User talk:Virion123

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

Contents

Virion123, you are invited to the Teahouse[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi Virion123! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia.
Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Writ Keeper (I'm a Teahouse host)

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 20:42, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 5[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Qualitative variation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Modulus. 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) 09:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

We at Wikipedia love evidence-based medicine. Please cite high-quality reliable sources. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. A list of resources to help edit such articles can be found here. The edit box has a build in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. WP:MEDHOW walks through editing step by step. 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) 15:38, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lecudinidae, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syzygy. 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) 10:02, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 4[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Selenidium
added links pointing to Pellicle, Syzygy and Merogony
Ganymedidae
added a link pointing to Ganymedes

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:00, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 16[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Acrocoelus
added links pointing to Nucleus and Pellicle
Merogregarina
added links pointing to Nucleus and Sporocyst

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Testudinid herpesvirus 3[edit]

I have undone your addition of Testudinid herpesvirus 3 again. Rather than start an edit war, let's discuss the edit on the talk page. Thanks! Bervin61 (talk) 21:46, 19 August 2015 (UTC)

References[edit]

Remember that when adding medical content please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations. 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 build 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) 19:04, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Porosporicae) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Porosporicae, Virion123!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

I redirected this monotypic superfamily to its sole family, per WP:MONOTYPICFLORA and WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA. Note also that taxon authorities should generally only be listed for the focal taxon/taxa: see Template:Taxobox#Authorities

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for October 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Stylocephaloidea, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syzygy and Sporocyst. 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) 10:32, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Great Wikipedia Articles![edit]

Oreo.jpg Cookies!

MarkYabloko 16:18, 22 November 2015 (UTC) has given you some cookies! Cookies promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better!

Disambiguation link notification for November 23[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bartazoon, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Syzygy and Sporocyst. 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) 09:09, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Gigaductus[edit]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Gigaductus, and it appears to include material copied directly from http://us.wow.com/wiki/Gigaductidae.

It is possible that the bot was mistaken and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.

If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 20:22, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Machadoella, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Syzygy. 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) 10:41, 25 December 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Lipocystis) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Lipocystis, Virion123!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note that sole species of genera should be redirected to, and discussed in, the genus article, per WP:MONOTYPICFAUNA.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for January 1[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Lipocystis
added a link pointing to Merogony
Menzbieria
added a link pointing to Merogony

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:11, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 8[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.

Diplocystidae
added a link pointing to Sporocyst
Ganymedidae
added a link pointing to Syzygy

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:29, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 17[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Lateral meningocele syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Ptosis. 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) 09:07, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

A page you started (Monocystinae) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating Monocystinae, Virion123!

Wikipedia editor Animalparty just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Note: taxon authorities in the taxobox should generally only be listed for the focal taxon (see Template:Taxobox#Authorities), even though technical publications may list all authorities. Wikipedia is not a scientific journal.

To reply, leave a comment on Animalparty's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Disambiguation link notification for March 28[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Spondylo-ocular syndrome, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Spine. 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) 09:34, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Eukaryota template[edit]

Hi, could you take a look into the discussion at Template talk:Eukaryota#Modifications proposal, please?Zorahia (talk) 15:51, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference errors on 7 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) 00:22, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

Megalytrum, Kakabekia[edit]

Hi Virion123, just noticed your edits on the Euk template. As I understand it, Megalytrum was probably a cyanobacterium, so not eukaryotic. I haven't reviewed all the literature, but I believe Kakabekia is also thought to be a cyanobacterium.  Deuterostome  (Talk) 14:55, 25 September 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) 10:05, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 19[edit]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fibrolamellar hepatocellular carcinoma, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page CT. 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) 09:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

Talk:Zika virus[edit]

Copying large amounts of text from a user talk page to an article talk page is inappropriate. It's way too confusing for other readers. The last message you posted at Talk:Zika virus was also inappropriate. If you want to discuss the article on its talk page, here's what you do. Add your comments and, to the extent necessary, link to others' comments in a neutral manner, but only those comments that relate to the content of the article, not to user conduct. I'm going to revert your latest post to the article talk page in the hope that you'll cooperate. Thanks.--Bbb23 (talk) 16:49, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

hi[edit]

[1] moved citation so that it would be clearer to the reader that the reference is for all the paragraph, leave me a note if you like, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:03, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

To my way of thinking it is more usual to place such a reference at the start of the text and to put the materail in the eference is a sinle paragraph. Virion123 (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

WP:MEDHOW[edit]

Explains how to format refs. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:47, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

August 2017[edit]

Information icon Hello. Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia.

When editing an article on Wikipedia, you will see a small field labeled "Edit summary" shown under the main edit box. It looks like this:

Edit summary (Briefly describe your changes)

 

I noticed your recent edit to Strongyloides stercoralis does not have an edit summary. Please be sure to provide a summary of every edit you make, even if you write only the briefest of summaries. The summaries are very helpful to people browsing an article's history.

Edit summary content is visible in:

Please use the edit summary to explain your reasoning for the edit, or a summary of what the edit changes. You can give yourself a reminder to add an edit summary by setting Preferences → Editing → check Prompt me when entering a blank edit summary. Thanks! Eric talk 14:03, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to[edit]

Introduce a variation from WP:MEDMOS you will need consensus. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:10, 16 August 2017 (UTC)

Sounds like a plan. There is little point putting material in an encyclopedia if it is not logical. Genetic lesions are NOT pathophysiology. Biochemistry may be pathophysiology. Its a bit like conflating geography and economics. Trade may move from the mountains to the sea but the sea and the mountains are not the same. Pathophsiology is a dynamic process. Genetic lesions are static.
So to basics. How does one do this? Virion123 (talk) 21:38, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
The cascade of genetic defects that lead to a disease and its progression are definitely pathophysiology. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:08, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
This is the subtle point. The defect is a fact. How this defect causes the clinical features is not often clear or indeed known. Opinions and theories on the mechanism are subject to change but the defect is not likely to. This is why I think they sould be separated. Since there is no comment on this matter in Medmos would it not not refer this matter to the talk page ave been more in keeping with existing WP polices to do this rather than deleting it. Yours thought would be interesting on this point. Virion123 (talk) 15:38, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Refs[edit]

Typically more than 3 refs are not needed. Also please stop adding primary sources. Thanks Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

There is noting in Medmos to suggest a certain number of citations. There is nothing in the citation guidelines either on this point. Once again this appears to be a violation of WP policy which suggests such actions should be first discussed in the talk page. It would also be nice if you checked that these were reviews before making incorrect statements. Your thoughts on this matter would be interesting. Virion123 (talk) 15:39, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (STAR syndrome) has been reviewed![edit]

Thanks for creating STAR syndrome, Virion123!

Wikipedia editor Usernamekiran just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

If possible, kindly add links to this article from other articles (without spamming). Thanks :)

To reply, leave a comment on Usernamekiran's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

usernamekiran(talk) 12:33, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

hi[edit]

about this edit[2], sources are usually placed at end of sentence, thanks--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:40, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

New Page Reviewing[edit]

Wikipedia New page reviewer.svg
Hello, Virion123.

I noticed you've done some constructive editing recently.
Would you please consider becoming a New Page Reviewer? Reviewing/patrolling a page doesn't take much time but it requires a good understanding of Wikipedia policies and guidelines; currently Wikipedia needs experienced users at this task. (After gaining the flag, patrolling is not mandatory. One can do it at their convenience). But kindly read the tutorial before making your decision. Thanks. User:Insertcleverphrasehere (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Predatory open access[edit]

It's nothing to do with liking or not liking a particular source. Predatory open access journals are not WP:RS. Their peer review does not extend beyond cashing the check. Did you try checking the source? It's not in ISI, not in DOAJ, it ha no impact factor, its website is 404. Guy (Help!) 13:17, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

This is mathematics. If the statement is correct, it is correct.
Second what evidence have you to make this statement? Commercial speech is NOT free. Defamatory remarks about journal can result in you and Wikipedia being sued. I would be careful with such statement. Virion123 (talk) 13:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The publisher has been in business since 1996. They publish a variety of journals. They do have a peer review process. The website is not 404. I am afraid unless JzG can produce evidence to the contrary it would seem that this editor's statements are incorrect. Virion123 (talk) 13:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
The journal and publisher are on Beall's list. They do not appear in DOAJ. So they are on a blacklist and not on a whitelist. That is pretty much an open and shut case. We have an article on the journal, started by a spammer: Journal of Basic and Applied Physics. If you check my user page you will find that this is a particular area of interest to me. You'll also find that I am an admin, so well aware of the limitations on commercial speech (which this plainly is not) and protected speech (which it is). Guy (Help!) 13:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Length of time in business has no relevance to status of the journal. The journal's website is indeed 404, its page at the publisher is not. The publisher is indeed listed by Beall. All of my statements are factually correct. Oh, also? No impact factor, no DOI numbers. Even if it was not predatory, as Beall says t is, it would still be a junk journal and fail WP:RS. Oh, also? see WP:PRIMARY. Guy (Help!) 13:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You may be an admin but this does not I think qualify you automatically as an expert in defamation law. Beale was sued by several publishers for considerable sums. I do not know if any of these cases went to court. It would have been useful if at least one had as then we could have some guidance on what is and is not acceptable.
Inclusion in Beale's list does not constitute evidence of poor peer review which I think is what the real issue is here. It might be useful if you could outline why you think this material can be considered as unreliable other than its inclusion in Beale's list which is no longer available. Please note that its inclusion in Beale's list does not constitute evidence of unreliability per se. Virion123 (talk) 13:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You state that your remark about predatory journals being unreliable is not commercial speech. With all due respect I think you may well be wrong on that point. Can you clarify why you do not think that this amounts to commercial speech? Virion123 (talk) 13:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes it does, because poor peer review is the very definition of what makes predator open access publishing, predatory. But we don't just have to rely on Beall: we now also have the DOAJ, which is a whitelist of open access journals that have assessed quality. Some that were on Beall's lists appear in DOAJ so can be defended per WP:RS. A journal that is in Beall and not in DOAJ, on the other hand, is almost certainly problematic and will fail WP:RS. And this is not commercial speech because it is not made int he advancement of any trade. The theory of commercial speech is what Tobinick relied on in suing the Skeptics Guide to the Universe. It failed at trial, appeal and SCOTUS. In fact it was dismissed at trial, and the appeals were about the dismissal, it was that far off base. Guy (Help!) 13:43, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Publisher's web page: http://www.mdpi.com/about/journals
WP has this page on the publisher. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MDPI
In this it notes that MDPI was listed on Beale's list it was removed.
Note: To the best of my knowledge I have never published in any of MDPI journals, reviewed articles for them or have any commercial interest in MDPI that I am aware of. I did not add these citations that have generated this discussion.Virion123 (talk) 13:45, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Re DOAJ: Apparently this organisation have approved MDPI journals. So relying on the DOAJ to support your argument it not likely to help. Virion123 (talk) 13:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Update: we are talking about different journals here. See http://www.academicpub.org/jbap/. Do you have a DOI reference to definitively identify the publication? Guy (Help!) 13:46, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
You can check DOAJ for the journal here: https://doaj.org/ Guy (Help!) 13:48, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I have read the judgement editor JzG has mentioned. The law on commercial speech is more complex that this editor suggests. That particular case dealt with what amounted to false advertising. This matter was subsequently taken up by the plantiff's regulatory medical board. I would suggest that this case alone does not provide a greatb deal of clarity on this issue at stake here. Virion123 (talk) 13:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I do not think that either citation that editor JzG removed were from the Journal of BAsic and Applied Physis so I am somewhat confused as to why this reference is made here. Virion123 (talk) 13:56, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Checked for author, title, date. This is published by "World Academic Publishing", not MDPI. So it is definitely the bogus journal. However, Kendal also published papers in MDPI. There's a Wayne S Kendal in SCOPUS, but I think it's conflating two identical names, as one publishes mainly on cancer and other biomedical topics - I think this Kendal has a low h-index but is now publishing in reputable journals, e.g. [3]. It could be the same guy, but it would be a surprise. Guy (Help!) 13:58, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Both cites were to that journal. See:

  • for all <math>x>73.2</math>. If we analyze the Chebyshev deviations Δ(''n'') on the integers ''n'' using the method of expanding bins and plot the variance versus the mean a variance to mean power law can be demonstrated.<ref>{{cite journal|last=Kendal|first=WS|title=Fluctuation scaling and 1/f noise: shared origins from the Tweedie family of statistical distributions|journal=J Basic Appl Phys|year=2013|volume=2|pages=40–49}}</ref> Moreover, these deviations correspond to the Tweedie compound Poisson-gamma distribution and they exhibit 1/''f'' noise.
  • and also with the distribution of [[prime number]]s <ref>{{cite journal|last=Kendal|first=W|title=Fluctuation scaling and 1/f noise: shared origins from the Tweedie family of statistical distributions|journal=J Basic Appl Phys|year=2013|volume=2|issue=2|pages=40–9}}</ref><ref name=Kendal2015a>Kendal WS & Jørgensen B (2015) A scale invariant distribution of the prime numbers. ''Computation'' 2015,3,528-540</ref>

OK? And the 2015 cite looks OK f it works for you. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

The position at the moment seems to me is that editor JzG has opined that at least two citations were from predatory journals that in his/her opinion should regarded as unreliable. Both articles were on mathematics. This area unlike many others is subject to external verification: the theorems are or are not correct. At least one was made available as a preprint in the maths and physics archive which suggests that it may be correct. The publishers' journals were at one point on Beale's list but were then take off by Beale himself. These journals appear to have been reviewed by the DOAJ. Whether a journal has gone out of business is not really relevant to the veracity of its statements.
My concern here is that editor JzG has made defamatory statements about these journals. The evidence for these statements not being commercial and hence unprotected speech seems to be a little thin at the moment. I am concerned as such statements might constitute a liability for WP itself. Unless better evidence can be offered I would respectfully suggest that editor JzG withdraw these remarks. Virion123 (talk) 14:03, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is the cited article: file:///J:/GPMac/LabResults/computation-03-00528-v2.pdf This appears to be an MDPI journal. Virion123 (talk) 14:06, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
There is also a further concern. Editor JzG has stated that he/she is an admin on WP. This is a position of some responsibility. As such he/she can be help to a higher standard that the average editor on WP. He/she has also stated that he/she is aware of the difference between commercial and non commercial speech. These could be taken as factors if this matter should ever come to court. Virion123 (talk) 14:11, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
I am not concerned per se with whether the citations were or were not 'reliable'. My concern here is the claim that the journals published unreliable material. This is quite a high standard. Virtually every journal that has published anything has had to issue corrections and even remove papers. To make such a claim one would I think have to show that the journals were more unreliable than their peers. And even that might not be sufficient to prove this statement. This is why I am concerned.Perhaps this mater should be raised at the Admins notice board?Virion123 (talk)
Or you could get down off your high horse, read what I wrote, and engage in some calm discussion. www.academicpub.org/jbap/paperInfo.aspx?PaperID=5055 is "Fluctuation scaling and 1/f noise: shared origins from the Tweedie family of statistical distributions", the cited paper in both edits. That is World Academic Publishing, a predatory publisher. The MPDI paper is "A Scale Invariant Distribution of the Prime Numbers". As I said, that should be fine, if it works for you as a source for the text. See the two excerpts I posted above. You are focusing on the second source for one of the two items I removed - a subsidiary to the World Academic Publishing source. It is confusing and you have to check in detail. Your entire thesis depends on the second (MPDI) source being the one I was removing, but you are wrong: it was not even in one of the articles. From the two excerpts above it should be abundantly clear to you that the journal am talking about, J Basic Appl Phys, is published by the company currently identified as predatory and not listed in ISI or DOAJ. Guy (Help!) 15:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Amorphea and Varisulca reversed on the Eukaryota navbox[edit]

Hi, Virion123. I notice that Amorphea and Varisulca have been transposed in the Eukaryota navbox, as the result of an edit you made on November 29. I'm sure the error is inadvertent, but it should be fixed (I'd do it myself, but I don't usually edit these boxes, so I don't know the syntax).  Deuterostome  (Talk) 23:26, 16 December 2017 (UTC)

I've corrected the problem by simply switching the names around.
While I'm here, I might as well add that I don't see why Varisulca is on this template at all. It's a temporary placeholder group, which nobody uses but Cavalier-Smith. Why confuse Wikipedia users with a group that will be replaced any minute? Note that a new monophyletic supergroup has recently been recuperated from several of the clades TC-S stuffed into his Varisulca: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/12/03/227884.full.pdf  Deuterostome  (Talk) 14:11, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
You have misunderstood my edit, and reintroduced a huge taxonomic error. The problem is not the validity of Varisulca. The problem is that the organisms within Amorphea and Varisulca, respectively, do NOT belong within those groups. Amoebozoa and Obazoa, for instance, are not taxa that belong in Varisulca (in any system of classification). Ancryomonadida, etc. do not belong within Amorphea! Please correct this.  Deuterostome  (Talk) 20:24, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Ah, it's fixed. :) Except for the alphabetization, of course...a problem for another day.  Deuterostome  (Talk) 11:23, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

edit summaries, multiple consecutive edits[edit]

Once again: Your editing habits and lack of communication make it difficult for others to work with you.

  • Please make a habit of providing an edit summary when you make a change to an article. Doing so makes it easier for your colleagues here to understand the intention of your edit.
  • Plus, it will be easier for you and your co-editors to collaborate on articles if, instead of making multiple consecutive edits in rapid succession on an article, you use the "Show preview" button to view your changes incrementally before finally saving the page once you're satisfied with your edits. This keeps the page history of the article less cluttered. Thanks in advance for considering these suggestions. Eric talk 21:52, 17 December 2017 (UTC)
Once again? I do not recall interacting with you on any topic in the past. For this reason I have some trouble with this remark. Virion123 (talk) 10:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Moved your response here from my talkpage. It's best to keep discussions on one page, and one about your lack of edit summary use belongs here on yours, where many others have asked you to change your editing habits. You are not all alone here on Wikipedia. A quick glance at the posts above indicates that your activity here generates a lot of clean-up work for the rest of the community. To quote a communicative, helpful editor: Leaving edit summaries is a basic courtesy to your fellow editors. Wikipedia is a collaborative project, and it depends on a certain amount of politeness and respect among contributors. While failing to leave summaries may save you time, it imposes burdens on others, and thus damages the basic model under which Wikipedia operates. Never mind your "trouble"; please follow the above suggestions. Eric talk 13:42, 18 December 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 2017 Cure Award
In 2017 you were one of the top ~250 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 02:58, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Carey Fineman Ziter syndrome[edit]

Hi, I'm SkyGazer 512. Virion123, thanks for creating Carey Fineman Ziter syndrome!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thanks for creating this article! Make sure that all material has a reliable source supporting it - there are currently many sections in this article that are unsourced.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

SkyGazer 512 Oh no, what did I do this time? 13:54, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Atelosteogenesis type I moved to draftspace[edit]

An article you recently created, Atelosteogenesis type I, does not have enough sources and citations as written to remain published. All medial information needs sources that comply with WP:MEDRS guidelines. I've moved your page to draftspace (with a prefix of "Draft:" before the article title) where you can incubate the article with minimal disruption. Natureium (talk) 15:17, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Ways to improve Lamb-Shaffer syndrome[edit]

Hi, I'm Natureium. Virion123, thanks for creating Lamb-Shaffer syndrome!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Thank you for writing this article. Please make sure you are familiar with the requirements for medical information in wikipedia at WP:MEDRS. Specifically, this article needs secondary sources rather than primary research articles.

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse.

Natureium (talk) 14:54, 28 September 2018 (UTC)