User talk:BeingObjective

'US Based Physician'

REMEMBER: WP:RAP before you type anything

Wikidata item description property vs Short description template inside the article

I could not find differences between Wikidata item description property vs Short description template inside the article. I thought that they are redundant and deleted many of them, but they found to be different. I read help sections of each of them and tried to summarize the difference at What are the differences betewen a Short description and a description from the Wikidata item? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:50, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

I am not sure - likely my error being new.

BeingObjective (talk) 20:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No, it is not your error. I just sent you the information. When you create pages or edit pages, verify the short descriptions as well. I sent you the link where you can find information on what is the difference between them. You don't have to put a definition, put the field covered, see Wikipedia:Short_description for details. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Please consider reviewing a couple of articles for the GA criteria

Would you please consider reviewing one or two articles nominated for GA in Biology and medicine by other editors? I submitted several articles for review, and if you help to reduce the backlog of pending nominations, other reviewers will catch my submissions sooner. Thank you in advance. I can help you guide for review process, although it is easy.

Prerequisites:

1. Read instructions at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing
2. Install the review tool

Review cycle:

1. Go to Biology and medicine and choose an article you like and click "start review", a page will open, save the page without any modifications; you will modify it later
2. Read the article you chosen and compare against Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria
3. If there are minor omissions that the nominating editor can resolve, discuss at the page (that page that you created in previous p.) so that the nominating editor could fix
4. Make a decision (pass or fail) and explain on each of the parts of the criteria
5. On the review page, a review tool will make links to conclude review, so click an appropriate link

Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:22, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Happy to do so - though I do need to read the guidance and seek a deeper understanding of this new WP world I have come to - in my prior professional world, I was mainly a content provider, the fine wordsmithing and elegant prose came from other writers - BeingObjective (talk) 19:42, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

There were some articles on medical interventions that might be familiar to you. I hope it will be interesting experience. You will be able to contribute better knowing the requirements for good articles. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:50, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

This one may be good for you to review: Coronary artery bypass surgery Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me see the article, I saw post on Talk about Drug-eluting stent‎, I will try to make opinion and write here to you. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:09, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think the articles I 'adopted' make sense - as all WP medical articles are all from multiple editors with contributions spanning many years - they all tend to 'bloat' with irrelevant nuggets of data that make them read oddly, too deep in places and too shallow in others.

I think the magic is in creating a balanced article - this is a challenge - on any platform or format - and in candor - perhaps that is fine, I am not sure gaining GA status means a lot - I noted the process and also the comments and I am super cynical that this process would hold up in a more traditional peer reviewed medical journal submission - this is just an encyclopedia after all.

BeingObjective (talk) 17:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I also noticed that in some instance there are more than 3 references together.

Please avoid more than 3 references as it may trigger Wikipedia:Citation_overkill edit warning. Preferably, there should be at most 2 references together. If all references are equally important, try to spread them acrsoss the whole paragraph rather than having them together at the end. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:54, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I had peer reviews in a two different peer-reviewed-journals about steroids, and this process is absolutely differnt. While in academic journals the reviews is mostly on substance, here in the GA review this is mostly on style and various wikipedia rules, like quality of sources, etc. Reviwers for GA more care about the process and style than on substance, but style is also very important! I am absolutely sure that GA will make the article better because additional eyes are always good, and people here know about Wikipedia traditions, especially those who have many reviews and many good articles published, but we may not know which reviewer will come. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:03, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I had the same problem as you described (old articles without any particular structure grown non-systemically) in the following articles that I edited:

• 21-Hydroxylase (already GA)
• Congenital adrenal hyperplasia due to 21-hydroxylase deficiency (nominated, waits in the review backlog)

It is easier to write an article from scratch with a friend or alone than to improve existing article. We made an article from scratch with another Wikipedian (who was later banned, in my opinion, unreasonably and unjust):

• Late onset congenital adrenal hyperplasia (already GA, passed review easier than other)

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:07, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I tried to read the article and noticed that the first sentence and an opening few sentences were not easibly understood by a broad reader audience who are not medics. I read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence again and tried to improve the article. It is now more descriptive. For example, a child of 12 years old might not have know what does the term "stent" mean, and it were previously like "A drug-eluting stent is a stent that..." but now it is friendlier: "A drug-eluting stent (DES) is a thin tube that is used to treat narrowed arteries ..." so a kid will understand that. As the lead progresses, there increases the complexity of terms, but the kid at this point may already receive general information on what a stent is.

It was suggested at Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#First_sentence to not make the first too complex and instead it was suggested spread the relevant information out over the entire lead.

Please see how the article looks now, feel free to modify or revert or discuss, I will continue reading in the meanwhile. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:45, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Totally agree, much of the language can be better targeted.

Oddly though, in these WP medical articles - they cite serious peer reviewed journals, no general reader would ever go to those sources - I actually wonder if prior editors actually ever read these articles or really understood them, I have serious doubts.

Unless you have performed a PCI procedure - describing the steps is problematical - in the PCI article someone took a run at it - I think this is a great example of balance and depth.

If you recall the article on tachycardia - I think this an example of a type of article that can never be written in a tone that is in GA guidance, it is true of a lot of mathematics/chemistry and broader technical articles.

The likely tone and tenor should be at the level of content that can be found from credible institutions such as the UK NHS/Mayo/Cleveland Clinic/Anderson and the like.

I think it is not a big challenge to tone down the lingo and tech talk in these articles.

BeingObjective (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Editors may not understand the content, but they usually use a simple algorithm:

1) is it a secondary source as a review (if yes, then OK, if not, then fail)

2) is the journal in a list of "low quality" or "predatory" journals (if yes, then fail, otherwise OK)

That's just their approach, they may even have a bot for such tasks.

I had a couple of problems when there was a claim in an introduction section of a primary research article that closely matched the topic of my article, and was not related to the results of the study, but the reviewers rejected it. For example, there was a statement like "ignoring alternative pathways of androgen biosynthesis may lead to diagnostic pitfalls" in an introduction section of a research article about cell cultures. I cited not for the cell cultures but for this conclusion about roles of pathways so it would not have been my speculation. Still the reviewer rejected my argument.

There may be very high quality reviews in journals that later got into a list of "bad journals" and nobody cares, they disallow to quote.

And vice versa, there can be big mistakes in reputable journals and still is is OK to cite.

I will give you an example an attachment. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:14, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Please send me an email via Wikipedia and I will reply, I'd like to send you a few documents. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that the tone of articles about medical things could be medical, but the first few sentences of the lead if not the entire lead should be for like a 12-year-old kid regarless of the topic, like for a snipped from a child encyclopedia. That's how I understood that, and I tried to write those introduction sentences for a such a child to understand. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

If you have access to elsevier, see contents of the following:

1. PMID 35987379
2. PMID 35985522

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:48, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I sometimes read or listen audio The Economist weekly newspaper, their science and technology section. I like their style, they are able to understand complex things in simple language. However, I don't read the rest of the newspaper, especially politics, because they are highly biased on that. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:20, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Quotation marks

I also noticed that there were some places with single quotation marks '

There should be double quotation marks "

WP:QUOTE

• AVOID: In a clinical setting a patient's description of 'pain origins' or 'pain nature' '🙁'
• USE: n a clinical setting a patient's description of "pain origins" or "pain nature" "😊"

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:47, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I tend to use that in a non-standard way - perhaps just removing these writing style oddities - it is not really intended to emphasize anything.

Another topic editorializing - check the PCI article - Percutaneous coronary intervention I think this is in MOS/MEDMOS guidance - perhaps, maybe, current thinking, studies have shown - it is rampant language in a lot of medical articles -- I do think many editors want to appear 'clever' - just my opinion - if you think about a usual encyclopedic tone - it is not like a journal where there is a legitimate debate - this study is to show that xyz.

A physician apparently was involved in the PCI article so I am surprised it got written in this manner.

BeingObjective (talk) 21:12, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I read current edition and it is much better than it was before you first started to edit it in 21 October 2023‎. Still, I see that the section "Controversy" is problematic. Let me analyze it and see what I can suggest. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:22, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

I think it is slowly taking shape - recall my only original thinking was to talk more about design considerations - There are some sections now lower in the article I actually have done nothing to.

BeingObjective (talk) 21:39, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

We can select one of two paths:

1. improve the article on Drug-eluting stent for GA; there are problems currently with references, but I will be able to resolve them so you could submit to GA
2. copy article content to Wikijournal and start working there. It has the same interface as Wikipedia, very convenient to collaborate by co-authors, and it has totally different rules; it does not adhere to rules of Wikipedia, but to the rules for a typical adademic journal.

You decide. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:08, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Your call - I have no issues with either thinking - BeingObjective (talk) 02:13, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

It depends on whether we can add more information on the following:

1. Comparative effectiveness of the different types of drug-eluting stents available, highlighting differences in terms of drug release mechanisms, efficacy, safety profile, and long-term outcomes.
2. Evolving research areas related to drug-eluting stents technology development or refinements aimed at improving long-term outcomes further reducing restenosis rates (e.g., bioresorbable coatings/drugs).
3. Cost-effectiveness cost-effectiveness of using DES compared to other treatment options over an extended period while considering various parameters like quality-adjusted life years gained and healthcare system costs associated with managing CAD patients.

These options are OK for both GA and the academic journal. However, for the academic journal, the review information should not be trivial, it should be an interesting and up-to-date review on the literature; all recent literature on drug-eluting stents should be analyzed.

What do you think on whether it is possible to collect items 1, 2, 3? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:23, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes - I think this area is good to start with - as I have an interest in it:

Evolving research areas related to drug-eluting stents technology development or refinements aimed at improving long-term outcomes further reducing restenosis rates (e.g., bioresorbable coatings/drugs

BeingObjective (talk) 02:28, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

@BeingObjective Can you write me an email via Wikipedia? Or contact me via Linkedin or Facebook, we need to set up communication. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:39, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

I finished on Drug-eluting stent

I finished on Drug-eluting stent, I've added a section on Society and culture and on Future directions.

Can you please review that then check the entire article again?

If everything is OK, then you can submit it for GA.

Anyway, we will be able to edit it while it waits for a reviewer. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:16, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Will do.

Many thanks.

BeingObjective (talk) 13:49, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

Congratulations on your first GA submission

Congratulations on your first GA submission!

The submission is at Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations!

However, you did click the "review" yourself by clicking a "Review" link, however, the reviewer should have clicked this link.

You may click this link on some other article if you wish to review it as a GA reviewer.

Please consider reverting that edit. To do so, go to Talk:Drug-eluting_stent/GA1 and try to revert the edits, but it is probably not possible to revert page creation. Therefore, you can simply delete all the text to have it blank and put edit summary that you created this page by error.

Than configure the future to reviwer on another page. To do so, go to Talk:Drug-eluting_stent and edit the parameters of "{{GA nominee|" template:

1. Update the value of the "page" parameter from 1 to 2;
2. Delete the value of the "status" parameter (it is now "|status=onreview|", it should be "|status=|").

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2023 (UTC)

CYP4F2

Can you please read the CYP4F2 article that I expanded and help me improve it for clarity and lack of errors? If you noticed that some information is incorrect, or just there are grammar errors or factual errors, can you please let me know? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 04:58, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me peruse the document.

Cheers. BeingObjective (talk) 13:57, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this reads very well, the big concern I have is - who is it really written for?

I am not going to edit anything - and if you get to the bottom of this diatribe, it will make sense as to why.

Technically, I think there are some over-reaching things, and areas that I think demonstrate the problem with these kinds of super technical articles.

I'll read it in finer detail later - these are initial impressions.

Recall the tachycardia dialogs on re-entrant electrophysiology - even after 43 years in medicine, I would be hard pressed to explain to my pre-med niece, how this really works.

I mentioned I do likely have as much R&D biochem background as medical - I am one of those 'I really would rather not deal with patients' types - there are more of us in the medical profession than you would imagine - I am giving you this information as context for the following input, I am more than a little cynical as to why many articles like this are in WP:

1. If you read something like the Encyclopedia Britannica's take on these deeper technical subjects, they are terse, light weight and really focused on a more typical reader of encyclopedic materials - though I think WP has some better 'takes' on some technical subjects - though it is super variable. So the target audience is going to be likely - a college level Biochem/Premed type - it is unlikely a pro., and I doubt many HS Biol/Science students are exposed to much more than 'what is an enzyme'.
2. Per our recent GA endeavor - so the lede is not written per GA guidance IMHO - I recall the theme of opening ledes as think of 'talking to a young person without any real/deep knowledge of the subject' initially and then building the article as one introduces new and more sophisticated ideas and terminology. I do not see that here, it leaps deep into the discussion at a very high level - certainly undergraduate Biochem. Though lower down it does talk this way - but not really in the lede.
3. Putting on my R&D Biochemistry Phd hat - I worked in a number of biotech startups were CYP enzymes were largely the target of therapeutic agents - I think if you peruse this term "CYP and clinical targets of therapy" - it will provide a lot of hits - like:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8657965/#:~:text=Human%20cytochrome%20P450%20(CYP)%20enzymes,%2C%20cellular%20metabolism%2C%20and%20homeostasis.
4. Perhaps disease states and CYP are another reason I might read it.
5. I'd argue this 'value as a therapeutic target' is at least ONE of the most important reasons a general individual might want to read such an article.
6. Is the enzyme at present in any active clinical studies - as a therapeutic target obviously, I did not read it in massive detail - if so, I'd move this higher into the article - I did work for a renal therapeutic outfit called 'Cytochroma' - they are still around in some shape or form - this was back in the 2000s but 'CYP' modulation was part of their portfolio - hence the company name.
7. I think I would offer the following input - I am a bit biased as I think most WP readers of these articles are not professional researchers and again per GA guidance - who really is the target audience:

a. Make the lede a super gentle introduction, moving materials of why these enzymes are important in a clinical/commercial/health context - into part of the lede - or at least higher in the article.

b. Build the article much more slowly, assuming the individual has a HS level education - so around 12 years of formal education. Perhaps even the first year of a decent University. In 2023 this is hard to gauge - but the thinking is sound.

c. I actually am not sure what GA guidance is for an article in this niche - I should read that before offering any opinions.

d. The are many 'side' discussions that refer to chemical processes that this enzyme is involved in (mixed-function oxidation reactions, plus some reductions and rearrangements of oxygenated species) so it leaps into an organic chemistry dialog in numerous areas - I think that again is expecting the reader to be more knowledgeable than most are. I think maintaining a tighter scope about the subject, makes it an easier read.

I do have to say this - and I am remaining WP:CIVIL - think I made that up - there is one particular recent editor who 'contributed' to this article - I have had really serious problems with - this individual is drawn to these articles and is fine with slinging the WP:LINGO - and also seem a very good technical writer.

This individual has no real knowledge, but will attack with little provocation if any edits get made - and that is weird as this editor had nothing to do with the article's inception, thinking or anything substantive - sure we are all a little unique - but this chap is provably contentious, loves to revert with no explanation and while the writing edits are really solid - they are not technical folks in any discipline that is relevant. Sure, anyone can edit WP - but should they be doing so?

I think this is fine broadly - but in summary - it leaps into a lot of technical discussion - though to me - it looks like it was copied from a postgrad text book and then a lot of CLOP applied. I am being brutally honest.

Not sure I have been helpful - but I think most of these types of articles have the same issue - a presumption that typical readers have the skills to comprehend - there are page stats - visits and such, perhaps I am wrong in thinking this way.

BeingObjective (talk) 15:38, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

On p.2, the WP:MCBMOS recommends to start straight as

"<recommended UniProt name> is a protein that in humans is encoded by the <approved HUGO gene symbol> gene."

which is already hard to understand by a wide audience, especially the word encoded. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:55, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I doubt you can make it read any simpler - but seriously, you are totally correct.

Encoded? This alone is a super thick textbook.

Proteins are enzymes are catalysts - perhaps this could be captured more simply.

Gene - and gene collectives - again a whole world in a word. Yup, I like to bold things - no clue to why?

I think any layperson would need to keep cross checking a dictionary - to read through any of this.

Just to challenge myself - I might use AI tools - I do wonder if I could paraphrase this one article so it could be understood at the level of perhaps a Scientific American article - I think that a fairly reasonable bar to set.

I do get cynical when some (I think you might be an exception to this rule) add edits and it is really clear they likely have so little background - I struggle with this - I have worked with many REALLY FINE technical writers who were not experts in a field - and they have great writing skills and can translate complicated ideas to a broader audience - I mentioned the one WP editor who I has a serious conflict with - the person is a GREAT writer, knows the WP lingo though WEAPONIZED them in an attack - but gets to opinionated on topics - check the Benzodiazepine article - I have some theories on this -- but this is a WP world and I do not want to engage in edit wars - it is an easy trap to fall into.

BeingObjective (talk) 18:24, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I want to be clear - and I have seen your biography - you are VERY well credentialed in many diverse fields - I do not want to appear in the least insulting - I assume you speak multiple languages also - I have seen your work - and it is impressive - just want to ensure that you do not think my cynicism is referencing anyone but the few WP editors who seem to get very upset with me - on a very simple set of ideas - one actually stated the holding an MD credential was a problem - made no sense. BeingObjective (talk) 18:30, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

@BeingObjective: I think that your analysis on the CYP4F2 is very important to show to the other people. Can you please copy it from here and post to Talk page on CYP4F2? I tried to rewrite the first part of the lead section after your observations to comply to WP:MOSLEAD, but if somebody may argue that the lead is overly simplistic or {{Over-explained}} I will point then to your arguments that are excellent! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

If we wrote this from scratch - I would expand and build it all around this section, if one can find data that shows active research on the enzyme - I'd use that also - the other sections are fine, but again, who is really reading this - do most people even have even basic knowledge - by the time you get to something that might connect to a reason to read - I might be so tired of checking the links - I'd never get to this section:

Descope the other parts - they are of interest, but this one section would be a primary reason for the existence of this article - there is a typo here.

Obviously, I am biased - and also lazy, would not read an article that has no relevance to my own existence - I think that is normal thinking - so I would read this as part of an assignment in college, in med-school - if I read something in a newspaper about a new drug - but not just for light perusing of WP.

Clinical significance[edit]

Genetic variations in CYP4F2 play a role in physiological processes and health outcomes.

One specific genetic variant which produces V433M substitution, denoted as CYP4F2*3, leads to reduced enzymetic activity due to due to decrease in steady-state hepatic concentrations of the enzyme. This variant has a role in eicosanoid and Vitamin E metabolism, in the bioavailability of Vitamin K, in affecting doses of warfarin or coumarin, and is also associated with hypertension, with increased risk of cerebral infarction (i.e. ischemic stroke) and myocardial infarction.

The enzyme also regulates the bioactivation of certain drugs, such as the anti-malarial drug pafuramidine and the anti-parasitic drug furamidine. Therefore, genetic variations in the CYP4F2 gene that alter enzyme function can impact the efficacy and safety of these drugs for patients receiving therapy. For example, individuals with a variation that leads to reduced activity of the CYP4F2 enzyme may not fully metabolize pafuramidine, leading to lower drug concentrations and reducing its effectiveness against malaria. In contrast, variations associated with increased enzyme activity could result in faster metabolism of pafuramidine and furamidine, leading to higher than expected drug concentrations which may increase the risk of adverse effects.

These genetic variations are considered in personalized treatments related to drug dosages and vitamin supplementation strategies.

BeingObjective (talk) 16:01, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

You raised a very good point, but I don't know how to apply it to things like biogenic enzymes. I haven't seen a single Wikipedia article on a biogenic enzyme on Wikipedia that would be as easy to read as the Encyclopedia Britannica; still Encyclopedia Britannica covers such topics very lightly, with very short articles if at all on the enzymes.

Thank you very much for your thorough feedback! Unfortunately, there is not much research on clinical significance of CYP4F2 as compared, for example, with other CYP enzymes such as CYP21A2, CYP17A1, CYP11B1/2, which are involved in steroidogenic pathways, or CYP2C9 and CYP2C19 which are involved in metabolism of a higher number of drugs than CYP4F2.

I think that the clasification of sections proposed in WP:MCBMOS is very good, a reader just can read a section most needed according to the level of interest / skills. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:52, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood - I think they are fundamentally challenging articles to write, and I totally agree that the EB articles are not that satisfying to read - not just these articles but in other more technological areas.

I think the articles on molecular biology are even more of a curiosity - but this article does read okay in the context of broader technical accuracy.

I just usually strive to make an article engaging - I think with the DES article this was fairly easy - especially considering that one could look at one single image and understand the procedure - describing the CYP proteins - is just not that easy.

More broadly - I often look at page visits - and I know there is a lot of debate as to an articles' value - again, not to be too repetitive - I do wonder who really reads these articles on WP. Perhaps I am too cynical.

Biographies of many people on WP - I really wonder why they are here - many are self-promoting clearly.

BeingObjective (talk) 18:06, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Medical articles templates

I found the following medical templates:

• Template:Article_templates/Medical_condition
• Template:Article_templates/Drug, treatment, or device
• Template:Article_templates/Sign or symptom
• Template:Article_templates/Surgerie or procedure
• Template:Article_templates/Medical test
• Template:Article_templates/Anatomy
• Template:Article_templates/Medical specialty

As for the sandbox, I never used this feature extensively on Wikipedia. Only used in Wikijournal of Medicine to work on the article. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:41, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Articles from scratch

To work on articles from scratch, yes, the sandobx should be OK, but when there are existing articles, which have worthful information, such information should probably not be simply overwritten without a justification, otherwise people may get enraged.

If there is no article and the subject meets notability requirements, it is better to use a new article wizard to create a new article, so an editor with skills with also check for it to meet notability requirements. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:45, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, search for a Wikidata item at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Wikidata:Main_Page. If a wikidata item exists, then edit this item to indicate the page on Wikipedia, so the wikidata item will be linked to your Wikipedia page (and vice versa). --Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Many thanks - not sure if there is a wacky WP article on this - but I am thinking of this subject - oddly, it does connect with a lot of my background and there is a super fun aspect of such a document - I need to check if it is what exists at this point.

I think I'm going for the New Article Wizard - have not checked if there is an article in this scope - there are many other articles that hit on aspects of biohacking.

Just a working title at this point - really, it is a Biohacking article - but I think I can see tissue engineering and synthetic organ generation as less fantastical ideas - then there is the whole social aspect to why one would have an Biohack medically performed. Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

• • Title: Biohacking: Synthesis of William Gibson's Neuromancer, Tissue Engineering, Human-Machine Interfaces, and Cyborg Realities**
  • Lede:**

Biohacking, a multidisciplinary field at the intersection of biology, technology, and cybernetics, has evolved into a dynamic realm where concepts from William Gibson's cyberpunk visions, tissue engineering, human-machine interfaces, and the sci-fi narratives of The Terminator converge. This Wikipedia article explores the synthesis of these diverse influences, examining how biohacking has transformed from a speculative concept to a tangible reality, redefining the boundaries of human-machine integration.

• • Sections:**

1. **Origins and Influences:** Trace the roots of biohacking, drawing connections to William Gibson's influential cyberpunk novel Neuromancer. Explore how Gibson's vision of a dystopian, technology-driven future has inspired real-world biohacking endeavors.

2. **Tissue Engineering and Synthetic Biology:** Investigate the contributions of tissue engineering and synthetic biology to biohacking. Discuss breakthroughs in growing tissues and organs in vitro, as well as the ethical implications of manipulating biological systems.

3. **Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs):** Examine the role of HMIs in biohacking, detailing the integration of electronic devices with the human body to enhance cognitive and physical capabilities. Explore examples of mind-controlled prosthetics and neural interfaces inspired by futuristic narratives.

4. **Terminator Influence on Robotics:** Explore how the iconic Terminator franchise has influenced the development of robotics within the biohacking community. Discuss the parallels between the Terminator's vision of AI-controlled machines and real-world advancements in robotics and automation.

5. **Cyborg Realities:** Define and analyze the concept of cyborgs in the context of biohacking. Discuss the integration of electronic components with the human body, from RFID implants to advanced bioelectronic devices, blurring the lines between man and machine.

• • References:**

1. Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Ace Books.

2. Langer, R., & Vacanti, J. P. (1993). Tissue engineering. Science, 260(5110), 920-926.

3. Warwick, K. (2004). I, Cyborg. University of Illinois Press.

4. Asimov, I. (1982). The Complete Robot. Spectra.

5. Mann, S., & Fung, J. (2001). EyeTap Devices for Augmented, Deliberative, and Inadvertent Cyborgization. Leonardo, 34(3), 203-207.

• • Wikipedia Template:**

```markdown

1. Biohacking: Synthesis of William Gibson's Neuromancer, Tissue Engineering, Human-Machine Interfaces, and Cyborg Realities
   1. Lede

Biohacking, a multidisciplinary field at the intersection of biology, technology, and cybernetics, has evolved into a dynamic realm where concepts from William Gibson's cyberpunk visions, tissue engineering, human-machine interfaces, and the sci-fi narratives of The Terminator converge. This Wikipedia article explores the synthesis of these diverse influences, examining how biohacking has transformed from a speculative concept to a tangible reality, redefining the boundaries of human-machine integration.

1. 1. Sections

1. **Origins and Influences:**

   - Trace the roots of biohacking, drawing connections to William Gibson's influential cyberpunk novel Neuromancer.

   - Explore how Gibson's vision of a dystopian, technology-driven future has inspired real-world biohacking endeavors.

2. **Tissue Engineering and Synthetic Biology:**

   - Investigate the contributions of tissue engineering and synthetic biology to biohacking.

   - Discuss breakthroughs in growing tissues and organs in vitro, as well as the ethical implications of manipulating biological systems.

3. **Human-Machine Interfaces (HMIs):**

   - Examine the role of HMIs in biohacking, detailing the integration of electronic devices with the human body to enhance cognitive and physical capabilities.

   - Explore examples of mind-controlled prosthetics and neural interfaces inspired by futuristic narratives.

4. **Terminator Influence on Robotics:**

   - Explore how the iconic Terminator franchise has influenced the development of robotics within the biohacking community.

   - Discuss the parallels between the Terminator's vision of AI-controlled machines and real-world advancements in robotics and automation.

5. **Cyborg Realities:**

   - Define and analyze the concept of cyborgs in the context of biohacking.

   - Discuss the integration of electronic components with the human body, from RFID implants to advanced bioelectronic devices, blurring the lines between man and machine.

1. 1. References

1. Gibson, W. (1984). Neuromancer. Ace Books.

2. Langer, R., & Vacanti, J. P. (1993). Tissue engineering. Science, 260(5110), 920-926.

3. Warwick, K. (2004). I, Cyborg. University of Illinois Press.

4. Asimov, I. (1982). The Complete Robot. Spectra.

5. Mann, S., & Fung, J. (2001). EyeTap Devices for Augmented, Deliberative, and Inadvertent Cyborgization. Leonardo, 34(3), 203-207.

``` BeingObjective (talk) 17:02, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think that this article on biohacking will be suitable for an academic journal, not for Wikipedia, because this topic is too controversial up to a point that you may be banned from Wikipedia :-( Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Ooops - there are oddly numerous articles - and mental illness/biohacking is not what I had ever intended. I think it is scoping the topic correctly, and yes - the term Biohacking is loaded and risky - but a more neutral less contentious approach to the broader topic might not be that weird. Human Augmentation etc. Also avoiding hints of eugenics and such are likely issue. I did work an an artificial kidney at one point - I need to consider at least a name and a lede that is not wacky nor controversial - there are numerous toned articles that really talk to self-mutilation and that was not what I was thinking - I need to ponder that matter more. BeingObjective (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I agree! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:51, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

My personal opinion is to avoid the topic of biohacking; I would personally avoid that. I participated in a few biohacking groups of researchers and enthusiasts, but then left; I would prefer more "orthodox" approach. However, this is just my personal inclination, I would not discourage you from this topic, I just can't be useful in this topic. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:17, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You make a valid point - let me ponder the matter - before I launch out into something that might be super weird - I might be better looking at something more in the mainstream - though even tissue engineering and organ growth - is not without its detractors. BeingObjective (talk) 17:26, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Biohacking is probably an abused term used by both credible scientists and diletants who think of themselves as biohacking genius and take bunches of pills starting from vitamins supplements and herbs and up to modafinil, aderral and duloxetin everthing together for the sole purpose of better and longer life. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:48, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I do not disagree - I think perhaps the term is not one that intended - at least after reviewing a general search - a lot of these types are a little fringe - the types that place metal under their own skins - this was not the intention of this proposed article - but other terms are also pejorative - and such articles do exist - I think I am searching for a title that is not so pejorative or loaded. BeingObjective (talk) 18:42, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Future improvement ideas

I had future improvement ideas to submit articles (which you think are ready for GA) to Wikijournal of Medicine, such as the article on Drug-eluting stents or on CYP4F2. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:52, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

My immediate plans

My immediate plans are to finish the articles on which I was working in the past:

1. HNMT – Mammalian enzyme involved in the metabolism of histaminePages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets
2. CYP21A2 – Human enzyme that hydroxylates steroidsPages displaying short descriptions of redirect targets

Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I think I am going to think on the matter of a future article that has titles such as - and perhaps it is a need for a creative element:

Human pathologies and the ethical limits of technological intervention

I think this title is likely not too wacky...and hits more traditional medical topics.

Perhaps it is a need for a creative element.

I am happy to contribute to your initiatives, as folks say over here - I hope I can chew gum and walk at the same time - not sure how global that expression is.

BeingObjective (talk) 17:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Issues on HNMT identified by the GA reviewer

Do you think that I have resolved all the issues on HNMT identified by the GA reviewer and listed at Talk:Histamine N-methyltransferase? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:42, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me take a look -

BeingObjective (talk) 23:46, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

I do have a deal I want to make though -

We live in a transactional world I am told - I am creating a personal document from scratch - I think it is a need to create something mildly unique - I know you had serious reservations about some of my initial ideas -

but this one I think has merit - and there are many WP articles that have tried to take a run at this - but I need a thoughtful reviewer with a broad education - and I think you tick all the boxes - before I submit - it will take a week or two before it is even vaguely credible - started it just this day:

Draft:Transhumanism and Technology

I am happy to collaborate, I think we have at least five articles that are clearly collaborations - and I am fairly happy about them.

Obviously, I'd review the article you requested anyhow - but I'd like to submit something that is going to outlive me - legacy and all of that.

Dr.BeingObjective (talk) 00:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you, I left my opinion on the page Draft talk:Transhumanism and Technology.

I may be wrong, but if you submit your draft, it will not pass, or, even if pass, sooner or later it will be deleted or merged. That is my main concern. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks - I can see the merge and such - perhaps just scratching and itch.

BeingObjective (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Why won't you submit it to an academic (peer-reviewed) journal? The whole article is written like it welcomes a discussion, and Wikipedia article is not a place for discussion, but a peer-reviewed is exactly such a place. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:01, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Let me ponder the matter - I totally understand the idea of 'Atomicity' - and really the question of is this really an 'encyclopedic' piece? - Before I do much more with this within a WP framework - I am going to review the existing documents - and there is a whole section in WP. BeingObjective (talk) 02:19, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

OK, thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:56, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Links and such.

Wikipedia:WikiProject Molecular Biology/Style guide (gene and protein articles) BeingObjective (talk) 15:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CYP4F2 lead

Can you please add information about CYP4F2 to the body rather than the lead.

The lead should brifly tell the whole content of the whole article.

If there is information in the lead but not in the body, it becomes harder then to edit the article.

Also, the lead should not include references, relying on retelling the information that was already referenced in the article.

I'd suggest to first fill up the body, and then it will be easier to fill the lead. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:42, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Now the problem is that the information on the group of enzymes presents in the lead but not in the body. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:43, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Understood - though to be candid - I am not actually sure I agree with the statement you made.

Perhaps I am totally missing the point of your comment.

I am happy to comply though - makes for a limited narrow lede if you think about the matter - forget the WP guidance, think about a technical article and its reader.

I totally agree that the lede (lead) - should be the summation of any articles content - I'd not be that super religious about not mentioning a 'super family' in passing - with no intention of doing any later deep dives later in the dialog - this might be in conflict with WP guidance, I totally get this, but it is extremely common in many articles - would you actually disagree with the aforementioned?

To be clear -- The article did mention CYPs as a superfamily - I did not add that - it was there long before I made an edit - there is no reason to dig into the side note - especially as excellent articles on both superfamilies do already exist - CYPs and Me-Transferases - I am super unclear why one would ever write more than a lede mention.

As with the gene expression - trying to explain it indepently in every single article - makes little sense - does it?

BeingObjective (talk) 16:03, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the explanation! The information you've added was very good for the body, but not for the lead. That's why I propose to first fill up the body and then think about the lead. Maybe there will be better information for the lead.

As about CYP4F2, it was not me who added general information about CYP enzymes to the lead. Although, CYP enzymes like CYP4F2 are similar, their substrates are also similar, but HNMT is very distinct from other enzymes.

My primary motivation to write articles about various enzymes is to describe how they affect health, not to describe from a pure biology or chemistry standpoint.

P.S. I'm now adding wikipedia articles about histamine substrates, making pictures of the formula, already added N(tau)-histamine (metabolite of HNMT), now working on a metabolite of DAO. It was also me who added information about DAO to the article, it was a stub before. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I think this is great - and we certainly do not have to agree on every single point.

As I stated, I would likely have just left this in the lede and have been totally comfortable not diving into the subject any further - just link it - as it was written - to the superfamily articles - it is only a sentence or two - and it actually does not belong or need to be in the body - per WP's own guidance, you will end up repeating information contained in the 'super family articles' and getting totally bogged down in far too much detail - there was no link in the his me-trans enzyme - it is really a methylating enzyme. Again, target audience and such - who are you really writing it for/to - or is it a matter of just following the guidance - I think one can be too literal when interpreting - and tbh - who is the reviewer of GA status - I looked a dozens of GA reviews and really - it is not a robust mechanism for defining what good looks like - I did mention a third editor - not such a bad idea.

DAO is fine and it is in most of the linked articles - and should certainly be in here - if it was not did the GA reviewer comment? BeingObjective (talk) 16:36, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I did not intend to prepare DAO for review, just added a few paragraph that I thought were important. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section,

In Wikipedia, the lead section is an introduction to an article and a summary of its most important contents

The lead is the first thing most people will read upon arriving at an article, and may be the only portion of the article that they read

The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. The notability of the article's subject is usually established in the first few sentences.

The main point of this article is clearance of histamine in a body and how it affects health, which effects histamine makes on the body and the body clears histamine in general, which consequences for the health are from polymorphysms and from enzyme inhibitors or inducers.

This is important to know for every human.

Although the process of methylation may be important, it may be somewhere in the body of an article, not in the leadd.

HNMT is not very well related to methylation, because it is very specific to histamine, unlike DAO.

Therefore, it is less important to describe methylation of various substances in the lead if HNMT almost exclusively metabolizes histamine. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I also think it is not very important to know in the lead than 230 families of methyltransferases have been described and that it is composed of 292 amino acids, of which 130 amino acids are a conserved sequence.

In my opinion, the following points are important:

1) what is histamine and how it affects health;

2) only two enzymes metabolize histamines (not 230 families): HNMT and DAO (in mammals, it is one of two enzymes involved in the metabolism of histamine the other enzyme is diamine oxidase (DAO). The enzyme catalyzes the Nτ-methylation of histamine in the presence of S-adenosylmethionine (SAM-e), forming Nτ-methylhistamine. The enzyme is present in most body tissues)

3) what consequences can have deficient HNMT for health. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 15:53, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I actually really do not agree - and the important element is " summary of its most important contents" - the word MOST - I think you might be being way too literal.

Bringing context - especially when an enzyme is really part of a far bigger group of entities - justifies some mention - surely? It was always in the CYP article - little was added to it, this was more or less how it was before you adopted it.

I will leave you to it - cheers BeingObjective (talk) 16:11, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

By DAO I meant Diamine_oxidase Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:50, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Yes - understood that.

BeingObjective (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

I looked to the formulas and did not find the oxygen in methylation. I did not understood the oxygen, so I omitted this detail and rewritten for clarity that way:

To facilitate methylation, methyltransferases transfer a methyl group (-CH3) from cosubstrate (donor) to a substrate molecule (acceptor), leading to the formation a methylated molecule. Most methyltransferases use S-adenosyl-L-methionine (SAM-e) as donor, converting it into S-adenosyl-L-homocysteine (SAH).

I think that is more clear now. I moved the details that you written to "species" section, emphasizing diversity across species.

In the lead, there is now the following:

Histamine N-methyltransferase (HNMT) is a cytoplasmic protein that belongs to the methyltransferases superfamily of enzymes and in humans is encoded by the HNMT gene.

Methyltransferases present in every life form, with 230 families of methyltransferases found across species. In mammals, HNMT is one of two enzymes involved in the inactivation of histamine; the other enzyme is diamine oxidase (DAO). HNMT transfers the methyl group (-CH3) from S-adenosylmethionine (SAM-e) to histamine forming Nτ-methylhistamine, an inactive metabolite, in a reaction called Nτ-methylation.

We will then add some more information to the lead, when the article will be about to ready.

Thank you for your valuable contributions.

Please let me know what you think of that (adding information to the lead later but now adding to he body). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

It seems fine. BeingObjective (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Your submission at Articles for creation: Transhumanism and Technology (November 30)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by BuySomeApples was: Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Transhumanism and Technology and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

BuySomeApples (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello, BeingObjective! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! BuySomeApples (talk) 05:06, 30 November 2023 (UTC)

GA reviews on modafinil and ketotifen

Thank you for your GA reviews on modafinil and ketotifen. Do you intend on finishing the reviews as described in Step 4 of the Reviewing process (WP:GAN/I#FAIL)? You wrote that the articles failed criteria, but you didn't update the status of the reviews. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 07:41, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

In candor,

If I understand the process - and I certainly do not, I should likely not be the editor making an 'apparent' final judgement, there are many reasons why. It seems a challenge to get editors engaged in GA reviews on some subjects, so I actually thought I was doing something 'good'.

Logically, I assumed other editors would engage - and my opinion would be one of many. This seems the case in other GA reviews. At this point in my short WP tenure - I am fine offering input - and I gave you direct personal feedback - not only here in the GA review - but in numerous prior dialogs about adopting older technical articles etc. I think I have donated a lot of time to these matters.

With deep apologies, I really do not have the time to dedicate further on these issues. I actually, have surgeries all morning - so I am toning down my adds.

I will not have time to further respond to your notes.

Many apologies.

Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 16:59, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

The good article reviewing instructions clearly state: "Once you start a review, you are committing to complete it in a timely manner. Do not stop half way through and just leave it." Did you read the instructions at all? If you do not return, your reviews will be considered invalid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

Greetings - kindly invalidate them.

Doctor BeingObjetive MD. BeingObjective 17:27, 1 December 2023 (UTC)

You are the only reviewer and you have to finalize the process, you cannot leave the review hanging in progress as it is now. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:23, 1 December 2023 (UTC)