User talk:Narayanese

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Transgenic Mouse[edit]

Hi Narayanese. I have just changed the re-direct for transgenic mouse from Knockout mouse back to Genetically Modified Organism. My reasoning for this is that knock-out mice are a sub-section of transgenic mice (i.e not all transgenic mice are knock-out mice) and this re-direct did not work for every link. Let me know if you disagree. Cheers AIRcorn (talk) 01:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

While it's true that its no synonym but a wider term, I thought the readers who search for "transgenic mouse" would be more interested in the content at knockout mouse than Genetically Modified Organism, which is mostly about agriculture/industry. Narayanese (talk) 08:36, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
I agree that it is not ideal linking to Genetically Modified Organismisms. I think the better solution will be to re-write knockout mouse so it covers all transgenic mice and change the title. I will look into this when I get a chance. AIRcorn (talk) 01:49, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

GA reassessment of Yeast[edit]

I have conducted a reassessment of the above article as part of the GA Sweeps process. I have found some concerns which you can see at Talk:Yeast/GA1. I have placed the article on hold whilst these are fixed. Thanks. Jezhotwells (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

PLoS Currents: Influenza[edit]

Err.. none of it is referenced? Ironholds (talk) 18:43, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

indexed by PubMed - source is PubMed, archived by PubMed Central, source PMC, published by PLoS - source is PLoS, as is for publisher country, OCLC number from OCLC catalog, review policy from journal homepage, history and abbreviation from NLM catalog... Narayanese (talk) 18:55, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

GA review for SEGRA[edit]

Hi Narayanese! Many thanks for reviewing my GA nomination! I have started addressing your concerns, and hope to complete the task over the next few days. Cheers, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

I think I've worked through all the points. Could you have a look at the article now, and also at my question at the bottom of the review page? Thanks, ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Again, thank you for reviewing the article and helping to get it into good shape! --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:55, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Denisova hominin[edit]

I don't understand why you keep reverting without discussion. I have responded on the talk page to your concerns. If my responses are inadequate then please take the trouble to correct my errors. --Michael C. Price talk 16:22, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

It's not in the Nature publication, and you can't something you saw in a single newspaper at face value - newspapers aren't known to be good sources (or sources at all) for new scientific analysis. If you find something new there, it's very likely a misunderstanding on their part of something they heard. In this case, that would be the extension of the speculation (which doesn't have many supporters atm btw) that neanderthals and humans could mate and produce fertile offspring, extended to the new species/whatever they found. It's no good for Wikipedia to propagate errors in secondary sources. But keep discussion to the artcle talk page. If no replies, it's because you're not saying anything you haven't already. Narayanese (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2010 (UTC)
On your last point, I was mostly correcting misinterpretations of policy by experienced editors who should know better. And if I have to correct such misapprehensions I expect others to extend the same courtesy to me (or drop the matter), not to revert without comment.
And, for the umpteenth time, you are assuming that the media source was ignorant, yet their "speculation" is precisely mirrored by the blog which is sourced by experts. And yes, I am aware that Neanderthal-human hybridisation has few supporters - because the DNA evidence not support it, not because of any a priori assumptions. But let's keep such stuff for the talk page. --Michael C. Price talk 13:38, 6 April 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Review of closure process 2[edit]

Because you've contributed to FPC either recently or in the past, I'm letting you know about the above poll on the basis of which we may develop proposals to change our procedures and criteria. Regards, Papa Lima Whiskey (talk) 11:02, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


This will interest you! Nice going.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Brain cell illustration[edit]

You may be interested in this discussion. Anthony (talk) 19:36, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Template infobox journals[edit]

Hi, the template results since quite some time in the infobox displaying "abbreviated title", not "abbreviation". I changed the doc to reflect this. Also, since many editors still enter acronyms in this field, whereas the doc says it should be the ISO abbreviation, I thought it would be good to specify this and changed the template and the doc to reflect this. Any specific reason why you are opposed to these changes? --Crusio (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

The parameters in the template (not the thing displayed on the journal pages, but on the edit pages) are still 'abbreviation'. You're editing the wrong fields of the doc. Narayanese (talk) 15:00, 31 July 2010 (UTC)
I see (I think... :-) Don't edit templates too often... Thanks! --Crusio (talk) 15:19, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Introduction to Evolution[edit]

Regarding reversion of Introduction to Evolution Natural selection does not lead to perfection; dramatic changes in the environment often lead to mass extinctions, as in the case of the dinosaurs nearly 65 million years ago. I'm uncertain why this caption would not apply to any dinosaur image. the original was a triceratops - before the T.Rex. Did I miss something?--JimmyButler (talk) 12:39, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, I was referring to the caption on the image description page. Anyway, I didn't want it there because later research showed that the depicted dinosaurs didn't live around lakes (looks it up... it's in Robert Hole Jr. Dinosaurs and Other Ancient Animals), so while the painting is pretty, it isn't truthful. Narayanese (talk) 20:37, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
What we were originally seeking was an engaging picture for an introductory article ... pretty - I guess that's part of it. Of course, if it is mis-leading (I'll trust your research) then I'll keep looking. Cheers --JimmyButler (talk) 15:34, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Good article re-assessment[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Battle of N'Djamena (2008) has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments here . If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article.

Thank you![edit]

Hello, Narayanese;

I just wanted to drop by and thank you for the GA review of Sinosauropteryx! J. Spencer (talk) 23:20, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Please clarify[edit]

Please clarify why you deleted this ref. Your edit comment seems to be contradicted by the content of the paper. LeadSongDog come howl! 04:38, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

I would expect a ref at that spot in the article to explain stem cell potency, otherwise a reader clicking that ref for confirmation or further reading would end up disappointed. Narayanese (talk) 05:18, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
While it's quite not the topic you are asking about, I'll complain about your reversion of this edit. Lack of attribution here is just part of the problem, there is also the problem that it takes a controversial view on mesenchymal stem cells. There sure is opposition around to the idea that mesenchymal stem cells are neurogenic in vivo or embryonic stem cell-like. Narayanese (talk) 05:40, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
There are many controversies discussed in Wikipedia. It is wp:NOT#CENSORED. If there are equally reliable medical sources for contrary assertions, we cite and discuss both positions, we don't omit them both. LeadSongDog come howl! 06:54, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Let's just end this discussion since it is turning to insults. Narayanese (talk) 19:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
That certainly was not my intention. Insults are not part of my repetoire. If there is a controversy in the published literature, by all means the article should discuss it. I'd be happy to participate with editing that discussion. I just haven't seen the sources that you have. All I ask is that you point me to them.LeadSongDog come howl! 19:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
ok, then I misunderstood you. I'll see what sources I can dig up, and go for something two-sided. Narayanese (talk) 20:03, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
Going back through the revert history, I see where I went wrong. Somehow when I went to add a ref to the "third molar" assertion, I managed to add it elsewhere instead. Now corrected. Sorry for all the fuss. LeadSongDog come howl! 17:25, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Proposed Image Deletion[edit]

A deletion discussion has just been created at Category talk:Unclassified Chemical Structures, which may involve one or more orphaned chemical structures, that has you user name in the upload history. Please feel free to add your comments.  Ronhjones  (Talk) 23:01, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Rock Pigeon[edit]

An article that you have been involved in editing, Rock Pigeon has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Puffin Let's talk! 18:56, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Epigenome discussion[edit]

I am sending this message to you because you commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Epigenome. In closing the AfD, DGG (talk · contribs) said that: "The possibilities for merging are too diverse to be properly decided here by a simple merge close; --those interested should pick one or another of the relvant talk pages and decide how to do it." I have taken this on board, and have started a discussion at Talk:Epigenetics#Possible merge of Epigenetics-related topics about this. You are welcome to comment there. Quasihuman | Talk 21:20, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

File:OxyS.png listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:OxyS.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Sven Manguard Wha? 06:17, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

File:Alternative polyadenylation.JPG listed for deletion[edit]

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Alternative polyadenylation.JPG, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 05:55, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


Thanks for your edits to the Human genome page; it's good to have help. Still lots of room for further improvements. Cheers! --John Mackenzie Burke (talk) 20:41, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Great to see you working on the page! Narayanese (talk) 07:51, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

ITN for Shinya Yamanaka[edit]

--SpencerT♦C 01:16, 12 October 2012 (UTC)


Hi. I'm putting the Yeast article through a Good Article Reassessment. I've left some comments on the review page: Talk:Yeast/GA2, and the review is on hold for an initial seven days. As you are one of the main contributors to the article, I thought you might be interested. SilkTork ✔Tea time 22:30, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Citric acid cycle files for deletion[edit]

I've listed two of the files you've uploaded - File:Citric_acid_cycle_noi.png and File:Citric_acid_cycle_noi.GIF - for deletion at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. See the discussion (both files) and respond if you would like to provide a reason for them not to be removed. Both have been replaced by File:Citric_acid_cycle_with_aconitate_2.svg, a higher-quality vector graphics image hosted on the Commons, and are obsolete. Fuebar (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Separate comment here; the older files in png each have a typo in the name of "Fumarate" that is corrected in the version with aconitate, i.e. the svg versions. In other words, deleting the .png's and replacing with .svg will be a Good Thing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtempleton (talkcontribs) 21:11, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

ok. it breaks the edit history, but that might be an acceptable price for not having errors in files people might download. Narayanese (talk) 06:45, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

June 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hooded crow 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:
  • hooded crows than to English and Spanish carrion crows, the result of substantial gene flow.<ref>{{cite doi|10.1126/science.1253226</ref>

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 16:01, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

C. elegans[edit]

Many thanks for that. Iztwoz (talk) 07:09, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

That's really good news! Thank you and many thanks for your thoughtful input. Iztwoz (talk) 20:58, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

ITN credit[edit]

ThaddeusB (talk) 02:10, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 11 January[edit]

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

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) 00:26, 12 January 2015 (UTC)