Jump to content

User talk:Boghog

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by BQUB16Agutierrez (talk | contribs) at 07:25, 22 October 2016 (→‎About VGlut 3: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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.

trimethylamine monooxygenase and FMO3

Hey Boghog. Sorry to bother you with a merger issue again, but I just thought I'd double check with you to see if there's any reason not to go ahead with merging trimethylamine monooxygenase → FMO3. It appears to me that these are the same enzyme based upon:

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Based on expasy, there is only one human gene that encodes enzyme with trimethylamine monooxygenase activity, namely FMO3, hence I agree that these two articles should be merged. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 16:27, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Alright, I'll go ahead and merge them. Thanks for taking a look.
On an unrelated point, would you be interested in being co-opted as a nominator at the HMB FAC? It's pretty clear to me that I alone can't adequately address some of the more complex chemistry-related objections/concerns of some reviewers and I'm not entirely sure what kinds of information would be relevant or appropriate for a chemistry section. So, if you're willing to help out with addressing those issues at FAC and add any chemistry-related content on HMB which you believe is missing and can cite (I realize that not much data is available, so I don't really expect that much, if anything, can be added about its chemistry), I'd be happy to co-opt you as a nominator. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 16:38, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to help, but the biggest problem that I face is that I do not have access to SciFinder or Reaxys to locate appropriate sources of chemical information for HMB. Even if I did, it is questionable whether there is additional chemistry information that is notable enough to add the the article. The only thing I can suggest is that someone at the chemistry project might be able to a literature search and supply us with the citations. With citations, I could do the rest. Boghog (talk) 17:40, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm not sure precisely what you need so I downloaded PDFs of the properties and preparation reactions of HMB with the citations. I think this can also be downloaded in .txt or .xls formats if you prefer. Gresham et al. Journal of the American Chemical Society; vol. 76; (1954); p. 486 looks somewhat promising. Noti et. al published a 2012 patent on the preparation of HMB from 4,4-dimethyloxetan-2-one. Also ping @Seppi333: Download here Sizeofint (talk) 21:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sizeofint and Seppi333: Fantastic! Exactly what I needed. Now I should be able to significantly expand the chemistry section. I am busy during the week but certainly by this weekend, I should be able to work on this. In the meantime, I have down loaded all the files. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 06:38, 19 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FA

@Seppi333:sent--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:38, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ozzie10aaaa and Seppi333: Please send it me as well. We already have search results from SciFinder, so I don't think there will be anything new, but just in case. Also I remembered as part of my ACS subscription, I have limited number of searches I can do on SciFinder to fill in any blacks. Boghog (talk) 11:53, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[3] Seppi333 (Insert 2¢) 19:56, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Seppi333: Thanks. Unfortunately nothing new. Please be aware that most of the physical properties in this report are calculated (and therefore of questionable reliability). Also I am highly suspicious of references #1 and #2 (Gakhokidze). The method used by Gakhokidze to prepare HMB is very unlikely to have worked so I am not sure what the author was measuring. Boghog (talk) 20:02, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Converting ACCNx pages to ASICx pages

Hello,

I am contacting you, as you are very active in biochemical subjects. I do not want to take a major action without any consultation. The issue is this:

The Human Gene Nomenclature (HUGO) committee decided many years ago to name the genes coding for Acid sensing ion channels as ASICs. See the relevant page: http://www.genenames.org/cgi-bin/genefamilies/set/290 I think that in Wikipedia the gene names should be those approved by HUGO.

Currently ASIC1 - ASIC4 are redirected to ACCNx (x meaning a relevant digit).

I would like to cancel this redirect and transfer the current contents into the ASIC pages (that are currently redirected). Technically I know what to do to cancel the redirects and transfer the contents. After such a transfer ACCNx pages should be directed to the appropriate ASICx pages. I would appreciate reading your opinion on the subject.

Best regards, Genewiki1 (talk) 14:10, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Genewiki1. Thanks for your contributions! According to the article name guideline, it is recommended that Gene Wiki articles should be named after the UniProt recommended name if short, or the HUGO gene symbol if the protein name is verbose. Hence I agree with you that ACCN1, ACCN2, ACCN3, ACCN4 should moved to ASIC1, ASIC2, ASIC3, and ASIC4 respectively. Since there are no redirects from the target pages, all you need to move the pages (and also change the direct from ASIC1 (gene), ... to ASIC1, ... ). Note that it is not necessary to include the "gene" disambiguation in the article names since these gene symbols are unique. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:54, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Boghog. Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed reply. As per your approval I moved and then edited the 4 pages to the new names: ASIC1...ASIC4. I'd appreciate if you could check and report here if there are any problems. Best regards. Genewiki1 (talk) 11:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Genewiki1. Your edits look good. I have however edited the lead sentence in an attempt to make it as simple as possible so that it can be understood by a wide audience. As discussed here and here, we have tried to make clear in the lead sentence that these articles are not only about the human gene/protein, but also orthologs that exist in other species. The wording that was reached through consensus is perhaps a little awkward, but it is both accurate and concise:
The "that" in the above sentence is non-limiting implying that the protein (and gene) exists in other species besides human.
Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:14, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for checking and for the revisions. Genewiki1 (talk) 18:57, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited JMJD1C, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Histone demethylase (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) 10:56, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

removal of eurocentric bias, replace with diverse, multicultural, non-eurocentric detail

Regarding removal of eurocentric bias in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and corrected at revision Wikipedia policy demands that we must present neutral, unbiased consensus. The reference to European/American/Western authorities and the omission of non-white authorities directly conflicts with the policy on neutrality and bias. The world has changed, the eurocentric bias of the past is no longer authoritative and dominant. let us move forward and embrace and promote the diversity of world cultures.

That isn't balance either and some of the added sources are questionable.

The eurocentric sources currently prevailing are just as questionable (or valid, depending on your bias).

The African Journal of Biomedical Research, Myanmar Medical Journal, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences , Chinese Medical Journal are just as valid and reputable.

Wikipedia should not become a bastion of eurocentric authority and bias. Please let us progress.

We must strive to embrace diversity and promote a multicultural Wikipedia. Therefore, it is imperative to correct the wrongs and update the sources accordingly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.246.137.147 (talk) 04:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The place to discuss this is at the guideline's talk page. It is one thing to add to the list of reliable sources, but you replaced the list of Western sources with a new list of non-Western sources. This is not balanced. Also one needs to be very careful about sources. According to a Chinese government investigation, "80% of data in Chinese clinical trials have been fabricated". Science Alert. Boghog (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Another problem is that the list of journal that you have added (African Journal of Biomedical Research, Myanmar Medical Journal, Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, Chinese Medical Journal) as far as I can tell have not issued any practice guidelines, and hence do not belong in this list. Boghog (talk) 04:30, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, having both Western and non-Western source list is more balanced. Fabrication of research is not new, neither is it unique to the Chinese, it is a universal problem and is also a common issue in the west: "Fraud and misconduct in clinical research: A concern". Perspect Clin Res.. Should we also discriminate against western sources due to fraud? Favoring one (possibly questionable) source over another, based on ethnic/political/national affiliations or inclinations is indeed biased. We should not be swayed by political or ethnocentric interests when considering sources, but present balanced information. Prevailing western authority of scientific and medical matters is a form of cultural imperialism. Therefore, the inclusion or intentional omission of balanced diverse/international sources, where relevant, may indeed be an issue that needs to be addressed in a separate section of Wikipedia talk:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (talk) 04:50, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

About VGlut 3

Hello! thankyou for your help on editing the information about VGluT3. I´m not an expert about that, and I would like to know how can I change the sentences without change the real sense of the explanation? I would like to write it in the right way. Thankyou

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Boghog&oldid=745619527"