User talk:IiKkEe

Hello, IiKkEe, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

• Getting started
• Introduction to Wikipedia
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article
• Simplified Manual of Style

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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! BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High-molecular-weight kininogen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• of blood coagulation, and in the generation of bradykinin via the[kinin-kallikrein system]]. It is inactive unless it comes in contact with binding proteins beneath the endothelial cells

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to High-molecular-weight kininogen may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• merge|Kininogen 1|date=November 2011}}
• deficient in HMWK is mixed with the patient's sample and a[[ partial thromboplastin time]] PTT)]] is determined. Results are expressed in % of normal - a value under 60% indicates a deficiency.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:37, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either:

1. Add four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment; or
2. With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button ( or ) located above the edit window.

This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.

Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 20:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IiKkEe! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Technical 13 (I'm a Teahouse host) Visit the Teahouse This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:08, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IiKkEe. I read a discussion where you mentioned having difficulty getting a good answer when you asked a question. I suggest that you keep the Teahouse in mind. Although a response may occasionally be jargony and/or not truly explain an issue, this is the place where I get or read the best, most respectful answers to questions. It's meant for newbies and for persons with gaps in their Wiki-knowledge.

If you haven't yet done so, I'd like to point out that adding the appropriate number of full colons at the very beginning of your reply (and each paragraph you create in your reply) will indent your post under the comment you are addressing. It makes it easier to read and keep track of the conversation. This message has one colon at the start of each paragraph so far.

This paragraph has two colons.

This paragraph has three colons. You get the idea.

More help, including the possibility of obtaining a WP mentor: Wikipedia:Learning the ropes ; Wikipedia:Community portal ; Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Adventure a game that really can be of use if you haven't yet encountered the topics it includes ; I haven't looked at these yet, but they were recommended on the Teahouse's Talk page: User:Yunshui/About#For beginners; Category:Wikipedia help forums; Help:Contents/Directory

There is definitely an extremely steep learning curve to becoming proficient with WP. Personally, I doubt that I will ever be anywhere near the neighborhood of proficient, but so many people are that the outlook is rosie for you, as well. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:51, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, welcome and thank you for your contributions. You might find this page helpful MOS:HEAD, with regard to formatting sections. You should not use top level headings in the articles (eg. =Title=) or repeat the title of the article in headings if possible. If you need any pointers, please feel free to contact me on my Talk Page. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 07:41, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Platelet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Receptor (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:54, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, please be careful. You didn't remove an indent with this edit [1], you broke a template. Graham Colm (talk) 19:23, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your contributions to the platelet article. I saw that you talked with another user about adding references - that is great. The Wikipedia policy has always been to expect every statement added to be associated with a cited source, even though that has not always happened. It is ideal to start with a source and then integrate it into the article piecewise. Thanks for improving the article. I know nothing about this subject but what you are doing seems thoughtful. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:39, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the comments. My first edit was in mid March. I have had two others drop me notes about referencing. You are right that referencing has "not always happened": I went to the edit history section and looked at the last version before I started editing: I counted 151 unreferenced statements, and 36 referenced, which have accumulated over the past 10 years since the article was started. The count as of now, after my editing: 127 unreferenced, 37 referenced. So I have added 4 referenced statements, and deleted 28 unreferenced incorrect statements.

I have also changed numerous unreferenced statements because they were either incorrect or poorly worded. I did not reference the replacements, the logic being that for now a correct unreferenced statement is better than an incorrect unreferenced statement.

I am now finished with corrections, reorganizing and labeling. I'll take a look at referencing the statements of prior contributors as time permits.

Regards.

IiKkEe (talk) 00:28, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

please bring sources for the content you are adding - generally, and to the platelets article now. thanks! Jytdog (talk) 16:15, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for suggestion. I have had two others drop me notes about referencing. Referencing seems to be the exception on Wikipedia, and widely tolerated: I went to the edit history section and looked at the last version of Platelet prior to my editing: I counted 151 unreferenced statements, and 36 referenced, which have accumulated over the past 10 years since the article was started. The count as of now, after my editing: 127 unreferenced, 37 referenced. So I have added 4 referenced statements, and deleted 28 unreferenced incorrect statements.

I've also changed numerous unreferenced statements because they were either incorrect or poorly worded. I did not reference the replacements, the logic being that - for now - a correct unreferenced statement is better than an incorrect unreferenced statement. I've done this on several other sites too.

Is there anyone assigned by Wikipedia to monitor for unreferenced statements, and to admonish the author or delete the statements if not referenced promptly?

I am now finished with corrections, reorganizing and labeling. I'll take a look at referencing the unreferenced statements of prior contributors as time permits.

Regards. IiKkEe (talk) 00:54, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, thanks for your work on platelet and coagulation. I admire your energy. Don't worry about others suggesting doing stuff in a certain way. It takes a while to learn the ropes; stuff gets easier over time.

Unreferenced content is a major frustration, and you will see many articles with boxes at the top saying that the content requires references. Sadly the adding of references to existing content is a tough job, and there is no watertight formal process for addressing this. Well, unless you count the individual enthusiasm of editors who take an article and keep on hammering at it until it's fantastic and then submit it for review through the good article or featured article process.

If I can suggest one thing, it's taking the advice of experienced folk like GrahamColm (talk · contribs). He's been here for years, knows the place like no other, and happens to be professionally involved in the area of your interest. Let me know if I can be of any assistance! JFW | T@lk 14:39, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your question on people monitoring unsourced statements, there is no formal role like this. There are other editors (people like you and me) who have a peek at newly added content, and will sometimes remove stuff that looks like it's not verifiable. If it could be, and doesn't sound outrageous, it might be tagged with a {{citation needed}} tag, and sometimes the other editor might have access to the right source and add it to the unsourced statement straight away.

You can imagine that not every contribution gets "patrolled" in such a way, and this is why unsourced stuff accumulates in some articles over time. I patrol articles that I have worked on in the past, because I am usually familiar with the subject. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Platelet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page James Wright (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:53, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IiKkEe. Thanks for all your edits to Leptin, you've done a great job improving the article. I just wanted to let you know that I have removed your warnings as it's not appropriate to include these types of comments in the article. If you have serious doubts about some of the sources you can add individual tags to each one (such as {{better source}} or {{failed verification}}) or you could remove them and add a better source. You could also place a note on the article talk page detailing all your concerns about the referencing. If you feel you must include comments in an article for any reason they should be placed in comment tags (<!-- Like this -->) so they can only be seen when someone edits the page. Sarahj2107 (talk) 19:53, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I also noticed some of your recent edits and I was typing this message at exactly the same time as Sarahj2107 - if you think there is something fundamentally misleading with particular content, then it would be better perhaps to remove it, or to discuss its improvement on the talkpage where this could be remedied by perhaps the addition of a more up-to-date citation. There are also particular templates which can be used to highlight concerns about sourcing in articles which will be more likely to be picked up and addressed by other editors - see for example Wikipedia:Template_messages/Cleanup. I will mention this discussion at the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine, as I think someone with much more experience in this field would be better place to advise you how to achieve a sensible improvement to the article. I hope this suggestion is of help. --_nonsense ferret 20:00, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well I tried to respond to Sarah under Leptin and somehow, wiki says, I am creating an edit conflict and won't let me "Save page" - so I'll start a new section to reply.

To Sarahj2107 - Thank you so much for your courtesy in notifying me what you have done. I actually did not plan to leave my warnings there: I was just documenting them for whoever wants to come behind me and try to straighten this section out. It won't be me - I know nothing about the subject of leptin resistance, but I do know how to spot the obsolete and undocumented and redundant. Everything I have done is documented in the "history of edits" section and that's good enough for me. Thanks for the "nowiki" tip: I didn't know that. Maybe there's something I know that you don't: there IS a way to mark a warning on the page itself: I just don't know how to do it. That's what I planned - and still plan - to replace my warnings with once I find out how to do it: Wiki/help/chat will tell me that. I'll just refer everyone to my "history of edit" page for the gory details.

Most of all, thanks for the compliment - everybody likes an attaboy, me included. The two things driving me crazy right now are 1) when was the AA sequence first determined and by whom? 3) what is its half life? I'll keep looking. Also, I've found some neat stuff on molecular structure vs function that I plan to add to that section, then I'll say goodbye to Ms/Mr Leptin. Unless it's to come back and admire "my" Contents section.

Regards

IiKkEe (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again, regarding your comment above, "I actually did not plan to leave my warnings there: I was just documenting them for whoever wants to come behind me and try to straighten this section out. It won't be me." You can't assume that there is an army of other volunteers in the wings ready to fix issues. There isn't one. Comments can stay on the page for years. Please try to fix errors straight away of at least start a thread on the Talk Page. We already have a disclaimer. All our contributors are just like you - working for free from home or their workplaces when there is time. Also please see WP:BRD for advice on problems that you find especially worrying. Having said all this, thanks for your hard work on Platelet, I think you are getting to know how this amazing encyclopedia has been written. Best wishes. Graham. Graham Colm (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IiKkEe. You have new messages at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions.
Message added 22:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

TLSuda (talk) 22:08, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This paragraph has four supporting references 18-28 years old. It should be rewritten by one knowledgeable in this complex and controversial area.

This reference is to an online newspaper, not a peer reviewed reference

Imagawa, et al. Structure-Function Studies of Human Leptin. JBC. 1998, December; 52(273): 35245-35249 y Cterminal necessary for secretion, stability, solubility.

mammary epithelial cells, bone marrow, pituitary sites of leptin

Kline, et al. Leptin is a four-helix bundle: secondary structure by NMR. FEBS Letters.1997, February; 407(2): 239-242 - exhibits a short strand segment and two long random coil loops. Determined secondary structure by NMR. Long chain short helix cytokine fold.

Peelman, et al. Mapping of the leptin binding sites and design of a leptin antagonist. JBC. 2004, September; 39(279): 41038-41046 - synthesized first leptin antagonist, caused obesity, altered immune system, hypogonadism. Binding site is the N terminal 94 AA

Zhang, F., et al. Crystal Structure of the obese protein leptin-E100. Nature. 1997, May; 387(6629):206-209. First to crystallize. Leptin aggregates so cannot be crystallized . Disulfide bonding critical. structure unique

Cannot crystallize AA 27-38 As od 2008, don't fully know structure, Rigid hydrophobic core: unique. Core has a hydrophobic cap which buries the lipophilic residues on the the surface of the BD helical bundle

IiKkEe (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

PMC3673773 - Adaptive thermogenesis 100,000 kCal stored in a 70 kg person "Cordinated regulation o energy intake and expenditure mediated by signals emanatin from adipose, gastrointestinal, and endocrine rissues, and integrated by the liver and CNS" lose weight 10% - daily energy enditre goes down 25% -lose 10% wt - gain 20% icrease in skeletal muscle chemomechanicl efficiency,18% gain in FFA use as fuel during light exsrcise PMID12609816 -UCP in BAT yilds more heat generation -BAT activation: ,beta-3 R,THR (thyroid hormone receptor) 19912477 -Leptin sensitive decline in SNS, thyrioid with weight loss COULD BE mechanism of reduced thermog. by BAT -only takes 25G of BAT to explain decline in REE -All of above applies to rodents, noy humans: little BAT im humans: YES THERE IS: BAT in 7.5% womwn, 10% men using PET scans. - Expose to cold: 23/24 have BAT on PET(19357405) - leptin prop to fat mass (8784109corti) -letin conc inv prop to hunger ratings(9822946) -give leptin, hyperphagia goes away (10486419) -Leptin goes down, intake goes up, due to more POMC, less Y(NPY) (AgRP) and (MCH)anorexogenic neuropeptitide POMC; orixigens neuropeptideY, agouti-related peptide, melanin concentrating hormone -leptin gors down,POMC goes down -low leptin meanslow HPT, high HPA -POMC proopiomelaocortin This is it: administration of leptin tolow leptinhumans causes energy expenditure up,energy intake down, SNS up, normalizes HPA, thyroid gonadalfn(11297566)(10486419) -BUT if NoT leptin def,to get a wt loss effect requires dose of L to get L conc overten times normal(10546697) -SUMMARY: lose wt, allsystems attempt to restore wt: metabolic, neuroendocrine,autonomic behavoioiural changes all oppose. FAT STORES ARE DEFENDED BY INTERLOCKINGBIOENERGETCAND NEUROBIOLOGICALPHSIOLOGIES. THe HUMAN BODY ACTIVELY OPPOSES THE CURE. - acponline.org -1999review of1320 papers , No PMID! Perfect diagrams OUTLINE GENETICS REGULATION OF SERUM LEPTIN LEVELS leptin ACTION AND CLEARANCE tHE ROLE OF LEPTIN IN HUMAN PHYSIOLOGY AND PATHOPHYSIOOGY NEONATE cHILHOOD AND PUBERTY← lEPTIN AND LEPTIN RESISTANCE IN HUMAN OBESITY lEPTIN AND THE METABOLIC AND NEUROENDOCRINE RESONSE TO FOOF DEPRIVATION l in hYPERTENSION,←DIABETES,×POLYCYSTIC OVARIAN DISEASE l IN EATING DIRORDERS L IN OTHER CLINICALSRTATES cLINICAL TRIALS FUTURE DIRECTIONS

fROM "The Role of leptin in human Mantzoros obesity and disease 199 Annala vol130 #8

IiKkEe (talk) 01:19, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

MCR - melanocortin =

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Energy balance (biology), you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page ATP (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:51, 3 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Imagawa, et al. Structure-Function Studies of Human Leptin. JBC. 1998, December; 52(273): 35245-35249 y

− Cterminal necessary for secretion, stability, solubility.

− − mammary epithelial cells, bone marrow, pituitary sites of leptin

− − Kline, et al. Leptin is a four-helix bundle: secondary structure by NMR. FEBS Letters.1997, February; 407(2): 239-242 - exhibits a short strand segment and two long random coil loops. Determined secondary structure by NMR. Long chain short helix cytokine fold.

− − Peelman, et al. Mapping of the leptin binding sites and design of a leptin antagonist. JBC. 2004, September; 39(279): 41038-41046 - synthesized first leptin antagonist, caused obesity, altered immune system, hypogonadism. Binding site is the N terminal 94 AA

− − Zhang, F., et al. Crystal Structure of the obese protein leptin-E100. Nature. 1997, May; 387(6629):206-209. First to crystallize. Leptin aggregates so cannot be crystallized

− . Disulfide bonding critical. structure unique

− − Cannot crystallize AA 27-38 As od 2008, don't fully know structure, Rigid hydrophobic core: unique. Core has a hydrophobic cap which buries the lipophilic residues on the the surface of the BD helical bundle

− − IiKkEe (talk) 07:35, 29 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to our articles. If you are interested in making more contributions on cell biology and biochemistry topics, you might want to join the Molecular and Cellular Biology Wikiproject (signup here). You will be most welcome. - Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

.

Thanks for invite - I'll just stick to Platelets, Leptin, Ghrelin, and Energy homeostasis pages. Plenty enough to do there.

IiKkEe (talk) 12:44, 5 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IiKkEe! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Ad Orientem (talk) 19:35, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply] Getting Started The five pillars of Wikipedia • Tutorial • Your first article How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions New contributors' help page Where to: ask questions • make requests Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Simplified Manual of Style • Three-revert rule Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism • Sock puppetry Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Community Portal • Adopt-a-user program Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • Resolving disputes Build consensus • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Maintenance • Peer review • Requested articles Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Categories • Disambiguity • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Integrin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s and 1 "<>"s likely mistaking one for another. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• combinations of the α and β subunits, around 24 unique integrins are generated.ref name="hynes1">{{cite journal |author=Hynes R |title=Integrins: bidirectional, allosteric signaling machines |
• Integrin subunits span the [[plasma membrane]] and have short cytoplasmic domains of 40–70 [amino acids. The exception is the beta-4 subunit, which has a cytoplasmic domain of 1088 amino

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 17:54, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IiKkEe. . Thanks for posting to my Talk page. I have posted a reply to your suggestions on the Platelet Talk page. Thanks for contacting me and your insightful commentary. mattelfesso (talk) 08:32, 10 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Essential thrombocythaemia page, your edit caused a cite error (help). (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, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:27, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I am a DRN volunteer. I have closed Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Ghrelin, as the proper place to request third party opinions is Wikipedia:Third opinion. Please see the instructions there. Also, in case you file a DRN in the future, you need to list yourself as a party, as well as those who have participated in the discussion on the particular content point in question. Good luck. --Bejnar (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles on Wikipedia must be cited by the best available evidence and written in a consistent format. We typically use review articles. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN, additionally, the Citation Template Generator will aid in the formatting of references; all one needs to do is cut and paste the results. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:09, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

So do you refuse to use references? And follow WP:MEDMOS? Why? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 08:13, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:38, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hepcidin, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Hypoxia. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:14, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caffeine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Tolerance. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 15:44, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed you (probably accidentally) completely decimated the Caffeine article. You might like to address this.
Thanks, anonymous Mancunian 16:01, 11 November 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.74.102 (talk)

Yep. I edited one sentence in the lead,when I pressed Enter whole article from that point on disappeared. Attempting to revert to previous edit now. Should be easy, but first attempt failed. If you know how, please feel free to do so. Will ask for help from chatroom. Thanks for your interest.

IiKkEe (talk) 16:37, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caffeine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Consumption. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:09, 18 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This guideline recommends the usual layout of sections for medication or drug related articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please clarify above: what drug and what sections are you referring to? Are you commenting on an edit I have made? If so, which one? Thank you. Regards.

IiKkEe (talk) 06:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This one here [2]. But also there are further policies mentioned on the talk page of the caffeine article Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Again I ask - why are you pointing this out to me? What drug are you referring to? Are you commenting on a specific edit I made? If so, which one? If there is a specific guideline which you feel an edit of mine violates, please copy and paste it here and we can discuss it.

Thank you. Regards. IiKkEe (talk) 20:47, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This edit [3]. Per MEDMOS other organisms goes near the end. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you copy and paste here the part of MEDMOS that addresses the location of "Other organisms"? Thank you. Regards. IiKkEe (talk) 21:45, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caffeine, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Diuresis. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 20 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Caffeine, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Dependence and Withdrawal. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:35, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Clr324 20:31, 28 December 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clr324 (talk • contribs)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Plantation may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• for wide-spread sale. These crops include fast-growing [[tree]]s (often [[conifer]]s), cotton]], [[coffee]], [[tobacco]], [[sugar cane]], [[sisal]], [[oil seeds]] (e.g. [[oil palm]]s) and [[

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:14, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Atom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Newton. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, first thanks for thanking me. I saw you deleted a small phrase on Leptin that I inserted. I disagree with your assessment that this is redundant, because all prior cases were from "Eastern populations" and this was a kid from Ulm, Germany. would you agree if I reinsert? Regards,--Wuerzele (talk) 05:06, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToWuerzele Thank you so much for approaching our different preferences for how this is phrased in a civil and respectful way. I will make every effort to reciprocate. I will say only this much for now - I wanted to connect with you promptly to say the above - I will be back here shortly after reviewing the NEJM article. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 05:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

NEJM, vol 372, No. 1, January 1, 2015, page 49, sentence 1: "The patient is the first child of two healthy, normal-weight Turkish parents with known consanguinity (first degree cousins)." So its the researchers who are from Germany, not the patient: it's another "Eastern population" mutation. Thank you again for not reverting, but discussing. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IiKkEe, Thank you for fine combing- I overlooked the Turkish heritage- and inserting the detail.

Re thanks for discussing: sure thing, although it is really the law of the land WP:BRD. it was such a small issue and easy to discuss. I also saw how you've edged on with Doc James. Anyone with biomedical interest or prof background does edge on with him at some point (Look on my talkpage how he welcomed me to wikipedia- and I ve not gone back to any clinical topics since) and so I can relate. I think I automatically treat those who are bruised extra careful and respectfully so they dont think that all of WP is like that. btw are you from Finland ?--Wuerzele (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Been on WP since Jun 2014, met all kinds of editors, including those who prefer "my way is the only right way" to "we've got a different preference/opinion on this, let's discuss". Those who just delete, and never compose, are the biggest challenge for me. In the words of the Great Philosopher Tom Petty "... Gonna stand - my - ground, and I won't - back - down..." Not bruised: ready for the next encounter, determined to keep my end civil. Come on back to the clinical topics: we'll take on the world together!

Surprised by the Finland question: I'm a Texan! Why the question??? Are you? Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 09:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hint: You can see where someone's from by looking at the language categories at the bottom of their userpage, if they so choose. others put up oh-so-cute WP:Babel boxes, which I am sure you have seen.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed you contribution to Antibiotic resistance 19 March 2013 which was reverted. I'm going to restore most of what you did over the next couple of days and see if there is a challenge. Please watch me, and edit my edits if they are not true to your original intent. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 10:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ToUser:Wuerzele I think by not addressing you when I wrote above 3 paragraphs there was no way for you to know they were there and addressed to you. Hopefully this will accomplish that. Any further comments on Antibacterial resistance, addressed to you or otherwise, I will place on that Talk page. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 12:41, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IiKkEe, correct, I didnt get a ping; came here today after receiving 8 thanks (blush) for my odd edits on antibiotic resistance, which I admit were emboldened by seeing your many edits on antibiotic resistance all of a sudden. As far as your heroic attempt to restore my paleo-edits from March 2013, a WP lifetime ago: the article surely changed in 2 years, what crazy work! (deep blush). As far as pinging: you did mention my username on your talk page, so it should have alerted me, but it didnt; maybe because of the missing space? Look at the code of how I ping you {{U|IiKkEe}}- that's a short and reliable way to ping. Thanks for placing any further comments on Talk:Antibiotic resistance.--Wuerzele (talk) 16:32, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

IiKkEe did you see the discussion on the talkpage / my attempt to reverse the page move? --Wuerzele (talk) 05:20, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Epstein–Barr virus, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page KSHV. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:58, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Discussed under diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:41, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Platelet, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Dense bodies. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:27, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

do you realize that the article you completely reworked was a WP:Good article? for pete's sake. it may need to be delisted now. Jytdog (talk) 01:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jytdog I agree the article was a good article and I acknowledge the major contribution you have made to it. I don't think that I completely reworked the article: I did make 134 specific edits with a justification for each in the Edit history notes, and I believe each were an improvement to an already good article. I could be wrong: please feel free to critique one, some, or all of my edits on the Talk page and voice your specific objections, and we can discuss them there in a spirit of mutual respect with the aim of reaching a consensus. IiKkEe (talk) 01:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i have made almost no contributions to it - which just goes to show that you took almost no time to understand the standing of the article. I just noticed that you acted with terrible arrogance, and we probably need to delist the article. Its a fucking shame. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The lead should be kept in simple language. Your changes have made it more complicated than necessary. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:14, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You added "Two hereditary diseaes cause Cushing's syndrome" which is not true. More than two diseases cause pituitary adenomas.[4] Also you added details that are not supported by the ref in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:34, 1 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you do not format refs you add the same as others in the article is a difficulty. Please read WP:MEDHOW Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:43, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

To Doc James - To what reference are you referring? IiKkEe (talk) 00:22, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IiKkEe, we haven't actually spoken on Wikipedia before so I figured I would say hello since we've both been working on the hypertension article. I noticed there are two references at the end of the elderly subsection that are improperly formatted. It appears (from what I can see) that you were the one who added those references to the article and they're solid guidelines references, but can you fix the formatting to be consistent with the remainder of the article please? Thank you :) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 02:50, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TylerDurden8823 Thank you for connecting with me - I had thought about doing the same with you, because I am impressed with both your meticulous attention to detail and your civility. And more so with your above note, to include the "please", the "thank you" and the smiley face.

I know a bit about organizing articles, and about hypertension - been in the field for over 40 years - but not so much about formatting. I will attempt to fix, but if I am not successful, I will recruit a fellow editor who knows about formatting. And I look forward to your scrutiny of my future edits on this Page: in contrast to you, there are those who follow me wherever I edit, and revert and delete as fast as I edit, often without explanation, while making no contributions of their own - see above 3 communications. Regards. IiKkEe (talk) 03:55, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

All I ask is that you give it a try. If you're confused about how to do it, feel free to ask and we'll help. I would suggest using the cite journal format found elsewhere throughout the article for comparison. Just out of curiosity, are you in the healthcare field? Physician or something else? You don't have to answer, but I'm just wondering since you said you've been in the field 40+ years.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 05:20, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

TylerDurden8823 I see you fixed the references for me, rather than trying to teach me how, or waiting to see if I could figure it out on my own: thank you!

I have not included a biography on my User page on purpose, because I believe edits should stand on their own merit, and not because of the credentials or experience of the editor. To me, this would lean toward bullying. (There was an 8 year old boy who challenged one of my edits - wonderful!) That said, I am happy to answer your specific question: yes, I am a medical doctor in the US.

I would like to get your reaction to several of my Hypertension edits which have been rejected by others - my thought is to possibly post them on the Hypertension Talk page for discussion, to see if other editors feel they have value and should be allowed. But I am interested in whether you specifically see any problem with them: I know I will get candid feed back from you. If you are amenable, would your User talk page be the appropriate place to display them for you?

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In this case I figured I would teach by example rather than take you through it step by step since the article history now will always have that diff allowing you to see the cite journal format I used going forward. However, in the spirit of teaching, I'll also have you take a brief look at this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Journal_articles . Now, this link says DOI is optional (that's true), but most editors include it for the sake of having a complete reference and making it easier for Wikipedia users to access the article in question so they can verify that it really supports the claim(s) on Wikipedia for which it serves as a reference. Which edits on the hypertension page rejected by others would you like me to evaluate? As for where to discuss them, sure, you can bring them up on my talk page in more detail if that's convenient for you, that's fine. As for you being a physician, that's terrific! We need knowledgeable people like you on Wikipedia! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:36, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you 1) for thanking me for my edits 2) for complimenting me on being a physician. Have you heard the joke "What is the medical student who graduates last in their class called? [answer below]. 3) For changing to "renal artery stenosis": I have been reverted in the past for using "too complicated" terminology, like "moon facies". 4) For agreeing to look at some of my edits: I will present them to you on your Talk page one at a time as time permits. 5) for (attempting to) teach me ; we'll see how good a student I am. [Answer - "Doctor"]

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 18:22, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you #6 - I see you changed "Prognosis" to "Outcomes" - that is one hundred times better than "Prognosis". I still prefer "Complications"; it's the lingo I'm used to hearing, and note that the "Main article" immediately beneath the title is "Complications of hypertension". Shouldn't they match? Will either of us be executed if we change it and it is at variance with WP:MOS?

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 18:41, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Well, for the medical terminology I use wikilinks (which I abbreviate as WL in my edit summaries) to the actual name of the page but I tend to write the text as simply as possible since we're writing for a general audience and medical jargon can definitely be confusing for them so I definitely try to minimize that when possible. As for complimenting you on being a physician, you're welcome. I edit medical content because I think it's important and I certainly have respect for physicians (especially ones who are trying to improve information found on public resources like Wikipedia) to educate people. With respect to the section outcomes, I understand your position. I changed it since it made more sense to me on this particular article to say outcomes than prognosis and it seemed like a compromise and remains consistent with our policy/guideline WP:MEDMOS. It would make sense for them to match...but we need to adhere to what the MEDMOS page says. We won't be "executed", but those guidelines and policies have been around for a long time and worked on extensively so it's pretty much understood that unless there is a truly compelling reason to rebel against them, we adhere (or work on getting those policies and/or guidelines modified). If you change it to complications (especially on a good article like hypertension), it's quite probable that someone will undo your edit citing lack of compliance with that guideline/policy. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:18, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Executed was facetious exaggeration - I can live with "Outcomes" which as I said I believe is a hundred times better than "Prognosis".

I will be communicating with you soon on your Talk page. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know you were just kidding. :) I look forward to reviewing the edits you wish to discuss. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Did you change your mind? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No - and thanks for your inquiry. I should have been more specific about what I meant by "soon". IRS took priority over WP for awhile. I will be in touch this Sunday or Monday. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 01:07, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely understand. I'll watch for your message. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:40, 17 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for thanking me for adding a very important fact about magnesium. DudeWithAFeud (talk) 17:55, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bruit, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Plaque. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It would be exceedingly useful if you provided references when you add new content. For example you added "Lymphomas may be cancerous (95%) or noncancerous (5%)." with no ref Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:07, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your updates, improvements and other contributions to the Myokine page. Very helpful. User:Lhuntkenora — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It's been a pleasure to watch your work on metre. I was afraid the lead was going to become unreadable until you stepped in, I'd looked gloomily at the etymology section without seeing how to start work on it until you opened it up, and you're bringing a welcome clarity and flow to an article which had grown by accretion and dispute. NebY (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow> You are most kind, It is always nice to be appreciated. Before I saw that I had a message (this one), I had considered messaging you to thank you for going over my edits so (apparently) meticulously - and not hesitating to jump in with your own (appropriate) editing of my work.

I am a retired professional medical editor, and reading WP articles is both frustrating and exciting, because there is seldom an article I read that I don't think I can improve (ego problem), and it is both tough not to dive in, and personally satisfying when I do.

Not knowing your interests, I will mention that I have completely rewritten the Leads to Introduction to genetics, Caffeine, Magnesium, Atom, John Dalton, Platelet, Ghrelin, and Leptin, to name a few - take a peak if you are interested in reviewing them for readability. My target reader is a high school student not planning on taking advanced placement courses who wants a plain English summary of a topic.

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 13:22, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit, I didn't watch all your edits, only enough to have confidence in how you were going about it and the way it was coming out. Perhaps you've sneaked something outrageous in at the end! But you did give me a way in to the section that had been bothering me by giving me something small I could correct first, before making more radical changes to another editor's work. I've not looked yet at those other articles - it seems you're much more focused than I am. My watchlist just keeps growing; I correct one recent problem and find the same editor's done something similarly problematic in several more articles. So it goes. My most substantial work's been on the lead, description and application parts of Orifice plate, which I tried to pitch it at the level you describe in terms of prior knowledge and comprehension skills - and as I'm sure you can tell me, that's a severe challenge to a writer's analytic abilities. Oh well, I did my best. NebY (talk) 18:33, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Second may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s and 2 "{}"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• Princeton University Press |year= 1998 |pages= 6–7, 23, 211–216 |isbn=978-0-691-00260-6 }}</ref>}

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Potassium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DRI. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like you just made massive updates to the article, Potassium. Thank you for your support! However, there is a line in the section Biochemical function which reads in part, "Potassium ans sodium shifts between these compartemnts is mediated..." I am not familiar enough with the subject to fix this. Would you please take a look and make sure it is correct? Thanks! — Anita5192 (talk) 01:21, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Anita5192 Wow - you are a careful reader! Thanks to you! I have corrected the two spelling errors, and changed "shifts" to "movement", which corrects the plural subject and the singular verb. The sentence now reads "The movement of potassium and sodium between these compartments is mediated by the Na+/K+-ATPase pump." I plan many more changes for this Page: keep an eye on me. Isn't it amazing that an average of over a thousand people a day worldwide turn to WP to learn about potassium? We'd better get it "right, clear, and simple". Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 11:00, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! — Anita5192 (talk) 05:22, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Ionization energy

added a link pointing to Mole

Potassium

added a link pointing to Afferent

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stille someone who edits the article without commenting on the definition issues ... I'm really frustrated /o\

Did you read the discussion about the concurrent definitions of the GoldBook on talkpage ? What do you think about this ? TomT0m (talk) 11:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am not clear what you are saying in your first paragraph, or what you are asking me in the 2nd. And to what edit of mine are you referring? Please elaborate. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:29, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The goldbook defines chemical elements either as types of atoms, or as chemical substances. The article currently only reflects the second definition, which is definitely not the most modern. I made an edit on chemical element to mention the two definitions, it was reverted. As I fear this will happen again, I'm trying to build a concensus before retrying. The discussions are all on the article talk page. What do you think about this issue ? I'm here because, as you're one of the most recent editors of the article, you might be interested into this discussion. TomT0m (talk) 15:38, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you fro your prompt reply. So as I understand, you have no objection to any of my edits, you are simply alerting me to the discussion about the definition? If so, thank you for the courtesy. At this point, I do not have the expertise to take part in the debate, but will certainly follow it. And please give me feedback on any of my edits that you may be frustrated with. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

No I did not notice anything (except you edited on the introduction and that's where I did want a change :) ) . I don't really have any expertise below what I put on the different talking about this issue. What I know is that an earlier version of the article was like I want it to be and that the arguments of those who don't want the change are weak : "the definitions are the same" incorrect. "it's too complicated" => that's what the sources says. The current version does not even explain elements are the basics of our matter. That's the definition used in many other Wikipedia. I don't understand why one would want to remove one legitimate and sourced definition. It's a violation of the NPOV policy. TomT0m (talk) 16:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could you give me the date and time from the "Edit history" which reflects what you want the Lead to say? I'll be glad to take a look: maybe I will have an opinion! Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 17:46, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yep,

1. I found this version (April 2009) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemical_element&oldid=281088028 who seems perfectly fine to me in the introduction and mentions the two definitions.
2. This is the version I proposed following the discussion I started on Wikipedia:WikiProject Chemistry, probably imperfect but just talking was not enough to make things move so I included it after a few days when nobody reacted : https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chemical_element&oldid=666637471

3. In chemistry, chemicals elements are the basic types of components matter made of atoms, ordinary matter like molecules and other chemical compounds are made of. Elements can be defined of two different ways, but in either way the number of protons in atoms nuclei is used to define elements, called the atomic number, because two atoms with the same atomic number have the same chemical properties. Either it is
   * a type of atom with the same number of proton, 1 in the case of hydrogen,
   * a pure chemical substance consisting of a single type of atom distinguished by its atomic number^[1]
   In the first one, we will say that an atom with one proton is hydrogen, or an atom with 2 protons helium, and in the second one we will say that the content of an Hydrogen gaz bottle is hydrogen.

   This is the version I'm proposing on the article talk page for inclusion. Was dejargonized after a discussion with depiep.

I'm mostly interested here in the fundamental definitions. My personal preference would go to a version with the first definition of the goldbook as it's more modern and imho drops the substance stuff who do not serve any purpose in the rest of the article, or worse is even confusing, (and it would ease the work on Wikidata and interlanguage link, but that's not the fundamental issue :) ), but it does not seem to be the definition children learns in english speaking countries, which may be the root of the problem. I'd be happy with any version that mentions the two definitions.

-- TomT0m (talk) 08:39, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above is a thoughtful discussion which I believe belongs not only here but also on the Chemical element Talk page. I will paste it there, and will respond to your thoughts there within a couple of days. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 20:39, 24 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Radionuclide may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sodium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Isotonic. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:06, 18 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Adrenomedullin

added a link pointing to Hypoxic

Valsartan/sacubitril

added a link pointing to Natriuretic peptides

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:43, 25 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Essential thrombocythaemia, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syncope. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:01, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IiKkEe. Your edit of 11:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC) created a contradiction in the first paragraph of Potassium#Renal filtration, reabsorption, and excretion. You may have intended to copyedit the sentence, but your removal of "All but the" from the start of the sentence inverted its meaning. The resulting paragraph falsely implies that significantly more potassium is excreted daily than is consumed. The old wording was correct. Cheers! -- ToE 21:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hey again. I've restored that sentence to its original wording and meaning. -- ToE 15:05, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IiKkEe. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

When editing in the [[WP:ELEMENTS}} domain, please do not say your edit is "m" (minor). -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Some of your recent edits to Animal have been reverted in whole or in part. I recently removed an edit of yours to the lead to add information about taxonomy because I believe it is out of the article's scope, and you have just added it back in greater detail. (Looking at it now, however, I think it could be included quickly in a way—with copyediting—like "Zoology is the study of animals. Over 66 thousand … exist, and they are organized into groups through the science of taxonomy.") But you also included this information (I believe unnecessarily) in the same level of detail in the Position in taxonomy section with this edit.

In an effort to avoid many further edits and reversions, escalating into edit warring (as WP:BRD is not being followed), it would be greatly appreciated if you would create drafts of sections (including the lead) in your own userspace and then either seek consensus/copyediting on Animal's talk page (probably preferable) or replace the section in whole in the article namespace to allow for other editors to easily see changes made. It looks like you are already storing information about the lead on your user page for reference.

Obviously the article can be improved, but I hope you would agree that with a such a broad topic it is easy to veer off-topic and that since it was a B-class article already, it would be easier to keep track of changes as they are made to the article instead of the article needing more in-depth reviews at a later time. It is less efficient to "thank" an editor for each small edit they make to an article and revert other edits than to just make a larger edit and follow with a quick copyedit. Additionally, a discussion on an entire section on the talk page would be clearer to those involved in editing this page than discussing each individual edit, each in its own section. Let me know what you think. – Rhinopias (talk) 23:03, 2 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your comment. I think the basal position of the Porifera and Ctenophora is now more or less settled but their branching order is not clear. My own suspicion is that Porifera are the most basal and the Ctenophora are a branch that went their own way a long time ago. That having been said we need evidence to back that up and that evidence is not available yet. Virion123 (talk) 07:42, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

hi, do you believe it is wise to have the same diagram twice[5] as it might be useful to use an alternate diagram[6]?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:25, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Anatomy! We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of anatomy articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are involved in editing anatomy articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
• You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing anatomy articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
• We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
• We write for a general audience. Every reader should be able to understand anatomical articles, so when possible please write in a simple form—most readers do not understand anatomical jargon. See this essay for more details.

Feel free to contact us on the WikiProject Anatomy talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. I wish you all the best on your wiki-voyages! Tom (LT) (talk) 06:02, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits to Nephron, they are much appreciated :)

Tom (LT) (talk) 06:03, 7 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that you are in violation of the WP:3RR (three revert rule) on Nephron. Iztwoz is not a vandal and what you have is essentially a content war. Please let's work together on the talk page to improve this article as none of us WP:OWN it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hey - you have become active in medical content.

Please read WP:MEDHOW - you are breaking WP:MEDMOS and the citations you are adding are not citing the pmid, which is a big pain in the butt for people in WP:MED who watch these artcles. Would you please take some time and get acquainted with the norms of editing health content? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 20:22, 15 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent editing history at Syndrome of inappropriate antidiuretic hormone secretion shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 22:21, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep the lead - especially the first few sentences, simple and focused on what is essential. See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Lead, as well as this discussion at FAC which stemmed from this trainwreck. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your edits IiKkEe, and your patients learning our wiki-ways. One more request: before you finish your spates of edits, please have a look / preview the article to prevent issues like this: [7] (go to "structure" section and you'll see what I mean). Not sure why this occured but will attempt to fix it. --Tom (LT) (talk) 10:25, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for jumping in while you were still working...seemed like you had taken a break so I tried to make one change and then got edit-conflicted. I'll step back for a bit, let us know when you're done. DMacks (talk) 13:56, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@DMacks You are a true gentleman. I note you are a major contributor to this Page, both in # of edits and bytes of content. This is my 1st day here, and I am a very aggressive (WP: "Bold") editor - so I'm glad you're keeping an eye on me. We won't hesitate to take any differences we might have to the Talk page if needed. My main interest is in organization - you see I've shuffled things around a bit ("as per WPMOS"); plus still to go is an expansion of the Lead to summarize as much of the article as possible there. Thanks for your willingness to wait until I've completed the Lead changes. It may take a couple of days of fits and starts. If you see anything glaring - jump in anytime. And you taught me something new about left-side images: I yield to you on that one, the only "rule" I knew was "everything to the right"! Regards IiKkEe (talk) 14:09, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chemistry, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Compound, Elements and Reaction (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, IiKkEe. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi IiKkEe, I was surprised to see that the discovery of the ability of lungs to produce platelets was not mentioned in the article about platelets, and then I saw that you deleted a mention of this discovery with the rational "not History, and is primary research, and is animal data".

I'm not to familiar with Wikipedia's rules about reporting scientific discoveries, can you give me more details about the motivations for deleting this mention? In particular, how do you distinguish "primary research" from a result that is "Wikipedia" worthy?

Just out of curiosity. Lboukoko (talk) 13:58, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's guidelines are covered in detail mostly in a section called "Manual of style" and are often referred to informally as "WPMOS" on Wikipedia talk pages. Wikipedia is quite explicit that only scientific information published in review articles from established journals, and textbooks, can be used as citations for referencing information in Wikipedia articles. Their rationale as I understand it is that new scientific information must be verified with follow-up research and with published consensus by experts in that field in relevant journals before being added to the Wikipedia fund of knowledge as accurate and valid.

So platelet production in lungs would need to be verified by another investigator, verified in humans, and acknowledged by experts in a peer-reviewed hematology journal review article or textbook as accurate and valid before being allowed in a Wikipedia article by those who establish Wikipedia guidelines. Verified animal data, but unverified in humans, is allowed in a separate section of an article, usually the last section, titled "Other animals".

Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 14:03, 11 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the explanation ! Lboukoko (talk) 15:46, 23 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this is a mature, very carefully edited and fully reviewed article, and your changes so far seem at best doubtful improvements. I do hope you won't find it presumptuous if I suggest that we might better discuss whatever you think to change here, as basically every word has been picked over several times already. Of course good articles can be improved further, but there'll be more chance of that if the changes are agreed first. Many thanks, Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) Thank you for your reaching out, your courtesy, and your suggestion. I am very impressed with your contributions to this article since I contributed hundreds of (mostly!) uncontested edits last year. I haven't looked at this article for at least 6 months and have not reviewed each individual edit of the hundreds made since then, so if I am inadvertently changing well-discussed issues from the past, I apologize in advance.

I believe wikipedia protocol calls for initial editing without discussion, followed by discussion if there is disagreement. I welcome - and agree with - the reversions you made to several of my edits: I thought I had a good idea, but your explanation quickly convinced me otherwise. I hope you will continue to scrutinize my edits, revert those you disagree with, and if I disagree with your reversions, we can can have a collegial discussion on the talk page. And I will (eventually) review all of the individual edits since my last edit in 2017 to get totally up to speed. Regards IiKkEe (talk) 16:01, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I see, and thanks for the reply. Well, let's do that. I do believe that the article, as it now is, is robust and coherent. That means that improving it will generally mean new zoology based on recent review papers in the best journals. It's not impossible that copy-editing and suchlike will help, but given the article's state it really can't be a priority. And if there's one place not to begin tweaking, it's the lead section. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:15, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well let me take you up on your offer to discuss prior to an edit, but do it here rather than on the talk page unless we can't quickly agree on an edit and need 3rd party input. So here goes: does the 7 million alluded to in Lead para 1 refer to species or insects? I would like to clarify via an edit once I know the answer. Regards, IiKkEe (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Very plainly, animals: I've said so, but I am quickly becoming convinced that we are editing to the detriment of the article. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:26, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta

The 2017 Cure Award

In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:53, 26 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ATP, Nucleus and Domain (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Supergroup (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 11:19, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Vitamin B12 deficiency, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page William Gardner (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Assemblage (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:25, 26 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Diatom, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Asexual (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:15, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

News and updates for administrators from the past month (June 2018).

Administrator changes

Pbsouthwood • TheSandDoctor

Gogo Dodo

Andrevan • Doug • EVula • KaisaL • Tony Fox • WilyD

Bureaucrat changes