User talk:Boghog: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively

← Previous edit Next edit →

Content deleted Content added

VisualWikitext

Inline

Revision as of 13:39, 8 January 2018

If I have left you a message: please answer on your talk page, as I am watching it.
If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, so please add it to your watchlist.
Please click here to leave me a new message.

Archives

This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Variability in PSA Measurement

I have edited it just because it is a very common problem occuring in practice. The review artcile may not be upto date but it is addressed considering routine problem of clinicains and lab professionals. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.239.102.203 (talk) 07:24, 12 November 2014

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Facto Post – Issue 2 – 13 July 2017

Editorial: Core models and topics

Wikimedians interest themselves in everything under the sun — and then some. Discussion on "core topics" may, oddly, be a fringe activity, and was popular here a decade ago.

The situation on Wikidata today does resemble the halcyon days of 2006 of the English Wikipedia. The growth is there, and the reliability and stylistic issues are not yet pressing in on the project. Its Berlin conference at the end of October will have five years of achievement to celebrate. Think Wikimania Frankfurt 2005.

Progress must be made, however, on referencing "core facts". This has two parts: replacing "imported from Wikipedia" in referencing by external authorities; and picking out statements, such as dates and family relationships, that must not only be reliable but be seen to be reliable.

In addition, there are many properties on Wikidata lacking a clear data model. An emerging consensus may push to the front key sourcing and biomedical properties as requiring urgent attention. Wikidata's "manual of style" is currently distributed over thousands of discussions. To make it coalesce, work on such a core is needed.

Links

WikiFactMine project pages on Wikidata, including a SPARQL library (in development).
Fatameh tool for adding items on scientific papers to Wikidata, by User: T Arrow. It has made a big recent impact. Offline for maintenance as we go to press, it is expected back soon.
As of July 2017, Zotero has a Wikidata translator. A personal Zotero library acts as an intermediary in managing and storing citation metadata.
GLAM Newsletter June 2017, Wikidata report. This is a good monthly round-up to follow, and welcomes contributions.
Exciting and Impressive! The Initiative for Open Citations (I4OC) was launched in April: Infodocket on the first three months.
Olivia Solon in San Francisco, Why the net neutrality protest matters, opinion piece in The Guardian on 11 July.

Editor Charles Matthews. Please leave feedback for him.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Opted-out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

Facto Post – Issue 7 – 15 December 2017

A new bibliographical landscape

At the beginning of December, Wikidata items on individual scientific articles passed the 10 million mark. This figure contrasts with the state of play in early summer, when there were around half a million. In the big picture, Wikidata is now documenting the scientific literature at a rate that is about eight times as fast as papers are published. As 2017 ends, progress is quite evident.

Behind this achievement are a technical advance (fatameh), and bots that do the lifting. Much more than dry migration of metadata is potentially involved, however. If paper A cites paper B, both papers having an item, a link can be created on Wikidata, and the information presented to both human readers, and machines. This cross-linking is one of the most significant aspects of the scientific literature, and now a long-sought open version is rapidly being built up.

The effort for the lifting of copyright restrictions on citation data of this kind has had real momentum behind it during 2017. WikiCite and the I4OC have been pushing hard, with the result that on CrossRef over 50% of the citation data is open. Now the holdout publishers are being lobbied to release rights on citations.

But all that is just the beginning. Topics of papers are identified, authors disambiguated, with significant progress on the use of the four million ORCID IDs for researchers, and proposals formulated to identify methodology in a machine-readable way. P4510 on Wikidata has been introduced so that methodology can sit comfortably on items about papers.

More is on the way. OABot applies the unpaywall principle to Wikipedia referencing. It has been proposed that Wikidata could assist WorldCat in compiling the global history of book translation. Watch this space.

And make promoting #1lib1ref one of your New Year's resolutions. Happy holidays, all!

Links

WikidataCon: Giving more people more access to more knowledge, report by Peter Kraker of Open Knowledge Maps
This is a story of my knowledge adventure in New Zealand moths via Wikicommons, Wikipedia and Wikidata, @SiobhanLeachman
Wikidata and Arabic dialects, research paper, DOI: 10.1109/AICCSA.2017.115
c:Commons:British Library/Mechanical Curator collection/georeferencing status, Mechanical Curator project on Commons hits 50K maps milestone
Historical dataset on the provenance of Wikipedia text: Who wrote this?, by Tilman Bayer, WMF blogpost
"Anyone can edit", not everyone does: Wikipedia and the gender gap (PDF), journal paper, Heather Ford and Judy Wajcman
Alpha Zero’s "Alien" Chess Shows the Power, and the Peculiarity, of AI, MIT Technology Review, by Will Knight, December 8, 2017

To subscribe to Facto Post go to Wikipedia:Facto Post mailing list. For the ways to unsubscribe, see below.
Editor Charles Matthews, for ContentMine. Please leave feedback for him. Back numbers are here.
Reminder: WikiFactMine pages on Wikidata are at WD:WFM.

If you wish to receive no further issues of Facto Post, please remove your name from our mailing list. Alternatively, to opt out of all massmessage mailings, you may add Category:Wikipedians who opt out of message delivery to your user talk page.
Newsletter delivered by MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:54, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Error in Metacycline edit by BogBot

Hi,

There was an error in this edit by BogBot:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metacycline&type=revision&diff=447816017&oldid=443324384

As this: https://medlineplus.gov/druginfo/meds/a682778.html

is for Ferrous Sulfate, not Metacycline. I've removed this entry from the page as Metacycline has no medline plus entry:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Metacycline&type=revision&diff=816293357&oldid=798266218

- No identd (talk) 13:04, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Shocked and astounded

I am not sure why your talk page is not overrun with barnstars because I find your editing history overwhelming. If Wikipedia were a cruise, you would be sitting at the captain's table every single night. EIGHT THOUSAND articles you've created???? ...on topics I can't even begin to understand? Thank you, thank you, thank you. Can I do an interview with you for the Signpost? (the Wikipedia editor newsletter-covering-topics-of-interest-to-editors? Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ ^{and Merry Christmas} 13:39, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks. However I should point out that many of the articles I created were bot assisted through the auspices of the Gene Wiki project. I think the guy you really want to interview is Andrew Su who initiated the Gene Wiki project. My interests broadly span chemistry, pharmacology, and molecular biology. TimVickers was an early and prolific contributor to WP:MCB (see Signpost interview), but sadly that project has slowly withered over the years. Several of the remaining editors including myself were previously interviewed by the Signpost.

Even though professionals are discouraged from using Wikipedia as a source of information, I think Wikipedia through the hard work of many editors has become a useful initial resource for professionals working in drug discovery and allied fields. As evidence, I point to Derek Lowe (chemist) who writes a blog published by Science Magazine who routinely links to Wikipedia drug and Gene Wiki articles. Another sign that the scientific community thinks Wikipedia is an important resource is that many of the external scientific databases provide reciprocal links back to Wikipedia.

This technical use of Wikipedia sometimes results in a conflict with Wikipedia's broader mission of writing articles that can be written and understood by anyone. But we try to make at least the lead sentence broadly accessible. One of the most contentious issues is trying to find the right balance between making an article broadly accessible while providing enough technical detail to make it of interest to a professional. Another conflict that sometimes arises is the quality of the sources. I initially thought that WP:MEDRS was overly strict, especially when applied to basic biomedical research, but the reproducibility crisis has increased my appreciation of secondary sources.

I am more of Wiki Gnome that avoids attracting too much attention to myself. However if you think my rambling thoughts above provides a seed for an interview, I would consider it. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Barbara, while yes, many of Boghog's edits fall loosely under the umbrella of the Gene Wiki project, that in no way should diminish your "shock and astonishment" (and interest!) in the work that he has done. To continue the Wikipedia-as-a-cruise analogy, the Gene Wiki is like an art studio on that ship where we provide some space, some paint, and a few paintbrushes. Boghog is the artist that is converting those raw materials into something beautiful and useful. That he has done this at such a high level over such a long time while also being a great Wikipedia community member is amazing. I would love to read a profile of Boghog's work in the Signpost! Best, Andrew Su (talk) 22:05, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:MCB may be less active than it was several years ago, but definitely not an inactive WikiProject.

In any event, I agree with Barbara about your contribution history. Being in the top 1000 in Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of edits is quite an accomplishment for content contributors. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:07, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merry X-mas

Merry Christmas and a Prosperous 2018!

Hello Boghog, may you be surrounded by peace, success and happiness on this seasonal occasion. Spread the WikiLove by wishing another user a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past, a good friend, or just some random person. Sending you a heartfelt and warm greetings for Christmas and New Year 2018.
Happy editing,
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Spread the love by adding {{subst:Seasonal Greetings}} to other user talk pages.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:56, 24 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and I wish you a happy holidays and a prosperous New Year. Boghog (talk) 13:41, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

HMB FAC #4

Now that it's finally a GA, I'm going to nominate HMB at FAC again within the next 2 weeks. I need to add 2 or 3 medical reviews and 1 primary pharmacology/cell biology source first though.

Are you still interested in working with me at FAC as a co-nominator? I'd be pretty screwed without you if I encountered another chemistry reviewer like Nergaal, hehe. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 22:55, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Seppi. Congratulations on getting HMB to GA. I am glad to help out with any chemistry related edits. I suspect there won't be too many, but you never know. Boghog (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Articles for Creation Reviewing

Hello, Boghog.

AfC submissions
Random submission

~5 weeks

941 pending submissions

Purge to update

I recently sent you an invitation to join NPP, but you also might be the right candidate for another related project, AfC, which is also extremely backlogged.
Would you please consider becoming an Articles for Creation reviewer? Articles for Creation reviewers help new users learn the ropes of creating their first articles, and identify whether topics are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. Reviewing drafts doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia inclusion policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After requesting to be added to the project, reviewing is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the reviewing instructions before making your decision. Thanks. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)} 02:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: 50S ribosomal protein L25 has been accepted

50S ribosomal protein L25, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.
The article has been assessed as Start-Class, which is recorded on the article's talk page. You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

You are more than welcome to continue making quality contributions to Wikipedia. Note that because you are a logged-in user, you can create articles yourself, and don't have to post a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for Creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk.
If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thank you for helping improve Wikipedia!

Boghog (talk) 15:17, 3 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]