Jump to content

User talk:LLMHoopes

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by LLMHoopes (talk | contribs) at 23:46, 22 November 2018 (→‎Articles created or edited by LLMHoopes: added Shirleen Roeder to article list). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I expect to see responses from editors of articles I am working on here if I don't see their notes on the article talk pages fast enough.  I'll check here each time I open Wikipedia to work on editing.

I currently have sandbox versions of Mary Osborn (sandbox) and Joseph Gall (Be Bold). LLMHoopes (talk) 06:25, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome! I look forward to your contributions. Boghog (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Neal B. Abraham, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Greencastle (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) 09:14, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Currently I am working on two articles for my WikiEd Fellows class, Mary Osborn in Sandbox and Regulatory RNA in Sandbox3. The article for next week's review is Mary Osborn in sandbox.LLMHoopes (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

SandboxRuChih

Hi. You created SandboxRuChih as an article in the Wikipedia mainspace. It is clearly not ready to be published yet and given the contents, it seems you meant it to be a WP:DRAFT not an article. I've moved it to the draft space here: Draft:Ru Chih C. Huang where you can continue to work on it until it is ready to be published. Bennv3771 (talk) 11:39, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

Hi! I have some notes for you on the draft:

  • When mentioning that someone is an award winning person in the lead, it's best to specify the award. In the case of multiple awards, it should be the most notable of the group, such as "Emmy award winning". Just be careful of the term "award winning" since it's seen as a bit of a peacock term on Wikipedia because it's become associated with marketing people coming on and creating promotional articles. On that note, make sure that the article is written in a neutral tone in general.
  • With the popular recognition section you need to make sure that you show why the publication of this article was major, as it's considered to be fairly routine for an academic to publish in journals. Just make sure that any claims of notability for the piece are backed up with independent, reliable sources. (IE, if the only thing that backs up the claims of notability is the piece itself, it likely is something that should just be included in a bibliography section.)

I hope this helps! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 16:49, 13 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edits in my sandbox

My sandbox was not prepared for review when you looked at it. Much more info has been added. It is currently lacking a strong intro that will be tailored to non-chemists but the article is written for that purpose. I will add more references Jlf3756 (talk) 22:36, 17 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

==Sandbox inventory LH: Sandbox: Mary Osborn, ready to review. Sandbox3: Regulatory RNA in progress for creation after review next month. NewSandbox, BeBold, and Sandbox2: other articles I may work on later and have just started to work on.LLMHoopes (talk) 00:43, 18 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Current sandbox contents

The BeBold sandbox contains Jennifer Doudna article for editing The Sandbox3 contains a draft Regulatory RNA article The Sandbox contains a draft section of RNA on Regulatory RNA Sandbox, Sandbox2, and new sandbox are ready for use Sandbox Disamb has a possible disambiguation page for Reg RNA that was rejected LLMHoopes (talk) 00:14, 29 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bette Korber

Hey, I've made a few changes your recently article about Bette Korber. First, you included a little too much personal information which doesn't belong on Wikipedia, and I fixed some of the general formatting. Also, I noticed that you used LinkedIn as one of your sources. This isn't considered to be a reliable source on Wikipedia, so that will have to be changed. Other than that, it's a well-written article. Morphdogtalk 02:10, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Morphdog! I was wondering if you could clarify the stance on personal information. My general stance on this is that it's OK to mention things such as marriage and children in an article as long as the information is:
  1. Properly sourced with a reliable source that explicitly states the claim.
  2. The information is generally known or public knowledge - there is no obvious attempt to keep this information private.
  3. The information is neutrally written and is given the proper amount of weight in the article. (IE, only a sentence or two as opposed to 1-2 paragraphs.)
I think that since Korber's husband is a public figure, he would definitely be fair game to mention in the article - especially as his citations show that he would most likely pass NACADEMIC and merit his own article. LLMHoopes didn't mention the children's names but just listed a number, so their privacy isn't really violated. I just wanted to get more of a discussion on this. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:18, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Shalor (Wiki Ed) I just thought that some of her personal stuff didn't need to be included, since most of the article is about her professional accomplishments (which is also her claim to notability). For example, one of the points talked about how she played the flute, but didn't list anything notable relating to that. Reviewing what you said about his husband, I do agree that it's fair to mention him in the article.

Hi Morphdog, I will add back her husband. I also want to add the number (not the names) of her children. The guidelines for women scientists project includes instructions about how to phrase such information. I do feel that the fact that she has children and also is an accomplished scientist is an important thing for readers to realize since often articles claim the two are incompatible. I understand your point that her claim to fame is the science, but this aspect is also important in my view. Are you comfortable with that?LLMHoopes (talk) 19:04, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That works, by the way since the article is unprotected you don't need to ask anyone before you make changes, you can be bold. Morphdogtalk 20:13, 12 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks Morphdog! We wanted to discuss it with you first though, since the addition was contested. As far as my own viewpoint on professional accomplishments and articles go, I take kind of a holistic approach when it comes to a person's personal and professional life. Their personal lives do have some impact on the professional aspect and as a matter of completion: basically, it's reasonable that someone may ask about this and if it can be properly sourced and written, I like adding it. I can see where you're coming from as well, though. Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 13:54, 14 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red

Hi there, LLMHoopes, and welcome to Women in Red. I see you have already created three biographies of women scientists. I hope there will be many more. In this connection, you might be interested in our Ten Simple Rules. If you run into any difficulties or need any assistance, please let me know. Happy editing!--Ipigott (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

October 2018 at Women in Red

Please join us... We have four new topics for Women in Red's worldwide online editathons in October!



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/94|Clubs]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/95|Science fiction + fantasy]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|STEM]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/97|The Mediterranean]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 14:46, 28 September 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Get ready for November with Women in Red!

Three new topics for WiR's online editathons in November, two of them supporting other initiatives



New: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/98|Religion]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/99|Deceased politicians]] [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/96|Asia]]

Continuing: [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Meetup/00/2018|#1day1woman Global Initiative]]

Latest headlines, news, and views on the Women in Red talkpage (Join the conversation!):

(To subscribe: Women in Red/English language mailing list and Women in Red/international list. Unsubscribe: Women in Red/Opt-out list)

--Megalibrarygirl (talk) 18:40, 14 October 2018 (UTC) via MassMessaging[reply]

Beatrice M Sweeney

Thank you for expanding the research section of the article. I really appreciate it! I hope you don't mind, but I reformatted the references a bit to keep them consistent with the rest of the article. Matt J User|Talk 16:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Aces!

Hello! Just wanted to drop by and say that you're doing an excellent job! I'm a new pages reviewer and I just blazed through a bunch of excellent new articles on female scientists, a few of which were your creations. Hard to believe there are female members of the National Academy and female HHMI investigators who don't have Wikipedia pages!! Anyway, keep up the good work! If you have questions or concerns as you continue editing, don't hesitate to ask. Happy editing! Ajpolino (talk) 06:24, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tweeted

Thanks from Women in Red Victuallers (talk) 10:46, 2 November 2018 (UTC)[reply] 

 ==

Articles created or edited by LLMHoopes

  1. Mary Osborn Upgraded
  2. Ru Chih C Huang New
  3. CUR New
  4. Nettie Stevens Upgraded
  5. Joseph G. Gall Upgraded
  6. Terry Orr-Weaver Upgraded
  7. Neal B. Abraham Upgraded
  8. Laura Landweber Upgraded
  9. NCUR Upgraded
  10. Jeannie T Lee Upgraded
  11. Sarah Elgin Edited
  12. Joan A. Steitz Upgraded
  13. Laboratory Mol Bio Edited
  14. CSHL Edited
  15. Jennifer Doudna Upgraded
  16. X-inactivation Edited
  17. Ru Chih Huang (ref) New (cross ref)
  18. RNA (Reg. RNA) Upgraded
  19. Iwona Stroynowski New
  20. Bette Korber New (designated a Good Article)
  21. Histone Upgraded
  22. Charles Yanofsky Upgraded
  23. Christine Guthrie New
  24. Christine Jacobs-Wagner New
  25. Elizabeth Winzeler Upgraded
  26. Victoria Lundblad New NAS
  27. Beatrice M. Sweeney Upgraded
  28. James Bonner Upgraded
  29. Shirleen Roeder New NAS

Your GA nomination of Bette Korber

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Bette Korber you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 19:21, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Bette Korber

The article Bette Korber you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Bette Korber for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Ceranthor -- Ceranthor (talk) 14:41, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

DYK, image

Congratulations!!!! This is so awesome!!!

I looked at the image and it looks like they were talking about this link. I managed to find the image again, they moved it to here.

With DYK, we have an exercise for that here that walks you through the process. Essentially, you come up with a nice catchy hook and after that it'll be reviewed by other editors to ensure that the hook is in the article and properly sourced and all of those good things. It's not as intensive of a process as the GA process, to say the least!

Again, congratulations! It's going to be the first of many! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • I made a quick tweak to the DYK nomination page, mostly to format the source to how DYK usually styles it and to bold and link to Korber's article. One note I do have is that you may want to make a second DYK hook - I'm slightly worried that the hook you have is a bit too technical for most. Maybe rephrase it like this?
"...that Bette Korber created a database at Los Alamos National Laboratory that has enabled her to design novel mosaic HIV vaccines, one of which is currently in human testing in Africa?"
I simplified the first part about what's in the database to make this a little shorter. This could also be a possibility:
"...that Bette Korber developed a novel mosaic HIV vaccine that may slow or prevent HIV infection and is currently in human testing in Africa?"
This may simplify it too much since I left out the database part in order to give an explanation as to what the vaccine is meant to do. Definitely feel free to play around with these as you want. ReaderofthePack (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:53, 15 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page response

I figured I'd start a new section since it's not entirely about the DYK. In any case, I gave the IP a warning under my main account. If they continue to do this, let me know. I may give them one more stern warning before doing any other type of action, like a block. It looks like they may be just a bit of drive by mischief, but if it continues I can take further action.

I went and fixed the hook - it should show up on the DYK page now. If you wanted to try your hand at other hooks, a good idea is to look at the hooks on the main page or here for inspiration.

Here's another hook, if you were interested in another alternate:

"...that Bette Korber has described the creation of mosaic test proteins as her making "sort of little Frankenstein proteins that look and feel like HIV proteins but they don’t exist in nature"?Sainani, K. (2009). "Evolution and HIV: Using computational phylogenetics to close in on a killer". Biomedical Computation Review. Symbios, the NIH National Center for Physics-based Simulation of Biological Structures. pp. 20–31.

This quote just stuck out as really cool since hey - Frankenstein! (Sorry, big horror nerd!) There's also this:

"...that American computational biologist Bette Korber's work on creating HIV vaccines was partially driven by a close friend contracting one of the first cases of AIDS in Pasadena, CA?"McEnerny, R. (2010), "Tracking HIV Evolution", IAVI Report, 14 (3), pp. 4–9.

Definitely feel free to tweak these as you want! Shalor (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:28, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Shalor, I love these two and added them to the page, I hope successfully. But I still am having a problem with this page about November 14 listing for the DIK nomination:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created/expanded_on_November_14 It doesn't call up the hooks, just lists the command. If time permits, could you take a look at it? Meanwhile, I will respond re Jeannie T Lee. I wonder if this Mathglot is the same person who was trolling? Laura LLMHoopes (talk) 20:58, 16 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, LLMHoopes. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Missing National Academy of Sciences articles

  • I am still mainly working on biographical articles on women scientists, but I see that there are a lot of ladies in red among members of the National Academy of Sciences. Election to that group is a major honor awarded by the scientific peers of the candidate and thus I feel this group should be represented on Wikipedia. Most of the ones I plan to cover are women but there are a few men. I will only work on ones in the life sciences other than medical sciences.

The first article in this series was Victoria Lundblad. I will mark the ones in the series NAS in the list of articles on this page.LLMHoopes (talk) 06:36, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:LLMHoopes&oldid=870177859"