User talk:Chaya5260

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

Welcome[edit]

With respect to sourcing please use high quality references per WP:MEDRS such as review articles or major textbooks. Note that review articles are NOT the same as peer reviewed articles. A good place to find medical sources is TRIP database Best

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 16:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. I will try to use more review articles in the future.

Welcome!

Hello, Chaya5260! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! Reify-tech (talk) 17:49, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines

The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Carcinoma[edit]

Thanks for your work on carcinoma. Could I echo James' message above - only secondary sources (reviews/textbooks) are acceptable. Have a look at WP:MEDRS, which outlines the requirements and gives a good amount of useful guidance. JFW | T@lk 22:38, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

I will go back in and remove 11 references to articles of original research (from the 19 previous references in the new section). This will leave review articles and a few supporting relevant articles from well established academic journals. Thanks for your advice.Chaya5260 (talk) 20:02, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. We make quite a big thing about this but it really pays off in terms of article quality in the long term. Great to have you around.
Let me know if you need assistance with anything. JFW | T@lk 21:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 21[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Seed, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Viability and PARP (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) 09:10, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 29 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the reference [52] referred to was correct, but to play safe I replaced the reference using the Wikipedia Template Filling page. I hope this helps.Chaya5260 (talk) 18:12, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 10[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Nature of life, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Irreversible Process (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) 08:48, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

There is an article titled Irreversible process. It is a proper link, as far as I can tell.Chaya5260 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of Nature of life for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Nature of life 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/Nature of life 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 notice from the top of the article..Barney the barney barney (talk) 20:24, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Technical writing[edit]

Hi Chaya, I noticed you're continuing to add much too technical content to articles even after being warned not to do so in some of your previous edits. You're essentially creating a WP:COATRACK by going into discussions about general reproduction biology and mechanisms, etc. when the article is about a single species. This kind of writing wouldn't be accepted in scientific publications (key concept there is being concise), and isn't appropriate for Wikipedia either (see WP:TECHNICAL). For instance, we don't explain in every article for Chordate species that they have a notocord at some point in their life. That becomes redundant and unneeded and is the equivalent of what's at issue here. I'm happy to help with guidance on this, but the main thing is to actually stay on topic. I don't know what your background is, but the kind of writing you're displaying is a problem we often run into when teaching undergrads in science how to write, so you definitely wouldn't be the first. Hopefully this ends up helping with content you add in the future. Kingofaces43 (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm sorry I got carried away in this manner. I plan to scrutinize my planned additions in the future to avoid doing this. Thanks for the advice.
I've noticed quite a few of your recent edits are running into the same issues I described awhile ago to you. It looks like you've started copying and pasting part of this edit across different articles when going into description of parthenogensis and thelytoky is largely out of scope for a taxonomic article. I highly suggest keeping such broad descriptions as you did in your first paragraph to articles actually focused on the topic such as parthenogensis. If you come to a species or taxonomic level article, first make sure the content isn't already included in the article as what happened at termite, and use wikilinks instead of going into a full-blow explanation of terminology. Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Hermaphrodite, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Phyla. 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) 12:21, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, but be careful[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. Here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:

  • Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
  • Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest. Many new editors cite themselves mainly. That behavior is unacceptable and generally is removed.

If you have questions, many editors can offer advice. Happy editing, --Smokefoot (talk) 23:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice.Chaya5260 (talk) 02:48, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Secondary sources[edit]

There are lots of high quality secondary sources pertaining to diet and cancer. Please use these as references. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 11[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Sex pheromone, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Terrestrial (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) 09:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chromosomal crossover, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Viability (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) 16:37, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

The page "Viability" has the definition I intended of "Viability is the ability of a thing (a living organism, an artificial system, an idea, etc.) to maintain itself or recover its potentialities."

Disambiguation link notification for September 27[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Chromosome segregation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Chiasma (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) 10:44, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I fixed it.Chaya5260 (talk) 03:19, 28 September 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

Hi,
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) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

January 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Hymenoptera may have broken the syntax by modifying 4 "[]"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:
  • This form of automixis has been observed in several ant species including the desert ant ''[[Cataglyphis cursor[['',<ref name="pmid15576621">{{cite journal |vauthors=Pearcy M, Aron S, Doums C, Keller L |title=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:09, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 28 April[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:19, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

May 2016[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Malacostraca may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"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:
  • [[inbreeding]] that can lead to expression of [[Zygosity#Homozygous|homozygous]] deleterious [[Dominance (genetics)|recessive mutations.<ref name="pmid19834483">{{cite journal |vauthors=

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Inbreeding in fish[edit]

I put your piece about fish inbreeding in my sandbox if you want it? Muffled Pocketed 13:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for June 6[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited MCM8, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page RAD50 (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) 10:25, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Secondary sources[edit]

These are really preferred over primary sources. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:22, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Copying within Wikipedia requires proper attribution[edit]

Information icon Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. It appears that you copied or moved text from Ovary into DNA damage theory of aging. While you are welcome to re-use Wikipedia's content, here or elsewhere, Wikipedia's licensing does require that you provide attribution to the original contributor(s). When copying within Wikipedia, this is supplied at minimum in an edit summary at the page into which you've copied content. It is good practice, especially if copying is extensive, to also place a properly formatted {{copied}} template on the talk pages of the source and destination. The attribution has been provided for this situation, but if you have copied material between pages before, even if it was a long time ago, please provide attribution for that duplication. You can read more about the procedure and the reasons at Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia. Thank you. If you are the sole author of the prose that was moved, attribution is not required. — Diannaa (talk) 19:02, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your caution. In this case I was the sole author of the article moved from Ovary to DNA damage theory of aging.Chaya5260 (talk) 21:58, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 29 September[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:22, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for October 2[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Cancer syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page 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) 10:56, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 4 October[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:21, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Transformation[edit]

Hey, I see you have been updating some articles about bacteria. Thanks! Natural transformation is a math thing; we have an article on Transformation (genetics). Please try to keep all articles in WP:SYNC. I have gone behind you and done some of that. Jytdog (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I am sorry I did not use standard Wikipedia terms.Chaya5260 (talk) 02:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
it's ok! nice work and thanks for improving WP! the sources you brought were very good. Jytdog (talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)


Multiple overlap[edit]

Hi, welcome, and thank you for your many detailed, knowledgeable and well-cited contributions. However, I see you are adding long, similar sections on transcriptional regulation in cancer to different articles on genetics, including:

We should not be repeating material many times across different articles. It will become hard to maintain (any update would need to be made repeatedly, for instance) and people reading different articles will be disturbed by the repetition.

Whether these are WP:UNDUE is a matter of opinion, but that they are similar is not in doubt. It would make more sense to create a single article on that topic, and to link to it with a brief summary in each of the other articles.

There are also various minor matters that ought to be fixed - for example, the additions contain boldface text, which they shouldn't be using.

Could you please stop the series of additions until we have discussed and agreed a suitable way forward. Thank you. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:27, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The exact (and inappropriate) match of the listed and struck-out (now that I've processed them) articles has led me (per WP:BOLD) to factor out the duplication as a new article, Regulation of transcription in cancer, and to link to it from each place. I have indicated where further work is needed to remove duplication. Please don't do this again. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
This also goes back to one of my previous comments above in how we avoid WP:COATRACKING content (e.g., not explaining meiosis each time it comes up in another organismal topic). Kingofaces43 (talk) 16:41, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Ah, thanks, I hadn't spotted that. So it's been going on a while, then? I'll take a look at the meiosis thing. It shouldn't be too hard to do things a little better. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:51, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I actually haven't looked at meiosis for awhile, but that's one of the first types of edits I recall from over two years ago since it was a broad topic they write about while adding it to other articles. I haven't been checking up on this much since my conversation with Chaya back then though. Kingofaces43 (talk) 17:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe that topic was "Multiplicity reactivation"; another candidate for overlap is "Inbreeding depression". Probably there are others. These don't seem to be quite so copy-and-paste as the recent edits, but they do seem to be rather coatrackish in articles on other topics. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I am sorry that I had not looked at the talk page until now. I understand that it was inappropriate to have made multiple overlaps. I will stop entering the series of overlapping additions as you requested. I see your method of correcting my previous additions, and agree with it. I have just started looking at your alterations; your wording for a brief summary referring to the new article; and the new article itself, Transcriptional regulation in cancer. I have some concerns with the wording for the brief summaries linking to the new article and may make edits in these summaries shortly. Thank you for your thoughtful work on this.Chaya5260 (talk) 22:56, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:32, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The reworked section in DNA methylation is certainly an improvement, but it is now very long compared to all other disease/physiological sections in that article, so we have gone around in a spiral. If the new material does not belong in the Regulation of transcription in cancer article (which I'd have expected, perhaps as a chapter named Methylation), then we should create another new article, say Methylation in cancer or Hypermethylation as a cancer mechanism, something of that sort. Right now it again looks like a WP:COATRACK in the DNA methylation article, where after all cancer is just one of many sidelines. Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:52, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I will shorten it. I may move some of it to Regulation of transcription in cancer. Thanks for your commentsChaya5260 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I plan to first move most of my reworked section to a new article DNA methylation in cancer, and then shorten the section in DNA methylation. Chaya5260 (talk) 19:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Sounds ideal. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you help on Conserved sequence?[edit]

I wonder if you could take a look at this article? I suspect has enough overlap with your area for you to be able to improve it somewhat. Whether it can be refactored I don't know, but perhaps you could update it and add some much-needed refs. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I think I can help with the CG islands section, which is not clearly written. I plan to work on it shortly.Chaya5260 (talk) 16:11, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe I fixed the CpG islands section, including citations.Chaya5260 (talk) 02:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems much improved. I guess we now need to extend the lead to summarize all the sections in turn, in simple language... maybe I'll start it off (likely full of mistakes). Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Chaya5260. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

References[edit]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your reminder to not put original research into medical subjects. I will also now take out the sub-heading of synthetic lethality and the first paragraph describing synthetic lethality. I will leave in the mechanism I added under the current sub-heading of Mechanism.Chaya5260 (talk) 22:16, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires proper attribution[edit]

Hi. I see with this edit you included material from a journal article that is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license. That's okay, but you have to give attribution. I've added it for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this legal requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa 🍁 (talk) 17:29, 1 January 2017 (UTC)