just wanted to let you know that I do value your contributions and I do hope you can share more references in the future. Since there are relatively few PhDs on the desks, it would be nice if we could set an example of providing scholarly references. Including you puts my count at about 5 PhDs on the science desks that I know of, though there may be more. I understand why many users skip the references, but I think it's fair to hold scientists to a higher standard. While I know you may come up against religion and superstition in many frustrating ways on WP, I assure you that you will not have that problem with me, and that was no part of my contention. As for my credentials, if you're curious: I did my PhD in math, and conduct my research in theoretical ecology. I have picked up lots of plant and animal bio, but very little on neuro or human stuff. Cheers, SemanticMantis (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
There's semantics and semantics. When semantics is just a byword for scientific disagreement (I've had lengthy debated on the difference between neural stem cell and neural progenitor, and whether they're interchangeable or not), it's fine and required. This is not what happens on the refdesk though. People try to weasel their way out of a losing argument by moving the goalpost with semantics far too often. Agreed on the higher standard, though it's largely pointless, as they will be ignored by the likes of Baseball Bugs and Sturat who will post nonsense whilst sounding confident. I'm afraid it's going to take more than a few PhDs to stem the tide of idiocy both here on the Refdesk and in society. It'll certainly take more time than I've got to spare, with two grant deadlines and a load of teaching coming up. Fgf10 (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Ref deskEdit

Your hatting of that section is out of line. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseball Bugs (talkcontribs) 02:02, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

No idea what you're talking about, but if you're involved I'm most likely right. Fgf10 (talk) 01:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)


My point, to repeat, is that taoiseach is a word incomprehensible to a majority of English-speakers worldwide. Doh. Sca (talk) 00:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

That's why it was wikilinked. Doh. The Rambling Man (talk) 05:04, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
As per The Rambling Man. There are many incomprehensible words in wiki for a lot of people. Maybe you should educate yourself, Sca (hint, it's pronounced tea-shock). Doh. Fgf10 (talk) 06:39, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Blödsinn. Sca (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
If you don't want to educate yourself, then why are you here, Sca? I speak German, that's not going to flummox me. Fgf10 (talk) 13:54, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Quatsch. Sca (talk) 14:00, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for your intelligent contributions, Sca. Your motives are much clearer now. Fgf10 (talk) 14:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm not going to waste any more time here replying to such insulting and antagonistic statements by you or your unrelentingly vitriolic mentor. Tschuβ. Sca (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
PS: Quick, now, one of you be sure to get in the last word! Sca (talk) 14:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
What an unrelentingly unpleasant bad faith individual you are. You started this discussion on this talk page, it hasn't gone your way so you result to puerile insults and name-calling. I suggest you take a break, you're clearly in need of a different hobby if you react this way to not getting your own way. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:03, 9 May 2016 (UTC)


I didn't know I was pinging you and I can't figure out why that's been happening. I removed a couple things from the notes at the top of my talk to see if that makes any difference. Sorry for the unintended nuisance. Let me know if you have an idea of how to fix it. Sca (talk) 13:16, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

  Fixed Sca (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Go for it.Edit

Your defense of nonsense questions at RD/Science is incomprehensible to me, but I don't need to call you a troll or an asshole, words you have used there, because I disagree with your behavior. Please do file an ANI. I am sure your incivility will be looked upon kindly, and it might even begin another attempt to shut down those boards as chatrooms that don't serve an encyclopedic purpose. In any case, a "partial" answer based on supposition is in no means a referenced answer or a link to a reliable source. So the matter as it stands is quite outside the bounds of our guidelines. μηδείς (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Medeis: Just in case you aren't really just here to troll us, I want you to take another look at this diff and ask yourself if you really think this reflects policy. In that diff,
1) You admit that you recognized the question as a common, notable question, though one difficult to answer. This is exactly the kind of thing we should take on.
2) You should realize by that point that many people on the Refdesk think the question is appropriate. Hatting it is therefore inappropriate. And, it's edit warring, as you well know.
3) And in the process, you managed to inconspicuously delete the best answer to the first part of that question, which was a reference to real science where this exact topic matters. Sure, maybe that was an accident -- but edit-warring and having an accident is a little like drunk-driving and having an accident. More to the point, it was where I became seriously pissed off because I'm not actually here for your little administrative drama, I'm here to find or make the answers to the questions!
If I were you I would not be inviting an admin process right now, because even I, who am usually indulgent toward problematic editors, would vote against you. At this point the only thing you have on your side is our inertia and general distaste for Wikipedia's overblown rulemongering. Wnt (talk) 16:00, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • Ah, you're obviously confusing me with someone else, as my answer contained a link to a RS, and was not based on supposition. I feel sorry for you that your own lack of knowledge makes you call questions unanswerable when they are in fact not. Don't assume others share your own ignorance. This is trolling behaviour. Fgf10 (talk) 18:22, 3 January 2018 (UTC)
  • I am not here to start yet another name calling match. Calling me, a long-term editor who has crafted policy at ITN, started many articles, and improved others to get them posted there and elsewhere, who gives long, detailed, educated and referenced responses at the Ref Desk, and who refrains from pushing politics a "troll" (while ignoring SMW's endless dorm-room type questions) speaks for itself. I also answer SMW when he asks something intelligible, and have stood up for him in the past, and bear no grudge against any editor. Fgf10 should definitely start an ANI if he thinks it's justified. In any case, I am out of here. μηδείς (talk) 02:08, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Fgf10".