Jump to content

User talk:Claes Lindhardt: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m AFD: ce
AFD: suggestions for merging into List of human protein-coding genes
Line 107: Line 107:
::How does one ask to [[WP:DRAFTIFY]] it? and will it still be visable to regular readers or only readers with an account? [[User:Claes Lindhardt|Claes Lindhardt]] ([[User talk:Claes Lindhardt#top|talk]]) 11:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
::How does one ask to [[WP:DRAFTIFY]] it? and will it still be visable to regular readers or only readers with an account? [[User:Claes Lindhardt|Claes Lindhardt]] ([[User talk:Claes Lindhardt#top|talk]]) 11:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Is there an option to merge it into Seppi article and then draftify it from there? so that Seppis get some more column that you can sort according to? but the article can still be accesed [[User:Claes Lindhardt|Claes Lindhardt]] ([[User talk:Claes Lindhardt#top|talk]]) 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:::Is there an option to merge it into Seppi article and then draftify it from there? so that Seppis get some more column that you can sort according to? but the article can still be accesed [[User:Claes Lindhardt|Claes Lindhardt]] ([[User talk:Claes Lindhardt#top|talk]]) 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
:::: {{tps}} We can easily add additional columns to [[List of human protein-coding genes 1]], 2, 3, 4. No need to [[WP:DRAFTIFY]] a well established list. It will take a bit more work to modify the bot script to populate and maintain these extra fields. I would suggest adding (1) <recommended [[UniProt]] name>, (2) function, and (3) tissue distribution, but drop "folding variations". Generally each protein has a single fold. There are metamorphic proteins that adopt different folds (e.g., [[XCL1]]), but these are rare. For human generated text, I suppose we chould add a comment field in a seperate page and the bot could automatically merge this text back into the list. There might be better ways of doing this, but this solution should be clean and robust. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest moving this discussion to [[Talk:Lists of human genes]] and getting buy in from [[User:Seppi333]] who will be critical in implementing changes to the list. [[User:Boghog|Boghog]] ([[User talk:Boghog|talk]]) 13:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


== CS1 error on [[List of biological databases]] ==
== CS1 error on [[List of biological databases]] ==

Revision as of 13:13, 23 July 2023

Your submission at Articles for creation: Bjørn Bjerregaard (April 14)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by Theroadislong was:  The comment the reviewer left was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.
Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Teahouse logo
Hello, Claes Lindhardt! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! Theroadislong (talk) 19:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of distinct cell types in the adult human body, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 14:20, 20 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On my talk page, you said: You removed my post on the talk page of the human body, where I suggest we make an overview of the different abstraction levels, I made an updated version of the drafted figure here along with a bunch of defintions. But I am still not sure why the topic on the talk page was removed in the first place, please elaborate?

Hello - rules for article talk page discussions concerning human content are that a specific revision be proposed with a WP:MEDRS source. I felt your proposal made no sense. "Different abstraction levels" doesn't mean anything to me as a physiologist, and the image doesn't help a common user to understand the human body. The image is not based on a MEDRS source. Zefr (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh allright what do you think would be a better word? Different levels of complexity? different levels of understanding? different starting-points? Different levels of mechanisms? different size of parts? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:16, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure what the MEDRS source refer to here? Thank you for your feedback Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:17, 29 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of proteins in the human body, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 13:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is the article from the national health institute no? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 18:20, 12 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of List of proteins in the human body for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of proteins in the human body is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of proteins in the human body until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Elmidae (talk · contribs) 06:48, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure I understand this message, if you have the time I would appriciate futher explanation? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of proteins in the human body, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I saw you added a link to your page List of proteins in the human body to the top of the page ANLN. I can also see from your contributions that you are adding this en masse to human protein pages. I really don't think that it makes sense as a "see also" at the top of the page- someone arriving at the page for an individual protein will get *less* information about the protein if they go to the giant list page. Mentions of List of proteins in the human body should be at the bottom of the page, if included at all. GraziePrego (talk) 13:15, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Makes sense, will add it to the bottom thank you Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:16, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PLEASE STOP. This is not how "see also" links should be added. They should be placed as an unordered list under a See also section heading. Read MOS:SEEALSO or see other articles before continuing. — kashmīrī TALK 13:26, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If there is not a such one should simply add a new heading? some of the onces that I have added have been added under a new heading in the end of the article. Can you unrevert those please? is there a way to automatically add a link in the corect way for a list of articles that you have? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 13:29, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article you are linking to is currently considered for deletion. Do not add links until there's consensus to keep the article, not least because if it's deleted, it will be much more work then to remove all those links you added. — kashmīrī TALK 13:31, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Scrolling back through your contributions Claes, you've added a link to your page to quite literally hundreds of pages, even those with marginal relevance. I don't think it's acceptable to do that when your page is being considered for deletion. GraziePrego (talk) 13:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
isen't there an automatic way of removing them in that case? Right now the deletion discussion seems to tend more towards merging the article into another article, also a lot of these article seems to face a lot of simmilar problems to the the one I created, doesen't it seem relevant to link them to solve the problems in both cases and show that there is a history of people trying to address these problems? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the start I was also told that it was good to link the article to other articles to de-orphan it? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:03, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How can we link all protein articles together in a way that makes the creaters of them part take in a central discussion on how best make all the proteins on wiki sortable and navigable? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 14:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There’s a difference between de-orphaning and adding your article to the start of every single protein. I think it actually shows why List of proteins in the human body should just be a category, as there’s no problem with adding all human proteins into that category. GraziePrego (talk) 22:56, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Did you read the deletion discussion part where a category was also discussed? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Human proteins and Category:Genes by human chromosome. Please note that in almost all cases, the scope of the articles that contained in these two categories are about the gene and the protein encoded by this gene. Hence these categories are essentially duplicates of each other. Please also note that articles that transcribe the {{infobox gene}} are automatically added to the Category:Genes by human chromosome.

As discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear in the lead sentence that Gene Wiki articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:

The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human. Boghog (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You have also asked on several occassions which infobox is appropriate for which articles. Appropriate uses have been carefully described here:

Boghog (talk) 08:47, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make sense to have an explanation in the start of the category saying how many proteins we think there i in the human body vs. how many have been listed? to automatically clarify that it is not a compleate list and how much there is left to contribute with? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 09:00, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No. Category pages are not there to educate people about the subject matter. For this, we have articles. A reader interested in learning about proteins in general will certainly go and read protein. — kashmīrī TALK 09:28, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please also ensure you sign your comments with ~~ ~~ (without the space in the middle) when you post on the discussion page- if you don’t then there’s no “reply” button and it’s not shown who posted the comment. GraziePrego (talk) 23:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

AFD

Hello, Claes Lindhardt,

I should have posted this comment to you days ago but please do not respond to every comment in an AFD deletion discussion. It causes people to tune out what you are saying, ignore your comments and, ultimately, resent you for dominating the discussion. It does not help to convince others of your viewpoint if you bludgeon the discussion. In fact, the more you go on and on, the more likely it is that editors will take an opposing side because they are tired of seeing your constant comments. It's not to late to stop. You've dominated this discussion so far and said what you needed to say, now leave some space for other editors to participate in a discussion about what should happen to this article.

I should note that although it's unlikely at this stage, if this happens again, I would give you a partial block from the AFD discussion page after the first dozen comments were made. But this discussion is on its last relisting so I'll just request that you cease from commenting further. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 06:57, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Liz for stating this so politely.
Claes: I've removed the latest wave of your replies as they were totally off topic. You seem to have confused a deletion discussion with some sort of group brainstorming about your future work, about deleting other articles and categories, etc. This is not a place to do it! AFD is a structured discussion about whether the article as it is should stay on Wikipedia. If you'd like to develop the article, you can always ask to WP:DRAFTIFY it, or you can even move it yourself to your own WP:USERSPACE (and get the original deleted per WP:CSD#G7). There, in Draft space or in userspace, you will be free to work on it without pressure, reach out to editors active in the WikiProject Molecular Biology, and finally develop a quality article, which I encourage you to do. — kashmīrī TALK 10:09, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please elaborte how how suggesting a new column as a soltution to indicate which proteins are produced by the human body and which comes from elsewhere is off the topic of how to deal with things like Regular insulin in the list?
(talk page stalker) By definition, human gene/protein lists should only contain human proteins. The solution is to remove entries from the list that are not human proteins. No need to add an extra "species" column. Boghog (talk) 12:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How does one ask to WP:DRAFTIFY it? and will it still be visable to regular readers or only readers with an account? Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is there an option to merge it into Seppi article and then draftify it from there? so that Seppis get some more column that you can sort according to? but the article can still be accesed Claes Lindhardt (talk) 11:56, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(talk page stalker) We can easily add additional columns to List of human protein-coding genes 1, 2, 3, 4. No need to WP:DRAFTIFY a well established list. It will take a bit more work to modify the bot script to populate and maintain these extra fields. I would suggest adding (1) <recommended UniProt name>, (2) function, and (3) tissue distribution, but drop "folding variations". Generally each protein has a single fold. There are metamorphic proteins that adopt different folds (e.g., XCL1), but these are rare. For human generated text, I suppose we chould add a comment field in a seperate page and the bot could automatically merge this text back into the list. There might be better ways of doing this, but this solution should be clean and robust. If you want to pursue this further, I suggest moving this discussion to Talk:Lists of human genes and getting buy in from User:Seppi333 who will be critical in implementing changes to the list. Boghog (talk) 13:12, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of biological databases, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:41, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page List of proteins in the human body, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

  • A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 08:51, 23 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy