Talk:Biophysical Reviews and Letters
 | This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
update: please do not vandalise
editthe information about the special issues appeared in this wikipedia Article about biophysical review & letters through 2011. Indeed, we have now new information that complement the picture: additional special issues about solving single molecules, & single file dynamics.
this information should appear in this wikipedia Article on the scientific journal BRL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.160.72 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Me ythinks you're using the word "vandalize" a bit lightly. WP is not for posting tables of contents. The journal has its own website for advertising its issues. See also WP:NOTADIRECTORY. There is no reason to re-add that list. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 00:21, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- the word "vandalise" is since you reverted the list that appeared during 3 years just since new informaiton is included. this is vandalise. It is not an ego fight.
this information is valuebale when defining BRL. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.160.72 (talk) 00:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Talking about vandalising... You say you are re-adding the special issues section, but you also remove all kinds of other edits. Please don't do that. --Randykitty (talk) 00:29, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- in case additional information is important, please include the additional information.
please do not vandalise UPDATING the speical issue information is very important when defining the scientific journal BRL THANKS!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.160.72 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- I have explained to you a/ why the addition of a list of special issues is undesirable and b/ that you reverted much more than the deletion of that list. Your revert actually restored formatting errors and removed necessary links that had been added. Your continued insistence on making these damaging changes is really unconstructive and I would appreciate if you would stop now. WP does not list tables of contents, nor lists of special issues. If you have independent reliable sources that discuss a particular issue in depth, that information can be added, but not a bare list that should be available on the publisher's website, not here. Thanks. --Randykitty (talk) 10:30, 3 February 2014 (UTC)
- Randykitty - vandalise the definition. I will report regarding this. you waste the effort. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.160.72 (talk) 00:16, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- Be my guest. But beware of WP:BOOMERANG. --Randykitty (talk) 10:46, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
- dear project's participants,
let me emphasize that I have improved the scientific accuracy of the wikipedia definition of that journal, BRL. There were errors and other problems. please triple check everything. BEST-R8!!! Ophir Flomenbom, on 12, 8, 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.183.102.5 (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2014 (UTC)