User talk:Bernstein0275

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Hello, Bernstein0275, and welcome to Wikipedia! Sorry it took so long for someone to welcome you and thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! SmartSE (talk) 23:39, 21 November 2010 (UTC)


Before you go ahead and merge articles, you need to be sure that consensus has been reached! That is not the case with merging meiome into meiosis. It would be polite of you to have placed a message on the talk page a few days before beginning your edits. Nadiatalent (talk) 13:15, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I am sorry that I did not use the talk page to discuss this before merging the Meiome page. I am new to merging pages, discussing, etc. Thanks for the heads up on what is polite in these cases.

Could you please let me know the appropriate procedure, once pages are merged, for how one should proceed with the smaller pages that were merged into the larger page? Should I be trying to remove the smaller pages at some point? What if one smaller page is mine, and if another smaller page is not my original content?

The entire from page (Origin and function of meiosis) was not copied, but most of it was copied into the receiving page of Meiosis. The original text of the Meiosis page was also edited in about 3 sentences and about 1 removed sentence to integrate the sense of the Meiosis page with the added sense of the Origin and function of meiosis page.

In particular, while the Meiosis page acknowledged one possible selective advantage of the genetic diversity created by recombination during meiosis, the modified sentences also acknowledged the published theory that the genetic diversity was a by product of homologous recombinational DNA repair.

The newly added merged material had a number of references both to the "selective advantage of the genetic diversity created by recombination during meiosis" and to the "theory that the genetic diversity was a by product of homologous recombinational DNA repair." Thus, I believe that the merged material was not biased, and the added sentences and removed sentence(s) of the original Meiosis page removed a bias that was there. Bernstein0275 (talk) 15:38, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

I merged most of the first two sentences from Meiome (outlining the topic and its relationship to Meiosis) to the Meiosis page and updated it with material from a recent article in Science (referred to).

Hi, I don't do a lot of merging either. My guess would be to place the templates that you have used above on the talk pages of the merged-from pages and change those articles to redirects #redirect [[Meiosis]]. You should also check "what links here" from the toolbox, and change those to go directly to the substantive page. Nadiatalent (talk) 23:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)


I reverted all of your edits. First, a lot of them were uncited and read like original research. Also, you created some weird links. Finally, and this was the most challenging part, was that some of your writing was filled with technical jargon. We have to assume that the reader doesn't have a Ph.D./MD in oncology from Harvard. I don't think you did anything terrible, but you really should review some of the guidelines around here, and maybe try rewriting in your Sandbox and ask for some advise or something. Just a suggestion. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inherited human DNA repair gene mutations that increase cancer risk until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. SkepticalRaptor (talk) 21:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction[edit]

Hello, nice work at Sexual reproduction! I've tweaked the citations so they use citation templates in most cases, in line with other references in the article. I do this by typing {{cite journal|doi=<doi>}} and then getting the citation expander to do the rest of the work. See Help:Citation tools for other tools that you may find useful. Also, when citing the same reference more than once, it's better to use named references (which are now used in the Sexual reproduction article) rather than writing out the reference several times. Graham87 06:50, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Who is "our"? According to Wikipedia policy, an account must belong to just one person. It would be better to have a distinct account for each individual. You can email me about this using the "E-mail this user" link if you don't want to talk about it publicly. Graham87 01:48, 1 November 2012 (UTC)
Sounds fair enough then! Graham87 02:40, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Left a comment on Talk:DNA damage (naturally occurring)[edit]

Bernstein0275 (talk) 19:48, 15 August 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 14[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Heterosis, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Complementation (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) 10:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for catching this error! I have fixed it now to refer to Complementation (genetics). Bernstein0275 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 31[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Carcinogenesis, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages ATM and WRN (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) 19:18, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for catching these 2 errors, now fixed.Bernstein0275 (talk) 23:06, 1 April 2013 (UTC)

Sexual reproduction II[edit]

Hello, what are you trying to do to the Sexual reproduction page? I know you were previously trying to add links to your cited papers, which I reformatted. I'm not sure about your reasoning for the most recent edits to that page, however, so I've undone them for now. Graham87 06:37, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for reformatting our links!! I had previously failed to provide the URL for most of the citations to our open access journal articles in about 15 Wikipedia articles. These journal articles had been co-authored with my husband, and he had searched for and found the Wikipedia articles that did not have the URLs (for easy access to the articles with a simple click). I showed my husband how I could replace the previous Wikipedia citations without the URLs with new citations with the URLs. I am afraid that in the 15 or so replacement processes I inadvertently replaced your properly formatted link that already had the URL. I am still somewhat of a beginner at using Wikipedia formatting. I will try to be more careful in the future when I see the template format indicating that links were updated. Again, thanks for your care!

Citation suggestion[edit]

Hi. Thanks for your contributions to the inositol PARP1 article. In case you haven't seen this yet, please check out User:Diberri's Wikipedia template filling tool (instructions). Given a PubMed ID, one can quickly produce a full citation that can be copied and pasted into a Wikipedia article. This tool can save you a lot of work and ensure that the citations are displayed in a consistent manner. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 03:41, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. I have tried out the this template filling tool (gave the author a donation) and will try to use this tool to improve my citations. The tool seemed to work completely on many citations but on others it did not fill in the blanks. Bernstein0275 (talk) 17:07, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Secondary sources[edit]

Please use secondary sources rather than primary ones as references per WP:MEDRS. A 1980 primary research paper does not support "Bile acids appear to be of particular importance in colon cancer" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

July 2013[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Mitomycin may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.
List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:
  • *Complete reduction of C-6 - Likely via F420-dependent tetrahydromethanopterin (H4MPT)) reductase and H4MPT:CoM methyltransferase
  • other related findings, can be explained by the idea that during sexual processes in prokaryotes ([[Transformation (genetics|transformation]]) and eukaryotes ([[Meiosis|meiosis]]) DNA crosslinks

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 25 July 2013 (UTC)

I fixed our error and the other error on the page. Thanks

Recombination articles[edit]

Hi, I noticed your recent contributions to Genetic recombination. Have you seen Homologous recombination? There's a good amount of overlap between the latter and your recent contributions to the former, right down to the figure depicting the SDSA and DHJ (aka DSBR) pathways. The recombination articles as a whole could probably be organized much better, but I thought I'd point out the HR article in case it passed your notice. Cheers, Emw (talk) 00:32, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing it my attention!! Bernstein0275 (talk) 17:24, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


Nice edit on the miRNA article!!! —Love, Kelvinsong talk 03:50, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! Bernstein0275 (talk) 19:19, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

Asking for feedback[edit]

Hi, could you please take a look over Talk:Genetic_recombination#Mini-review? I'd like to get your feedback there if possible. Thanks, Emw (talk) 23:29, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Conflict of interests[edit]

Hi Bernstein0275, I noticed that you have been inserting content on DNA repair/damage in multiple WP articles (e.g., Natural selection, evolution, Schizosaccharomyces pombe, etc). Although I am sure DNA repair is a subject of significant importance in its own right, I am not so sure it deserves to be featured so prominently in general biology-related articles such as evolution and natural selection. Given that this is your area of expertise and that you have also inserted primary research articles that are co-authored by you and your collaborators, your edits may potentially violate Wikipedia's policy on conflict of interest, original research, undue weight, and NPOV. Please realize that Wikipedia is not an outlet for you to highlight your research interests or to highlight articles/books that were written/edited by you. I strongly recommend that you review important WP policies such as WP:COI, WP:NPOV, WP:OR, and WP:V before making further edits in this area. Thanks. danielkueh (talk) 18:16, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have reviewed the policies.Bernstein0275 (talk) 15:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion about your edits[edit]

Hi, I have started a discussion at the molecular and cell biology Wikiproject about your edits. Can you take a look at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#Self_published_source_widely_used_in_articles? Thanks SmartSE (talk) 15:48, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I have discussed this now on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Molecular_and_Cellular_Biology#Self_published_source_widely_used_in_articles. Thanks. Bernstein0275 (talk) 17:36, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)