User talk:Pengortm: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 20:56, 24 November 2012

Apolipoprotein E

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the apolipoprotein E article and for your comments in Talk:Apolipoprotein E. One minor request however is especially when you delete material, please include a short edit sumary. It could be as short as "see talk" if you leave an explanation on the talk page. Otherwise, please carry on. I think you are doing a great job! Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:12, 4 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You could also click on the signature button 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 useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 21:58, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

DRD4

Hi. In the article dopamine receptor D4, you claimed that there were hundreds of other studies linking this receptor gene to sexual behavior in humans. Why not link multiple studies as references in one sentence, or even a metastudy if there is one? Please clarify what you mean by this not being validated enough. Thanks. ~AH1 ^(discuss!) 22:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Why?

This edit [1] is strange in my opinion. It removes a reference to an essay written about the movie by a scientist featured in the movie, and in its place puts a reference which doesn't ever mention the movie. I stated as much in my edit summary.

Have you seen the movie? What makes you think that Tierney's book has anything to do with the content? I think you should read the article I referenced, and then restore my edits. As you'll see, it is written by an anthropologist who, while agreeing with Dreger on Tierney, appreciates the importance of the movie. Dragging Tierney and Dreger into the description of this movie does a further disservice to the Yanomami, and is uncalled for. 75.142.11.87 (talk) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 9: / Line 9: @@
 Hi. In the article [[dopamine receptor D4]], you claimed that there were hundreds of other studies linking this receptor gene to sexual behavior in humans. Why not link multiple studies as references in one sentence, or even a metastudy if there is one? Please clarify what you mean by this not being validated enough. Thanks. ~<font color="blue">[[User:AstroHurricane001|AH1]]</font>&nbsp;<sup>(''[[User_talk:AstroHurricane001|discuss]]!'')</sup> 22:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)
+== Why? ==
+This edit [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Secrets_of_the_Tribe&diff=524667327&oldid=524473437] is strange in my opinion. It removes a reference to an essay written ''about the movie'' by a ''scientist featured in the movie'', and in its place puts a reference which doesn't ''ever mention the movie''.  I stated as much in my edit summary.
+Have you seen the movie?  What makes you think that Tierney's book has anything to do with the content?  I think you should read the article I referenced, and then restore my edits.  As you'll see, it is written by an anthropologist who, while agreeing with Dreger on Tierney, appreciates the importance of the movie.  Dragging Tierney and Dreger into the description of this movie does a further disservice to the Yanomami, and is uncalled for.  [[Special:Contributions/75.142.11.87|75.142.11.87]] ([[User talk:75.142.11.87|talk]]) 20:56, 24 November 2012 (UTC)