User talk:Quercus solaris

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


Depression rating template[edit]

Hey, I like your new template, {{Depression scoring tools}}. Are you really going to write articles for all the items on there? --Eastlaw (talk) 02:25, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

My idea was that I would do this much for now, and people could turn the black list items into bluelinks over time as articles are created. I realize that it would be ideal if I would create them all, but it is more than I have time to pursue. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


(from Webster's 7th Collegiate): derive vt 4. to trace the derivation of. Elphion (talk) 23:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

All that close attention I was paying to both Collegiate and Third at, and I didn't check that! Thanks for dropping some knowledge! Quercus solaris (talk) 03:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
And thanks for taking the initiative on the Etymology section -- I've been eying it for a while now. Elphion (talk) 04:08, 26 November 2009 (UTC)


This not appropriate "For example, cursory Google Ngram Viewer searches find attestations of this sense of "stroke" from the 1700s, and earlier ones can probably be found with more search term design and effort." as a reference as it is original research. See WP:NOR.

A guideline on referencing medical content can be seen here WP:MEDRS. Have moved the content in question to the history section were it fits much better. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:26, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Point taken—already understand (and don't disagree) re refs and OR as general principles—was just trying to fix a trivially falsifiable flaw in the coverage, but I was rushing through it slightly too much. I am satisfied with the end result that you helped to shape. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 22:52, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

About the edits on Penile cancer[edit]

You are correct in stating that I was unable to add the N or M information. I was looking at it and thinking "At what point does copying this chart become plagarism?" So, I was trying to copy it all on there, but started thinking about the possible plagarism issue. I do agree that the chart in the reference is very detailed. Steel1943 (talk) 15:20, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No problem, I understand both viewpoint angles. I am with you on the desire to have WP be as complete as possible, and for the reader to find everything they need right here without leaving. However, there may be some kinds of information, especially on health and medicine topics, where we can give them the full big picture, but we may as well point them to a (good, noncommercial) reference for certain details, because we may not even be able to put all the details here without committing copyvio (as you mentioned). I think full cancer staging info may be one of those types of details. But it's OK, because WP still has the potential to be the single most valuable place to go first for info, even if readers eventually click out into the cited refs to learn more. Take care, Quercus solaris (talk) 15:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you![edit]

A small cup of coffee.JPG Wow! Drug pollution is a great idea for an article! Thanks for getting it started. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks! Quercus solaris (talk) 18:25, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

January 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Halide 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:
  • ''hal-'' syllable in ''halide'' and ''[[halite]]'' reflects [[Halogen#Etymology|this correlation]]). All [[Group 1 element|Group 1]] metals form halides that are white solids at room temperature.

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 21:17, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Life Technologies (India)[edit]

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Life Technologies (India) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person, organization (band, club, company, etc.), web content or organised event, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, you can place a request here. Shrikanthv (talk) 13:24, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


Please do not remove sources, as you did at Jargon. You have been around long enough to know all the policies I would usually point out to newcommers about verifiability, original research, and reliable sources. Yet this edit removed a source in order to add your own suggestion that jargon can shift from shibboleth to widespread usage. While that may be true, it is not license to remove and replace verified information. Cnilep (talk) 01:52, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I didn't replace anything, and I didn't remove a source in the way that is bad/provocative. The statement was that the words bit, byte, and hexadecimal are now (fairly) widely known although they once were not. That statement doesn't actually need a ref. Normally I would never have removed a ref since it was there already, but I removed it to take care of the concern that you pointed out (which was that it was no longer clear, after the further development of the content, which specific portion of the sentence the ref was supporting). The concern was fair, so I edited to avoid the problem. In terms of Wikipedia content development, the ways that argot, jargon, and shibboleths are sometimes connected to each other conceptually needs to be concisely mentioned and linked in their respective articles. This isn't my own suggestion, it's part of the ways language is used. That sentence does it concisely the way I edited it, without needing that particular ref. I can go see about doing it another concise way that preserves that ref, but it's not worth circumlocuting just to hold onto that particular ref for that particular clause (which doesn't need it). I'll see what can be done with it. Quercus solaris (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2014 (UTC)


I thought we had resolved the issue but in this edit you are simply replaying the material that was discussed in February with no attempt to discuss it or provide any more support than you did before. Please either find verification from reliable sources for the assertion or stop trying to impose it in this way — this is becoming disruptive. Deltahedron (talk) 16:48, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No—before the discussion was about what the expansion officially was or wasn't. That has been established now. What I was doing in the recent edit was simply pointing out that it's not emphasized in the branding. But, speaking of being disruptive, since you are so incredibly worried about not stating that even though it is obviously objectively true, I won't bother to add it again. I wouldn't have added it today (it's not a big deal) except that I didn't happen to think about the possibility that you might confuse the former for the latter (what it is vs whether it's emphasized) and have a fit about it. No worries—your version can stet, it's good enough. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Please do not be offensive. However, I am glad to hear that you are willing to abide by Wikipedia's core policy on verifiability. Deltahedron (talk) 17:32, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
And I'm glad to try to resist distortions of it, as well (per Wikipedia:Common knowledge > Acceptable examples of common knowledge at "Plain sight observations that can be made from public property"). Quercus solaris (talk) 18:11, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
If you seriously believe that requiring verification for the statement in question is a distortion of policy, then raise the question at an appropriate venue such as the Wikipedia:No original research/Noticeboard. Deltahedron (talk) 21:56, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Which I see you have now done. I have responded there. It would have been courteous to mention to me the fact that you had done so, particularly since you choose to complain of my conduct there as well. Deltahedron (talk) 11:23, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Invitation join the new Physiology Wikiproject![edit]

Physiology gives us an understanding of how and why things in the field of medicine happen. Together, let us jumpstart the project and get it going. Our energy is all it needs.

Based on the long felt gap for categorization and improvization of WP:MED articles relating to the field of physiology, the new WikiProject Physiology has been created. WikiProject Physiology is still in its infancy and needs your help. On behalf of a group of editors striving to improve the quality of physiology articles here on Wikipedia, I would like to invite you to come on board and participate in the betterment of physiology related articles. Help us to jumpstart this WikiProject.

  • Feel free to leave us a message at any time on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • You can tag the talk pages of relevant articles with {{WikiProject Physiology|class=|importance=}} with your assessment of the article class and importance alongwith. Please note that WP:Physiology, WP:Physio, WP:Phy can be used interchangeably.
  • You will make a big difference to the quality of information by adding reliable sources. Sourcing physiology articles is essential and makes a big difference to the quality of articles. And, while you're at it, why not use a book to source information, which can source multiple articles at once!
  • We try and use a standard way of arranging the content in each article. That layout is here. These headings let us have a standard way of presenting the information in anatomical articles, indicate what information may have been forgotten, and save angst when trying to decide how to organise an article. That said, this might not suit every article. If in doubt, be bold!
  • Why not try and strive to create a good article! Physiology related articles are often small in scope, have available sources, and only a limited amount of research available that is readily presentable!
  • Your contributions to the WikiProject page, related categories and templates is also welcome.
  • To invite other editors to this WikiProject, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • To welcome editors of physiology articles, copy and past this template (with the signature):
  • You can feel free to contact us on the WikiProkect Physiology talk page if you have any problems, or wish to join us. You can also put your suggestions there and discuss the scope of participation.

Hoping for your cooperation! DiptanshuTalk 13:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

May 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Synesis 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:
  • ') and "The same is true for ''the total'' and ''a total of''"<ref name="AMA_10_7.8.11"/> (thus ''the total was growing'' but ''a total of 28 volunteers have submitted applications'' (not *''

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 20:15, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Monomer 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:
  • '''monomer''' ({{IPAc-en|ˈ|m|ɒ|n|ə|m|ə|r}} {{respell|MON|ə-mər}},<ref>{{cite web |url=http://dictionary.reference.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 19:11, 27 May 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I hesitate to raise this, but when I looked at this article its lead immediately struck me as an extreme example of the common problem with Wikipedia medical articles of being written purely in technical medical terminology. This is something that WP:MEDMOS very explicitly deprecates. I was surprised to find, on examining the page history, that the article had in fact been better until your edits of last October [1]. The page had previously had the non-technical word "cancer" right at the start - "Adenocarcinoma is a cancer of ...." and then later in the (very overlong) paragraph. Your edits removed both mentions, leaving for someone without a bit of medical training really no indication in the lead at all that the subject was anything to do with cancer. This article receives over 500,000 page views per year, btw; they won't all be medical students revising.

I am Wikipedian in Residence at Cancer Research UK and part of my role (funded by Wellcome Trust) is to improve our content on cancer-related topics. When the experts at CRUK look at Wikipedia medical content they are struck at least as much by the over-technical language, in something aimed at a general audience, as issues with accuracy. The problem is especially acute because, as here, the technical language is concentrated in the lead, and often in the opening sentences with the definition of the subject. Those who write and user-test web material professionally know that the great majority of web users simply will not continue with a page that starts this way - they'll go back to their browser search and find one of the other pages in the first page of results.

No doubt most of your edit was useful, though I doubt the very detailed stuff on the scope of the term belongs in a first paragraph, but as I am working, by myself and with other editors, to make our articles, and especially the leads, more suitable for the intended audience, it is concerning to find relatively recent edits by a regular medical editor that are going in the opposite direction.

I share your irritation with old unexplained clean-up tags, which you also removed in these edits, but sometimes they have a reason to be there. Here the 2nd section "Signs and symptoms" only describes those for one or two cancers, does it not? Actually, it doesn't seem to match very closely any set of cancer symptoms I can find on a quick look in a standard text. It should probably be removed entirely. Further down the lists of other sites were linked to eg esophagus not esophageal cancer, and so on.

I hope this doesn't cause offence, but with so few regular medical editors it is important that we are all pulling in the same direction. Thanks for all your valuable work on cancer-related topics. I hope you will take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject CRUK, where the project is coordinated. Wiki CRUK John (talk) 11:47, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi John. I'm afraid you didn't look carefully enough at my edits and at what they did or didn't do. To see what I mean, you can step through the diffs one at a time (not in popups—they don't show the diff properly—but as whole diff pages). I used numbers below to make the organization of my reply clear. (1) It is not at all true that I remove the linked word "cancer" from the first sentence. It was still there after my edits. (2) There is only one diff that has any substantial amount of "diff-age" (this one). If you look clearly at what I did there, it is quite simple (as follows). (3) I only changed the lede, and only in certain places. I didn't change it extensively (didn't rewrite it). (4) I edited to cover the ontology of "what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"—which is why I added, for example, the sentences "Adenocarcinoma is the malignant counterpart to adenoma, which is the benign form of such tumors. Sometimes adenomas transform into adenocarcinomas, but most do not." I moved the sentence containing "VIPoma" (I didn't write it or add it), and the move was part of editing for the reason mentioned ("what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"). (5) I did add the pronunciations and plural forms (here), but that info is standard for WP ledes to include. That's considered basic info for the general audience (not just for experts). (6) That's it—that's all I did. (7) From there, to talk about the bigger picture: I share your desire to make WP articles useful for a general audience. If you wanted to move pronunciations and plurals to a section (move down, out of the lede), I would not object. As for ontology ("what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"), that's not technical mumbo-jumbo at heart—that's fundamental info. Some of it can, again, be moved down, out of the lede, if you want, as long as the lede doesn't distort via omission. Granted that a big part of pedagogy is "bite-size pieces"—a general reader can only handle so much at once. The article should still contain all relevant info, but nonetheless should also present it in drill-down format (so each reader can decide for him/herself how far to drill before stopping). I don't rewrite whole articles for reading level adjustment or pedagogical maximization—it's not what I have time to do at WP. A look at my contribs history shows that 95% of what I do at WP is info tidbit addition and ontologic fixing, both generally in small chunks (small edits, not rewrites). To sum up, I share the desire for both good info and good readability, and an analysis of my edits disproves the idea that I'm rewriting anything into an overly technical state (because I'm almost never rewriting and because my edits seldom are any more technical than what it takes to accurately say "what the subject is, what it isn't, what it's related to, and how so"). My advice is WP:BE BOLD—if you think the info should be rearranged into a different order of presentation (for example, moving some info down, out of the lede), go for it. If I see valid info being deleted entirely, I generally push back gently, working cooperatively to find a way where it is still covered but perhaps buried deeper in an article. I lack time to thoroughly analyze everything that appears on my watchlist, but I try to skim it and at least keep an eye out. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 19:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Abject apologies - indeed I didn't read the diff correctly. It was in fact this ISP's only edit which removed "cancer". Sorry to waste your time having to reply to this. I will be redoing the lead at some point, but on checking there were some serious downright errors lower down (fortunately not that common in our major cancer articles), which it was more important to correct. I'm no enemy of precision, but we need to find ways to combine that with accessibility. Thanks for you understanding! Wiki CRUK John (talk) 22:00, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

August 2014[edit]

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Vancouver system 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.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Concerning Pathology[edit]

[Please see Talk:Pathology—thread moved there.]

Vancouver style[edit]

Hi, I left a question at Talk:Vancouver_system#Author-date_or_author-number.3F. Cheers, AxelBoldt (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

The SU-25 issue[edit]

I'm not sure anyone directly answered your questions, so I'll take a stab at it.

The entire theory that an SU-25 was involved in the shoot-down is based 100% on photographs of the wreckage. I believe this might be a single photograph, because that is all I ever find, this image.

Peter Haisenko claims that this picture indicates that the aircraft was hit by cannon fire, as evidenced by the holes in the fuselage. He then goes on to identify the SU-25 as that aircraft. This answers your question about the AA missile.

How he comes to this conclusion is beyond me. For instance, many of the holes in the image are much smaller than the cannon rounds on the SU-25. A missile explosion causes shrapnel of all shapes and sizes, whereas a cannon round is always going to leave a mark at least the width of the round (although it may be elongated into a eclipse or raindrop shape depending on striking angle). Further, one might convince yourself that there is a radiating pattern to the marks in the image, which suggests a single point of explosion a short distance away from the fuselage some distance in front of this fragment, as opposed to a number of objects hitting from a common point at a much greater distance.

The idea that a SU-25 was the aircraft in question appears to have been selected purely because one such aircraft was claimed to have been in the air hours before the event. Why that is important I don't know, but in any case, very simply the SU-25 could not possibly reach this airliner close enough to engage with its cannon. It doesn't make a difference if the aircraft can or cannot reach this altitude (everything I've seen says it cannot), doing so would require the aircraft to be flying at the extreme edge of its performance envelop. The fact that the aircraft is much slower than a 777 at that altitude makes the entire idea all the more ridiculous. I refer you to the desperate and failed measures that the Soviets had trying to intercept U-2's with MiG-19s, in almost identical relative terms.

For anyone even remotely aquatinted with doghouse plots the ridiculous nature of this claim is self-evident. Of course most people aren't familiar with them, and probably never heard of a SU-25 either. Haisenko has been attempting to rescue his credibility the instant someone pointed this out, and is now claiming we're at fault for his lack of basic military aircraft knowledge.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:48, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Maury. Sounds pretty flimsy—admittedly I am not knowledgeable enough about planes and weapons to independently assess, but it sounds like other conspiracy theories—fueled by a need to believe a particular story. The cannon vs missile, as you said, answers the thing I was wondering about. Thanks again. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

A beer for you![edit]

Export hell seidel steiner.png No dregs in this beer: it's a clear pilsner. Also, no good deed goes unpunished. :) Drmies (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Cheers! Quercus solaris (talk) 18:31, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Noun adjunct?[edit]

You're out of your mind. That stupid quote? Thing is totally POV. Go ahead and revert again.Stealstrash (talk) 05:45, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

  • You're more than half wrong (about 80%). Here are the ways you are demonstrably wrong:
    • First, personal attack "out of mind" is incorrect.
    • Second, the quote to which you refer was already removed in my revision (it was not restored after your edit). Did you even look? Guess not, judging from your comment.
    • Third, it is demonstrably wrong that all of the section, as of my previous edit, could be called POV. The first two-thirds of it states observable facts. It is only the last third that was sharing with the reader a reasoned guideline followed by a group of professional editors. That last third could be presented in a way that is not POV (such as "group X follows guideline Y [reference citation Z])". But we do not publish our guidelines in a way that can be cited publicly. They are internal. So I will just remove that portion when restoring the facts that precede it. Quercus solaris (talk) 18:18, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Welcome 2015![edit]

The very first edit of 2015, congrats! Lgcsmasamiya (talk) 00:01, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Just came here to say the same thing. Well done! Have a Happy New Year! - JuneGloom07 Talk 00:08, 1 January 2015 (UTC)


Can you provide refs for Dental_caries#Usage_note Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:14, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Systemic therapy[edit]

Please take a look at Talk:Systemic therapy (psychotherapy)#Redirect on 3 March 2015 for a discussion of the best way to deal with Systemic therapy, which you recently moved and redirected. Thanks for your help. Biogeographist (talk) 13:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Non-salt ionic compounds[edit]

I'm interested in this edit of yours. I'm trying to get the Ionic compound article into shape, and have been musing over the separation of definitions between Ionic compound and Salt (chemistry) for a while. Can you give a simple example of something that is clearly an ionic compound but cannot be thought of as a salt? Cheers. --99of9 (talk) 05:42, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

This is an interesting and valid question. What is the true ontologic relationship between ionic compounds and salts? Clearly they overlap substantially on a Venn diagram. Do they overlap 100%? Are they always synonymous? Is there any ionic compound that could not be called a salt? Is there any salt that could not be called an ionic compound? I'm not a chemist, so I'm not sure. I can definitely vouch for why I made that edit. It's because of this. There's no way a WP article on ionic compounds shouldn't mention the word "salt" even once, let alone not in its lede—but that's the state I found it in. So I popped the bubble, or knocked over the information silo, by broaching the topic of their relationship, with a link. I figured I could at least say that "salts are a major class of ionic compounds". The broad overlap of the Venn diagram then seemed duly addressed. Even chem 101 students know that sodium chloride is an ionic compound and is a salt, and that the same is true of potassium chloride, calcium fluoride, and dozens of others (at the least, any alkali metal or alkaline earth metal plus any halogen). But now that this talk thread got me thinking about it, though, as I ponder two statements, namely (1) "salts are a major class of ionic compounds" and (2) "ionic compounds are a major class of salts", they both fail logic, to the extent that I as a non-chemist can tell. Based on my current understandings of the accepted definitions of what ions, acids, bases, and salts each are, I deduce that (1) "all salts are ionic compounds" and (2) "all ionic compounds are salts". Guess it's time to poll some chemists. If the 100% Venn overlap is true, then the articles would ideally be merged (the second term redirecting to the first term) and sentences would exist making the ontology clear (for example, if the article title = salt (chemistry), then a sentence in the lede might say, "all salts are ionic compounds because they are compounds with ionic bonds." It would be interesting to get to the bottom of this and edit the articles accordingly. I don't have resources to invest in doing so (for example, finding time to interview a chemist or two), but maybe the existence of this talk thread will draw some chemists here who can answer. Cheers, Quercus solaris (talk) 22:58, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks, it's helpful to know where you're coming from. I will certainly ensure that the articles are at least linked to one another if not merged (which I have also considered). I'm a chemist, but it's still not completely clear to me. I think it's possible that the Venn diagram is not identical, or even a subset relationship. If Salt="substance produced by interaction of equivalent quantities of acid and base" (Penguin Dictionary of Chemistry), some of these may not be ionic [even though wiki requires that as part of our current definition] as they may have significant covalent character. At the same time, there may be ionic compounds that cannot be produced via simple acid+base because the ions are not stable in water (perhaps a reaction with water). Anyway, I just wondered if you had a specific chemical exception in mind when making that edit. Cheers. --99of9 (talk) 00:49, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to else to get in touch with you...[edit]

...because the e-mail contact link that came with the wiki-notification turns up a page stating that you have not supplied a valid e-mail address. But you reversed my reversal of a redirect of 'Idiomatic' and my subsequent creation of a new page with that title--in good faith, I am sure--and I am too new at Wikipedia editing to know how best to deal with the consequences.

I removed the redirect and created that 'stub' because I used the term 'idiomatic' in a music biography of Francesco Barsanti, and I thought it would be important for some users to find a quick definition of that term as it is used in music. Now that you have reversed what I did, the 'blue link' to the new page won't work. What is the best way to handle this so that my original intention can be carried out?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Recorder485 (talkcontribs) 01:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I fixed it. By piping the link ([[instrumental idiom|idiomatic]]), it now points to the desired target. It turned out that there was already a Wikipedia article on the topic, under a related title. So I redirected idiomatic (music) to there. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 02:21, 20 June 2015 (UTC)



I've been puzzling over your description in the first edit you made to this article on 22 January 2014, of monocyte nuclei as being "unilobar", when the image clearly shows the two cells' nuclei as being multilobar. Was "unilobar" correct there, and how so?
(I came to this from trying to figure out where the name "mononucleosis" came from, since nearly every cell in the body contains a single nucleus. The name doesn't seem to make much sense.) Milkunderwood (talk) 03:04, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Hi. I'm pointing this Talk thread to the other Talk thread (Talk:Monocyte#Unilobar?). Will follow up there. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 13:16, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks very much for posting your explanation at the Monocyte talkpage. I've added a note pointing there, to my original query at Talk:Infectious_mononucleosis#Meaning_of_name.3F. I'm sure that like myself, many more Wikipedia users come to the Mononucleosis page looking for information than to the more technical Monocyte article. If there's a fairly simple way to explain the origin of the name of this disease within the article, I think it would be a great help. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
I had thought to add a "See also" at the Mononucleosis article, pointing to Monocyte, but am not sure how to do it correctly. I think only a simple and brief explanation of the name would be needed at the disease article, with the fuller explanation at Monocyte. Milkunderwood (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. I tweaked the ledes of infectious mononucleosis and monocytosis to incorporate their connection via nomenclature and excessive monocyte count. Should take care of it. Thanks again. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Maybe I'm beating a dead horse here -- especially finding now that other editors have been arguing with your attempts to explain the name. I have no idea how to find how many hits the article on Mononucleosis gets (surely in any case this truncated name gets many more than the actual page name Infectious mononucleosis). But I assume that the great bulk of these hits are from lay people simply wanting to know about the disease, rather than from professionals checking to make sure the article reflects the current literature.

And maybe I'm the only one of these who wonders about an apparently nonsensical name, "mononucleosis", when any 8th-grader ought to have been taught that except in very special circumstances, every cell in the body contains a single nucleus -- that is, is "mononuclear". I must be one of the extremely few users curious enough to go to the Monocyte page hoping, in vain, to find an answer, only to find instead a new and unrelated nonsensical description of a mononuclear cell that is clearly illustrated as being multilobar but is described, nonsensically, as unilobar instead.

Can you see the dilemma? Whether or not it may be worth trying to explain in plain simple English why an obviously multilobar nucleus is called "unilobar", it still seems to me that explaining in plain simple English at the Infectious mononucleosis article how it got that apparently illogical name, would be helpful to Wikipedia users, even if it had not occurred to most of them that the name is in fact absurd.

No medical jargon: "Since nearly every cell in the body has a single nucleus--is "mononuclear"--it may seem strange that for historical reasons, the disease is called "mononucleosis". This is because ..."
Milkunderwood (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Amen—This is actually all a part of the very same problem that is being discussed in the talk thread below this one. Often when you try to explain stuff like that on Wikipedia, which (explaining) makes perfect sense from one angle (the angle of trying understand exactly what you were exploring above), you get someone else telling you "I shouldn't have to learn history (or linguistics, or whatever) here—this is a medical article, you're so silly for thinking it's got anything to do with words or history." The words we use in natural language to refer to things, the current era's medical/biological definition of what those things are and how they relate (or not) to each other—if you try to handle that on Wikipedia, you'll always find the people who come back reverting your edits (either when they are made or months or years later) because they assume that those things can always be mutually exclusive and have nothing to do with each other. You have to keep trying to thread the needle—explain, and don't fail to explain, but yet don't use any words that anyone may need to learn, even if you provide the link to learn them, and make your explanation short, but at the same time use circumlocutions because we don't want to use certain words that are shorter. And don't use a conversational tone (e.g., see "it may seem strange ... This is because" above), because Wikipedia isn't conversational, but also don't use any big words either, and write plainly not high-falutin'ly. Threading that needle from all directions simultaneously is not easy and trivial. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:41, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
 :) Thanks--and good luck. I see what you mean there; like trying to deal with a vipers' nest. To hell with non-experts just looking for information in an encyclopedia. A few years ago I found and copied onto my user page this wonderfully ironic motto for Wikipedia: "Remember, the reader is the enemy." Milkunderwood (talk) 02:11, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Ha ha. Yeah, it's tough, although I still maintain some hope. I still like, and work on, Wikipedia; it's just quite frustrating sometimes. Fortunately I think Wikipedia still ends up being pretty good, for what it is, or for what it's worth, although maybe a layperson looking for deeper understanding has to also turn to a place like Quora in order to get answers that Wikipedia doesn't (yet) supply adequately. Of course at Quora, just as at Wikipedia, one has to hope that someone who knows the answer will bother to write it up. But it's frustrating because Wikipedia could be closer to a whole solution if people (Wikipedians) would let it do everything it needs to do. Anyhow, thanks for the chat, see you around. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

June 2015[edit]

Information icon I've restored a number of your edits that lack any form of sourcing. Please do not add personal theories in articles. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:26, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

None of them are personal theories. They are all accurate. I just don't always take the time to dig up references to cite when building content that I know is accurate. I will keep in mind the idea of being stricter about that going forward. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Especially when it comes to anatomy and medicine-related articles we try to be very strict, and I don't mean to be rude in reverting you, but there is a lot of quackery, the best way to avoid it is to require proper sources. Dorlands medical dictionary doesn't really do it when it comes to WP:MEDRS. Also we try to keep linguistic terminology to a bare minimum when outside that article group. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 14:59, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hang on, I totally respect your effort to guard the quality on medical articles, but it's a serious problem, and one that won't stand up to follow-up discussion, to claim that Dorland's and other medical dictionaries aren't good sources. That's just inaccurate and not tenable. And there's a major, untenable problem with the second point. You can't write encyclopedia coverage without dealing with ontology (information science) in splitting coverage of the different senses of a word among appropriate articles. For example, that's why hat notes exist, in many cases. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Also, please be careful about assuming stuff, for your own part, that may not be accurate. The edit summary on this edit is an example. And please note that I did not create the nursing diagnosis article, I only added one (now referenced) sentence to improve its explanation. Quercus solaris (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi i reverted this edit also. THe problem with that one is that it was linked to the home page which provides no information about the topic. verifiability is a core of WIkipedia. i think if you source your content well you will have less issues. Without knowing the actual url or a page number we can not verify that something is true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jadeslair (talkcontribs) 15:24, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
OK, point taken, I will seek to narrow the parameters in the citation to point to the headword itself. But your edit summary was misleading. It is just plain incorrect that "the source does not support the statement". It most certainly does, at the headword's definitions, which include both senses, numbered, in order. Nothing in any of my edits is "made up" or OR. Part of working in good faith on Wikipedia is to work toward improving another editor's valid content contribution, not just deleting it and making it sound like it's imaginary. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 16:13, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The point isn't that ontology or linguistics are irrelevant, just that most readers don't recognize what a word sense is without clicking the link. And since the articles aren't on linguistics the link doesn't belong. It's not difficult to rephrase using less technical terminology, and if you can't you should leave it out of the article entirely. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 22:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for discussing. Almost agree, but with an important objection. I totally get your desire to explain everything such that people don't even need to click a link to understand it—and yes, that's the grail we are always striving for, and the content development is never truly "done" until we reach that day—but there are limitations in reaching it, and in the meantime, before that day of pedagogic perfection, we don't want large inaccuracies on basic ontologic structure only because we're afraid of the need to click a link. There's an important chunk of ice under the surface, whereas that view of "such that people don't even need to click" sees only the supposedly trivial tip—but it isn't trivial, it just speciously appears that way. The problem is that "ontology or linguistics are [not] irrelevant" does not effortlessly coexist with "should leave it out of the article entirely"—not as effortlessly as one might assume. "It's not difficult to rephrase using less technical terminology" is sometimes way easier said than (successfully) done. Sometimes articles contain inaccuracies or misleading omissions—failure to explain—and mentioning things like word senses is actually the most direct way to fix it—the least wordy, in fact truly the simplest—even despite that laypeople would prefer not to bother to click on what a word sense is. As a practical example, which just happened in recent days (see the talk thread above this one): A layperson may well want to know why, if "mononucleosis" and "infectious mononucleosis" "mean the same thing" (air quotes), then why do both names exist? And why would anyone ever use the longer one? And if there's any other kind of mononucleosis besides infectious, then how do they relate, and why on Earth don't the Wikipedia articles already effortlessly show me, guiding me around between articles, laying it all out with such perfect pedagogy that I hardly even realize I'm being taught anything? Ah, it's all so apparently easy, but this is at the very heart of ontology and why it is not trivial. Just mentioning the simple, nontechnical fact that "words sometimes mean more than one thing" is only a basic beginning. Far from being linguistics PhD mumbo-jumbo, it's the simplest way to handle resolving the confusion. Quercus solaris (talk) 22:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)


Thanks for editing arica nut 12 hours ago which helps me a lot in understanding the aricholine- a parasympathomimetic cholinergic alkaloid drug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:39, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

You are edit warring on Denatured alcohol[edit]

You're not supposed to delete a dubious tag. I explained why I thought your addition was dubious, and now we need to discuss it first before the tag can be deleted. As for the word immiscible being there all the time, it's not present in the version immediately before your change, nor have I been able to find it in the couple of other versions I checked. As for this being a basic fact, if that's the case I'm sure you can find a source that says so. WP:V, basic Wikipedia policy. With a little googling I found references that directly contradict this though, showing how easy it is to separate immiscible liquids. Martijn Meijering (talk) 18:23, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

Reference errors on 10 August[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) 00:18, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Edits on endocytosis[edit]

Hi Q s - just to say that you have introduced terms into the lead that are not mentioned in the body - do you want to incorporate these into the lead? Thanks --Iztwoz (talk) 11:06, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

I see you're right that active transport and exocytosis are not mentioned in body. Will see about adding there. Quercus solaris (talk) 21:32, 24 August 2015 (UTC)
There's also pinocytosis. There are other things in the lead pre-dating your edits that are also not mentioned further. Cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 22:22, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

Color decisions[edit]

Read your concern on Village pump on link colors. Wanted to drop this link here cus I think your input would be valuable. MGalloway (WMF) (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

I want to create new article with your help[edit]

Hi I'm in orthodontic profession and I wanted to create an article about different analysis being used in Cephalometric. In this article I wanted to create the name of analysis and a table following it giving the information about angles, number etc being used. There is lot of analysis out there which are not readily available for reading. I think I can do a good job of putting everything together but I would need your help. You see me to be the only working on this article recently. If i create an article, would you help me better it? and possibly prevent bots from deleting it haha? Thanks

Hi. Sure, I would certainly try my best. I am not an expert on the topic, but I may be able to offer editing help of the type where "educated layperson can see what is meant and can help to express it clearly." On guarding against deletion, one defensive option is to develop the new content within the existing article first, and only spin it off to a new article if it becomes quite long. Regards, Quercus solaris (talk) 21:34, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Thank you so much for your reply. So within few days I will start adding to the current article details about different analysis, starting with the ones that are most commonly used. When you think the information is getting too much on that one page, we can shift the information to the new article then. Thank you! ur the best User:hgcool23
So I made some edits to the cephalometric analysis page. Would you be able to check to let me know what you think? Based on your input, I will go ahead and slowly add more information over the next few weeks. In addition, as I'm adding more information, you may want to consider making the subsection "Types of Analysis" a new wiki page. But that's a future discussion. User:hgcool23


As a frequent Wikipedia user, I must say how hugely I appreciate contributors/ editors like yourself. As I read the very informative entry on neurotransmitters, last edited by you, I note the section on neurotransmitter imbalance generally contradicts the reference on that section. I don't even know if you edited that section. If I can find time and figure out how to do so, I'll edit it myself. Thanks for what is clearly a great deal of devotion to this incredible resource. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Les Doc (talkcontribs) 03:06, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. We all do what we can! I'm sure you're probably right about the discrepancy you noticed. It is not uncommon that something turns up needing improvement. I am not an expert, so I may not be able to help with the content, but I encourage you to take a crack at it. I can help with editing syntax difficulties if needed. As for my editing of content, it comes a little bit at a time, as I learn about each topic and make edits to Wikipedia where I can tell they are needed. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Carbolic Soap[edit]

I agree with your "Useless Tags" edit on Carbolic Soap. "Might" is exactly the right word, not weasel words in this instance. Teachers had a choice to use it or not, the tag was used in the wrong way not understanding the context of the word. - chrisf8657

Butt plug[edit]

Please don't remove sourced information from articles without a consensus to do so from discussion on the talk page. In particular, don't replace sourced information with unsourced information: if you believe the information is incorrect, find a better source which can be used to support your contention. BMK (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

I did not remove any reference at all, or blow anything off. I added to the information already there. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

plse use an edit summary[edit]

Information icon Hey, Quercus solaris, if you could be so kind, can you toss in a small edit summary when you edit? that would facilitate working through my watch list a lot. plus it's a simple form of WP:netiquette /paying respect to others.... FYI: i don't write this on someone's talk page, because i have nothing better to do. i mean it. its easy, so do it!--Wuerzele (talk) 02:35, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

I write one when an effective one is straightforward without being a book. My edit history shows the ones that were worth it. There's a cost involved in writing them when one's edits are substantive (as opposed to mere copyediting). For the editing I do, sometimes composing a good one costs time and yet also wastes that time, because by the time it's crafted, it is superfluous for anyone who looked at the edit diff itself. Meanwhile, if you write an edit summary that is anything less than expertly crafted, it sometimes draws poorly thought out reverts from people who passed a hasty book-by-its-cover judgment based on the edit summary without due consideration of the before-and-after of the edit itself. Yes, that has happened to me multiple times. In the end analysis, my time is as scarce and valuable as other volunteers' time. Under Wikipedia:Assume good faith, for the edits where I don't write a summary, I am thereby telling other watchers to evaluate the edit itself on its merits, or else assume my good faith if time isn't available for that. Whole paragraphs of justification can be worked up at Talk if they are requested. The idea is not to waste time on that workup process unless requested. Quercus solaris (talk) 02:49, 18 November 2015 (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) 13:52, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Help Regarding Patrolling[edit]

Hi! So I've been lately adding/creating articles about different subjects in Orthodontics, especially biographies of famous Orthodontists. Sometimes it takes the bot about 3 weeks to approve my edits. I tend to only move forward once bots have accepted my initial creations because if i create 10 articles and all 10 get rejected, then I get discouraged and don't spend as much time. Therefore, I tend to take it slowly and create articles very carefully and make sure they are fully sourced etc. Is there any way I can speed up this process where my pages can be approved much quicker? I would really appreciate it because I feel 3 weeks is a long time to wait for bots or other patrollers to approve my edits. Please advise! Thank you again like always

I might be able to patrol them myself. You could list one here when it is created (otherwise I would not be aware) and I could try to give it the "OK" and then mark as "done" here. My knowledge of (and interest in learning about) the bureaucratic aspect of page patrolling is limited, but there's a good chance that this plan may work without my having to become an expert on that topic. I believe I have patrolled at least one new page before. In my understanding, as long as I can tell that the page is not "bad" in any way (WP:COI, fictitious entry, or whatever), then I can give it the "OK" by clicking a button. Thanks. Quercus solaris (talk) 23:31, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

Yo Ho Ho[edit]

Thanks for all you have done this year :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:53, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Ditto—thanks so much for working to build Wikipedia! Happy holidays! Quercus solaris (talk) 01:09, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Edit reverts[edit]

(Thread moved to Talk:Sinoatrial node#Meaning of sinoatrial location and relationship to cardiac pacemaker.)

Refs are need[edit]

For content like this.

" Various types of malaria have been called by the names below:

Name Pathogen Notes
algid malaria Plasmodium falciparum severe malaria affecting the cardiovascular system and causing chills and circulatory shock
bilious malaria Plasmodium falciparum severe malaria affecting the liver and causing vomiting and jaundice
cerebral malaria Plasmodium falciparum severe malaria affecting the cerebrum
congenital malaria various plasmodia plasmodium introduced from the mother via the fetal circulation
falciparum malaria, Plasmodium falciparum malaria, pernicious malaria Plasmodium falciparum
ovale malaria, Plasmodium ovale malaria Plasmodium ovale
quartan malaria, malariae malaria, Plasmodium malariae malaria Plasmodium malariae paroxysms every fourth day (quartan), counting the day of occurrence as the first day
quotidian malaria Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium vivax paroxysms daily (quotidian)
tertian malaria Plasmodium falciparum, Plasmodium ovale, Plasmodium vivax paroxysms every third day (tertian), counting the day of occurrence as the first
transfusion malaria various plasmodia plasmodium introduced by blood transfusion, needle sharing, or needlestick injury
vivax malaria, Plasmodium vivax malaria Plasmodium vivax


Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:44, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You are right. I added it. Thanks Quercus solaris (talk) 22:39, 10 February 2016 (UTC)
Okay and books need page numbers and for this one what edition are you referring to? [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:12, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Online edition. Quercus solaris (talk) 01:41, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

American Academy of Otolaryngology–Head and Neck Surgery[edit]

I have amended your addition to the above article, as the content was copied directly from the copyright web page, — Diannaa (talk) 19:49, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I see only isolated phrases where what I put was modified by you. I certainly did not wholesale copyvio. I guess I failed to change the wording enough in only one or two particular sentences, which are so short and factual that one could hardly say them differently anyway. The fact that the revision diff has been hidden for my 2 edits and your edit summary said "copied" (as if I did some big ridiculous copyvio) was truly misrepresenting my contribution. Quercus solaris (talk) 19:55, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into the local language
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The Cure Award
In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Feedbeck on a recent edit[edit]

Hi Quercus solaris, I want to tell you that the edit comment in your recent revert here was very explanative and polite. Do keep up your way of doing things. Cheers --Chris Howard (talk) 10:44, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Nice thinking.[edit]

Hi, I read your article it was good. Hope that u would write more on some interesting things!!!!! Swareaz (talk) 16:59, 7 May 2016 (UTC)


Please remember to add refs to the edit you made to heart. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:13, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

Pronunciation of plant family names[edit]

Hi, it is useful to give pronunciations of plant family names, but like all information in Wikipedia, there needs to be a source for each and every pronunciation. There are wide variations in how botanists pronounce New Latin names, partly caused by WP:ENGVAR, but also by different traditions. In my UK experience, the overwhelmingly most common pronunciation of the ending "-aceae" today is as "ace-ee", IPA "eɪ siː". But I can source several other pronunciations, including the more classical "ah-keh-eye", IPA "ɑː kɛ aɪ", which I almost never hear today, but once did regularly. (Also a comma is not used in WP's version of IPA transcriptions.) Peter coxhead (talk) 05:33, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Hi. The ones I've done so far reflect Merriam-Webster Unabridged, which is the only major dictionary out of the 8 available to me that even enters the family names as headwords and provides pronunciations. I will cite the ref. Wikipedia needs to provide prons for these economically important words, because the average person is left clueless by hundreds of books and websites that use the names without providing any clue about how they typically sound. Regarding comma, I disagree: the parameter is available in the IPAc-en template; if anyone thinks it should not be available, they would need to talk to the people who have already made it available. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Ok, that's fine; sourced pronunciations are useful. I think it should be made explicit that they are pronunciations in US English. I shouldn't have written flatly "a comma is not used", but instead "it seems uncommon to use a comma". Peter coxhead (talk) 05:44, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Regarding US: OK, will do. The US parameter of IPAc-en seems to work well. Regarding comma, it is used to list variants by just the syllable that is different rather than repeating the whole word. It is a common convention in many dictionaries. Quercus solaris (talk) 05:49, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
That seems very clear, now. Thanks. I've asked a question at WT:PLANTS, since I'm curious as to how widespread the different pronunciations are. There should perhaps be a short article on the pronunciation of scientific Latin. I'm not sure how easy it would be to source for animals, but there are plenty of sources for plants, starting with Stearn's Botanical Latin. Peter coxhead (talk) 07:24, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── Yes, there could be more done yet. Related coverage includes Traditional English pronunciation of Latin, Latin spelling and pronunciation#Latin spelling and pronunciation today, and New Latin#Pronunciation. The "today" coverage has a section on how ecclesiastical Latin differs from classical Latin, but so far it lacks a section for how scientific Latin is conventionally pronounced in English, which any physician or surgeon can attest is different from classical Latin (for example, venae cavae#Pronunciation). Quercus solaris (talk) 09:58, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Interesting that the only source I've found so far for -aceae prounced with a single /i/ at the end (the variant I mostly hear) is American: see the pronunciation section towards the end of this web page. As for vena cavae, I note the pronunciation isn't sourced in the article. I guess it's my age, but I would now tend to use the vowels of the classical pronunciation I learnt at school, but not the "w" for "v". Peter coxhead (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Please have a look at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Plants#Pronunciation of plant family names, if you haven't already. It seems that, as I thought, in spite of Merriam-Webster's view, botanists and horticulturalists rarely if ever use the "double ee" pronunciation. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)


I was looking at this a few days ago. An anomaly is that cadmia is a zinc oxide. (In the early days elements were named from "earths", and as cadmium was discovered as an impurity in zinc ores it was named after a zinc earth; later the reverse etymology of naming oxides after elements was practiced.)

The rule is not -ium to -ia, but -um to -a - hence alumina. Alumina is the only one that is at all commonly used nowadays, but you'll find urania and plutonia in the literature on nuclear fuels, and rhenia, palladia, etc in the literature on transition metal catalysts. At a guess you can find attestations in Google's web corpus for most but not element with name ending in -um. Exceptions would include potassium and sodium, for which the corresponding terms, less precisely applied, as potash and soda. Lavateraguy (talk) 12:01, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. Updated that page. Quercus solaris (talk) 00:25, 28 July 2016 (UTC)


Hi Quercus solaris just noticed on Atibiotics sensitivity page your merge tag and on other page.....just using that format doesn't generate a place for discussion on the talk pages. If you use Twinkle and a tag from the menu, or write up the merge proposal yourself on the talk pages would help. cheers --Iztwoz (talk) 07:03, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip. In future will create a talk thread at same time as tag. Quercus solaris (talk) 14:50, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Wiktionary lead[edit]

Hi Quercus solaris,

Concerning wiktionary, my issue was with the phrasing "whose name". It does look a lot better now, thanks to you. soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 07:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)


Candida auris - nice job, your editing is admirable. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:40, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Thanks! Quercus solaris (talk) 23:39, 25 September 2016 (UTC)


Hi, I saw you just added "Homologous proteins make up protein families and superfamilies, encoded by gene families." It feels to me that there must be some reason why this is significant, but it comes across as a bit of taxonomy without any obvious purpose or value to the reader (this is the lead section, after all). Perhaps the question that needs answering is, what does this show? Perhaps there's a missing sentence; or perhaps it isn't really lead material. I wonder. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi. Raison d'etre for the mention is its logical connection to the topic. I moved it down to the section on sequence homology, as I agree upon reflection that between the lede and that section, it is best in the latter. Thanks, Quercus solaris (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open![edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Quercus solaris. 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)

Missing edit summaries[edit]

What is up with the missing edit summaries in some of your edits to articles? Are you special? It is not acceptable. Edit summaries must exist and be descriptive. --Acyclic (talk) 02:34, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

This is already explained herein at #plse use an edit summary. Also, what is up with your civility and level of AGF for an established good-faith editor? Are you special? Quercus solaris (talk) 22:46, 24 March 2017 (UTC)
You were asked to do something, but you didn't do it, so you deserve to be reminded of it. It is not optional; it is practically a requirement for edits to articles, and is not up for debate or counterargument. If you ever publish code, do you skip commit messages too? --Acyclic (talk) 10:40, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Meh, Wikipedian rules aren't meant to be tails that wag the dog. I'll try to do edit summaries more often. But speaking of what to do more often, maybe you should concentrate on building valid encyclopedia content as much as you concentrate on haranguing strangers about whether a high enough percentage of their edits have edit summaries. ;-. The right balance has not yet been struck in that regard. Quercus solaris (talk) 17:07, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Unreferenced information in lead[edit]

You added this to the lead of Microscope.

Please add sources and expand or participate in a lengthy ongoing discussion of a single word (see RFC on article talk page). --2600:387:6:80D:0:0:0:9D (talk) 00:38, 2 April 2017 (UTC)

Commenting on RfCs[edit]

Hi, regarding this edit - the page is built by a bot which will remove or overwrite anything that it didn't put there itself, as it did with this edit (a similarly-misplaced post by 2601:648:8503:4467:DC06:E4F7:AC27:B7B9 was removed at the same time). There is no way to prevent such removals (other than by blocking the bot, which we won't do).

What you should do is follow the link at the top of the entry - in this case it's Talk:Microscope - which will take you to the RfC in the "Request for comment on ultramicroscope" section. There you will see comments by others - just use the edit link adjacent to the section heading and add your comments at the bottom. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors![edit]

please help translate this message into your local language via meta
Wiki Project Med Foundation logo.svg The 2016 Cure Award
In 2016 you were one of the top ~200 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs.

Thanks again :-) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank You ![edit]

Common-Sense-Award WP.jpg common sense award
for your numerous common sense edits including your remarks on anthropocentricity on WP biology pages. Avanti! Common sense: - Gift- or curse? ....we´ll just have to deal with those we run into who don’t have it.... Wuerzele (talk) 11:33, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Thanks to you too! Quercus solaris (talk) 22:28, 2 June 2017 (UTC)


Wondering if you can add a ref for this[3]

Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:32, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

 Done Thanks Quercus solaris (talk) 21:58, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Userpage Puzzle[edit]

I thought I'd just let you know that I loved your userpage puzzle. Rarely does someones userpage make me chuckle and nod in agreement at the same time. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 00:48, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Glad to hear that you liked it! Happy editing, Quercus solaris (talk) 01:55, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2017 election voter message[edit]

Scale of justice 2.svg Hello, Quercus solaris. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

Cytosol vs. ICF[edit]

I'm really struggling to find a source that tells the exact difference between cytosol and ICF. The 2 articles that we currently have that touch on this, Cytosol and Fluid_compartments#Intracellular_compartment, only say that "most of ICF is cytosol". But none of the articles, and no reliable source that I've been able to find, says exactly what is in the ICF but not in the cytosol. So, are you aware of any reliable sources that say what else is in ICF apart from cytosol? Thanks! DrVogel (talk) 18:39, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Hi. The intracellular fluid (ICF) is, precisely speaking, all fluid inside cells, considered as a fluid compartment. (Bearing in mind that the definition of a fluid compartment is an abstraction—a nominal/virtual space, comprising one or many actual spaces.) Therefore, the ICF by definition comprises both any fluid in the cytoplasm (that is, the cytosol) and any fluid in the nucleoplasm (which, to the extent that it exists in any given nucleus, may or may not be differentiated from nuclear sap/nuclear ground substance/nuclear matrix/nucleosol/karyolymph in the usage of whoever is mentioning it). But quantitatively, not much of total body water is inside the cell nuclei, so ICF and cytosol are casually synonymous, which is to say, when you are talking about one you are "practically" ("for practical purposes", "almost", or both) talking about the other. I am not aware of any book or journal that explains or explores this. Nonetheless, it is logically inescapable. I would be fine with Wikipedia saying "most of ICF is cytosol, because not much of the total body water is inside nucleoplasm." Quercus solaris (talk) 23:30, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for the explanation. I agree that it's reasonable to assume that ICF must mean "fluid in the cytoplasm + fluid in the nucleoplasm". This follows logically from partition theory, as the inside of the cell is either inside or outside the nucleus, so ICF = fluid inside the cell = fluid inside the (nucleus + not nucleus) = fluid inside the nucleus + fluid inside the (not nucleus) = fluid in the nucleoplasm + fluid in the cytoplasm = fluid in the nucleoplasm + cytosol. However, I am annoyed that we can't find a single source that defines ICF properly!! DrVogel (talk) 01:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
Great explanations, and thank you DrVogel for keeping me in the loop! If we really can't find a source with this explanation, perhaps we'll have to publish our interpretation in some bio journal and then cite that here :) Myoglobin (talk) 02:08, 10 February 2018 (UTC)