User talk:Boghog/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Thanks for the new steroid drawing

It looks great, and you've done it a blink. Also, Happy New Year! Xasodfuih (talk) 16:36, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Have a great 2009! Boghog2 (talk) 19:22, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

5-HT7 receptor

Great work on the above page--you really improved it a lot since only this morning!! Thanks, and all the best! Malljaja (talk) 00:38, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Hi Malljaja. Thanks and thank you for all your contributions the 5-HT7 receptor article. Because of the edits you and others have made to this article, it is starting to look pretty nice. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Targeted stroke damage control

Do you know enough to add something to GRIK1 regarding the discovery that lowering the amount of a glutamate receptor subunit limits ischemic damage without completely shutting off glutamate communications? (Sorry, didn't see the actual paper in a quick search of PubMed) --74.177.69.242 (talk) 00:03, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting. It has been many years since I have worked with kainate receptors. From a quick read of the citation that you provided, it appears that the receptor involved is GRIK4. In addition, LAMC1 and tPA some how up-regulate the expression (or block the degradation?) of GRIK4 upon kainate exposure. I made a quick edit in the GRIK4 article to add the citation that you mention. Please expand as you see fit. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 00:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

TRPV DYK idea

Annu Rev Biochem (2007) has a table with a few more details. The most interesting is that TRPV1-4 are activated at different temperature ranges. TRPV1 is activated at 43C; TRPV3, which is upregulated at 33-39C, is also activated by menthol and compounds from oregano/cloves/thymes. I think this is the "coolest" fact for a DYK, something along the lines "... that receptors from the TRPV family are activated at different temperatures, and that some of them are also activated by capsaicin an menthol?" The hook needs a bit more polish, and the article the facts; later... Xasodfuih (talk) 05:14, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Added Template_talk:Did_you_know#Articles_created.2Fexpanded_on_January_27. Feel free to reword if it's too clumsy. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:56, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I tweak the wording a bit so it is a bit more accessible to average reader. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 11:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

DYK for TRPV

On February 1, 2009, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article TRPV, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the Did you know? talk page.

Dravecky (talk) 08:17, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Transcription factors

Could you add LMX1A and LMX1B onto Template:Transcription factors? I'm not sure of their classification. --Arcadian (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I am fairly certain that these two transcription factors belong in group 3.1.3 (Family: Homeo domain with LIM region). I have added these two genes to the template as well as added the TF template to LMX1A and LMX1B . Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:55, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! --Arcadian (talk) 21:26, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Heat shock factor

Thanks for the new additions to the site -they are great improvements, site is much more informative now. Hope this is the right place & that I haven't added this twice. DaKineStuff (talk) 06:44, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

And thank you for your additions! There may be some overlap between our edits (entirely my fault of course since your edits came first). I am not that familiar with this protein family so I need to do some more background reading before I do any more editing. Hopefullly we can improve it further but I agree it is already a big improvement. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 19:04, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

Ribonucleotide reductase

Greetings!
Your recent edit to Ribonucleotide reductase included a link to a disambiguation page. The use of these links is discouraged on Wikipedia as they are unhelpful to readers. In the future, please check your links to make sure they point to an article. Thanks! twirligig^{Leave one! ⋄ Check me out!} 19:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that. I try to avoid links to disambiguation pages and double redirects, but some times I miss a few. Sorry about that. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:34, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Dopamine receptor D3 - D3 ligands.png

Hallo!
Could you be so kind to change the compound identifiers "FAUK" in your nice overview of D3 ligands to "FAUC". This is the correct name of these compounds. I do not have sufficient rights at Wikimedia to change the chart myself. Thank you! --Pharmchem (talk) 11:36, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching my error. The figure is now fixed, but it may take awhile before figure is updated in the Dopamine receptor D3 article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 15:55, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Nuclear receptor graph

Hi!
I wish to use your outstanding graph http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Nuclear_receptor_action.png in my MD thesis. Since one is still not expected to refer to Wikipedia I would be glad to know how I could cite your work properly. Do you publish elsewhere? Or would you like to send me your "real" name? Thanks and best regards --Briankohn (talk) 17:16, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I have replied with a private message. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:50, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

L-form bacteria

Hi there, just as a heads-up I've nominated this article as a DYK. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Fantastic job in expanding the article! My contributions to date have been trivial, but I will see what I can do to expand further. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 23:36, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Citation

Hi Boghog2. I agree the citation tool might make things easier for me but I prefer writing references the traditional way as I don't like the output the tool gives sometimes. Also I note you changed the link for that patent I cited on the oxytocin receptor page to the European Patents Office site esp@cenet rather than Google patents.

Personally I almost always use Google patents (for US patents) or the German government patent search site depatisnet.dpma.de, as either of these sites allow you to download the full text of the patent as a pdf. esp@cenet on the other hand will only let you view documents page by page, and while you can download the full text for shorter patents, for longer patents over a certain number of pages this is not possible (although it does work for this patent at least). Also I find the search engine on esp@cenet to be incredibly frustrating as it is very particular about syntax and even one space out of place will cause it to tell you that no such patent exists, whereas if you use the "Beginner's mode" on depatisnet.dpma.de then it finds the patent you are looking for almost every time, even if its written slightly differently. This is very useful as especially for older patents the citation format hadn't been standardised yet, and searching for patents with non-standard formatting on esp@cenet is an absolute nightmare... Meodipt (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt. Thanks for your detailed reply.

Concerning the citation template and tool, is there something specifically you don't like about the output? If so, it might be possible to request a change in the template and/or tool.

Concerning esp@cenet vs. Google patents I agree that that later has significant advantages. I have created an experimental {{Ref patent3}} template which links to Google Patents instead of esp@cenet. The only disadvantage is that you need specify an extra parameter called google_patent_id which in the case of patent application cited in the oxytocin receptor looks like:

{{Ref patent3 | country = US | number = 2007/0117794 | status = application | title = Methods of treatment using oxytocin receptor agonists | pubdate = 2007-05-24 | fdate = | pridate= 2005-10-24 | inventor = Rahman Z, Resnick L, Rosenzweig-Lipson SJ, Ring RH | assign1= Wyeth Corp | google_patent_id = 3G2iAAAAEBAJ }} which renders as follows:

Rahman Z, Resnick L, Rosenzweig-Lipson SJ, Ring RH,"Methods of treatment using oxytocin receptor agonists", US patent application 2007/0117794, published 2007-05-24 , assigned to Wyeth Corp 

It doesn't appear that you can directly link to a Google patent using only the patent number, but I may be missing something. Ideally there should be one patent template that can optionally link to either esp@cenet or Google patents depending on what the editor prefers. Would this be acceptable to you? Boghog2 (talk) 18:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boghog2

Ok well concerning the citation tool, I don't like how it puts the year right after the authors names. This is because when searching for journals on the uni database the fields are lined up year:volume:issue:first page and if the wiki reference is the same then copying and pasting is much more convenient! Also I don't like how it abbreviates the journal title because when explaining complicated scientific issues to people with little formal training (which I do a lot of) its important to use as few acronyms as possible, they will understand what you mean when you say someone discovered something in the journal of medicinal chemistry, whereas J Med Chem confuses them...really these are just issues that inconvenience me personally and I appreciate wikipedia is a collaborative project intended for everyone. However I suspect that most people looking at pages for obscure receptor targets or ligands will be undergrad uni students who need to write an essay on that target and could do with as much help as they can get finding appropriate references etc...

In regards to the patent citing tool, good on you for helping to develop it, I could see it being very useful. Google patents is great but only for US patents of course, so definitely the best option would be one template which gives the option of being able to choose whether to link to Google or esp@cenet. Meodipt (talk) 21:30, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt. Thanks again for your reply. I also find putting the year after the author names strange. IMO, it would be more logical to place the year next to the volume and page number. The placement of the year in the citation is controlled by {{Cite journal}} template. As this is a protected and very widely used template, it would probably be very difficult to convince an Administrator to make this stylistic change unless there was a very compelling reason to do so. Concerning journal names, one of course could manually make this change as in this edit. I also noticed that Diberri was open to changing the template filler tool to return the full journal name instead of the abbreviations (see discussion). However this for some reason was never implemented. Perhaps if we remind him, he might make the change. Concerning the {{Ref patent}} template template, in addition to providing explicit access to Google or esp@cenet, it would also probably be a good to add an optional url parameter for special cases where Google or esp@cenet may not be adequate. Boghog2 (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

So...how do I use that cite patent tool? As it does look quite useful! Meodipt (talk) 08:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The direct link to the tool is here. The default in the pull down menu is set to "PubMed ID". With this default setting, just copy and paste a PMID into the box next to it. Also be sure to check the "Add ref tag" option. Depending on your preference, you may also want to check the "show extended fields", "pad parameter names and values", and/or the "don't use et al for author list" box(es). Then just hit the "submit" button which will return a filled out {{cite journal}} template that can be copy and pasted into a wikipedia article. That's it! Boghog2 (talk) 17:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No I already understood how to use the template with PubMed IDs (even if I usually choose to do it the long way!) However "Patent number" is not one of the options in the drop-down menu, do I assume that the cite patent tool is still not finished or awaiting integration with other systems? Meodipt (talk) 20:57, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Opps, sorry, I didn't read carefully enough. The present version of the tool obvious doesn't support patents. There was a discussion here but it appears it never went anywhere. I am currently installing a local copy of perl module of the template filler. Perhaps I can write a prototype to help jump start things. There is also more work needed on the template side (see Template talk:Ref patent). At worst, I may need to fork a new version of the template if to overcome some of the objections that were raised. Boghog2 (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Adenosine receptor subtypes

So we have a page for Adenosine A2A receptor and Adenosine A2b receptor, with the appropriate capitalisation used throughout the pages. I think it would be neater to make the capitalisation the same, do you think it would be better to rename Adenosine A2A receptor to Adenosine A2a receptor, or to rename Adenosine A2b receptor to Adenosine A2B receptor, or just to leave it as is? Both forms seem to be widely used in the literature so there isn't much to favour one over the other particularly. Meodipt (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other except that I agree with you that the capitalization should be consistent. The HUGO approved gene names use lower case "a" and "b" whereas IUPHAR uses upper case (the previous IUPHAR names were lower case). So I am not sure which standard we should follow. Perhaps use the standard which would cause the fewest redirects after the names have been standardized? Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, so does that mean we should be talking about the A2b receptor when referring to the gene and the A2B receptor when referring to the actual G protein-coupled receptor protein that it codes for? Well in that case I would favour A2B for general use as I figure most wikipedia references will be to the receptor target or to ligands acting at that receptor, but then if a page is talking about the actual gene sequence or its location on the chromosome then A2b should be used. Meodipt (talk) 07:12, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Wee1 classification

Regarding your classification of the Wee1 article: I've added some more material and believe the article is now B-class. Please contact me if you disagree and I'll try to fix it. --Martina Steiner (talk) 21:21, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent work on expanding and improving the Wee1 article! I agree with you the article is now B-class so I have promoted it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 05:46, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

File:Aleglitazar.png listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Aleglitazar.png, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 02:21, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Another modeling request

After your great work visualzing the TRPV1 channel I'd like to ask for another image. Concanavalin_A lacks a picture. The crystal structure is here http://www.rcsb.org/pdb/explore.do?structureId=3CNA

Thanks, Panoramix303 (talk) 08:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure. Per your request, a graphic of the PDB: 3CNA​ structure has been added to the Concanavalin A article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 10:18, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this was fast! Thanks, Panoramix303 (talk) 10:42, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Drug design

Good work on this this article. Can you help to clean up and give some balance to the badly written recent stuff on neural networks? I have been doing my best, but I really do not know about neural networks. Indeed I do not know a lot about drug design although I help those who do to run computational chemistry codes. --Bduke (Discussion) 00:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out the deficiencies in this article. In my opinion, it needs a major rewrite. I agree with you that undue weight has been placed on neural nets. I will see what I can do over the next couple of days to improve the article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 03:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

As discussed here, there were so many issues with the neural net sections, that I thought the only practical solution was to entirely delete this material. This article still requires a lot of work and I will try to improve it further (especially regarding addition of relevant citations), but I think it is now in somewhat better shape than I found it. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. Maybe there should be a small mention of neural networks. Please keep an eye on it and revert if the neural networks material is added back. That leaves me free to protect the page or if really necessary block the user who keeps adding this material. I really hope he has learned a bit about wikipedia. Thanks. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Ito cell article needs attention

Hi! Ito cell is being repeatedly changed without discussion by some rude guy. He wishes mainly to rename it to Hepatic stellate cell, but states no valid reasons as yet besides some invectives. I would be grateful for some professional opinion. Best regards, --CopperKettle 04:51, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I left a message on the users talk page which I hope will help. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 18:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

spelling mistake in creatine kinase diagram

Maybe you have time to correct it: pho(s)phocreatine. A good diagram: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Creatine_kinase_rxn.png —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.72.34.244 (talk) 18:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for catching the errors. I have corrected the figure and the new version is now displayed. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 00:54, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Bad ref reformatting

Please, review this edit of yours. Something appears to be buggy. --Wasell^(T) 13:19, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that! I mistook you for a malfunctioning Bot. On a closer look, you just forgot to remove the text "accessed 2009-02-19</ref>". --Wasell^(T) 13:30, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for help on osteonectin page - cwd626 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cwd626 (talk • contribs) 02:07, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

nice job

Just wanted to congratulate you for a solid job regarding small molecule modulators on the mGluR1 page. Hope all's well. RelentlessRecusant ^{[iTalk § iWork]} 06:36, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! Your positive feedback is certainly appreciated. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:14, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

NowCommons: File:RecBCD 1W36.png

File:RecBCD 1W36.png is now available on Wikimedia Commons as Commons:File:RecBCD 1W36.png. This is a repository of free media that can be used on all Wikimedia wikis. The image will be deleted from Wikipedia, but this doesn't mean it can't be used anymore. You can embed an image uploaded to Commons like you would an image uploaded to Wikipedia, in this case: [[File:RecBCD 1W36.png]]. Note that this is an automated message to inform you about the move. This bot did not copy the image itself. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 09:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Benzo molecule

Hi Bog, thanks very much for the work that you have done on the benzo article. I am contacting you with regard to the chemical name of the benzodiazepine molecule and the figure. I just noticed that the benzodiazepine skeleton mentioned in the intro to the pharmacology section is actually uncited. It is not contained in the reference. You also changed the image but apparently nmot the text below the image because they still don't match. I wonder is the molecular name in the intro to the pharmacology section incorrect? Should it be changed (idealy with a citation)? Do you have such a citation?--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 21:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I believe that I have fixed this problem by finding a reference which discusses the basic structure of the benzodiazepine molecule.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 22:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to your hard work, it appear that the benzodiazepine is now very close to WP:FA. Well done! Concerning the chemical names, I have made a few additional small changes. The systematic name should be based on the IUPAC nomenclature of organic chemistry. In searching the IUPAC web cite, I was not able to find any specific mention of benzodiazepines but I have added a citation and link to the relevant rule that covers fused heterocycles fused with a benzene ring. Based on this rule, one can derive the systematic IUPAC name "5-phenyl-1H-benzo[1,4]diazepin-2(3H)-one". I have also standardized the names in the benzodiazepine article using this systematic IUPAC name. I hope this is sufficient. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 07:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. I look forward to it getting promoted. It will be the first article that I have helped get to featured article and it will also be the first drug class featured article for wiki pharm project. Thanks for sorting out the chemical name. You did a great job. I really think that that is all of the problems ironed out of the article now.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Hypocretin

Thank you, sir! I have 2 questions...

1. Has the Orexin/Hypocretin naming cleavage been resolved? It seems to me the "brain guys" prefer hypocretin, but I am looking at the tip of the iceberg.

2. Is there any particular trigger that causes an entire section to be rewritten or is it just when someone takes a notion? As I told TSN, I can see that entire sections (If not entire articles!) need to be rewritten from time to time. As a newbee, I would not be so brash as to undertake that task. At least not until next week! ;-) CarsonsDad (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi. Concerning your first question, the short answer appears to be no. Orexin and hypocretin are of course synonyms for the same gene/protein. While I am not an expert on this gene/protein, hypocretin (HCRT) is the perferred HUGO gene name and orexin (O43612) is the preferred protein name. Concerning your second question and my edits to the orexin article, I was being bold (and so should you!). I did make some major changes to the text you added that were meant to make the text sound less like a press release and more encyclopedic. In particular, the WP:MEDMOS guideline states:

• Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation.

The exception to this rule is perhaps a history section which list the original discovery and key events (e.g., Nobel prizes) in the development of the subject. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 22:06, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and please do not feel that Q2 was in any way related to the changes you made to my "precious" paragraph. I assure you that my tongue was firmly in cheek when I chose to use that adjective in my note to TSN, if you happened to see that particular post.

Truthfully, Q2 is a "big picture" question. Taking our focus to a different article, I see that the narcolepsy article is clearly in need of wikification and, IMHO, needs to be rewritten in places because it is somewhat disjointed. I'm not critizing anyone over this, only observing that, as time goes by and edits pile up, there comes a point when an article, or certainly parts of it, need to be reworked. If I correctly understand your advice to be bold, you mean that anyone is welcome to have at it. CarsonsDad (talk) 00:11, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Please go ahead and edit the narcolepsy article. Having a large number of editors is both a strength and weakness. The masses can spot and correct errors, but articles can often lose cohesiveness with many contributors. Often what is required is a single dedicated editor whip an article back into shape. So please, if you have the time, "have at it"! Boghog2 (talk) 19:44, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing Narcolepsy

As a narcoleptic myself, here is my first attempt... :-(( CarsonsDad (talk) 00:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Narcolepsy is a neurological condition characteri zzzzzz ed by sudden and earr resistable attaxxx of day thyme sleppiness (yawn)

Oh, sorry, what was I saying? Oh, yes... sleepiness, also nown as EDS. A narcoleptic will most likely experience disturbeddd ...(yawn)...

Sorry about that, I wasn't paying attention there for a moment.  As I was saying, disturbed nocturnal sleep,
which is often confused with insomnia, and disordered REM or rapppid eyyeee movvvveeemeennt sleep. (yawn)

In edition, microsleep is zzzz  also zzzz  quite zzzz  common zzzz  in zzzz  marcoleptix zzzz.  Marcolepsy
issssss ssss sssss sss sssss ss s s s s

Oh! Yes! It is one of the dyssomnias.  The term was created by Dr. Jean-Baptiste-Édouard Gélineau (1859-1928) after a severe bout of 

This article sporked from the uncyclopedia

α_2D adrenoreceptor subtype

Hi Boghog2. Why do we not have a page for this subtype (and furthermore all mentions to α₂ adrenoreceptor subtypes say there are only three of them) There are selective ligands (e.g. PMID 7635662) and fairly recent research (PMID 18515144) but is this another receptor that is expressed in other animals but not in humans? Meodipt (talk) 06:25, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Meodipt. Again, an interesting question. It appears that PMID 12949138 provides a good answer. In particular, "... the rodent ADRA2A was initially designated ADRA2D on the basis of its ligand-binding profile but was subsequently shown to be orthologous to human ADRA2A. Occasionally, it is still misleadingly called 2D." The authors go on to say "Despite this, we propose that the fourth 2-AR subtype reported in this paper (in zebrafish) should be called ADRA2D". So the selective ligands for rat ADRA2D should probably be added to the ADRA2A article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 10:46, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

GABAA

Redacted.

Good grief! I hope you are OK now and are fully recovered. All the best. Boghog2 (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TOMM40

How did you do that so fast? Were we having edit conflicts? Abductive (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about that. We were having an edit conflict and I hope I didn't mess up anything you were trying to do. Perhaps it would have been better for me to wait an hour or so. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 23:49, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I didn't notice any edit conflicts. I should be the one apologizing.

You know what I think? I think this statistical association of some SNPs of TOMM40 to Alzheimer's is just an artifact of their proximity to APOE (or vice versa). It just seems so unlikely that these two genes, one for mitochondrial membranes and one for cellular membranes, are both related to the same disease. More likely, one of them is involved and the other is just along for the ride via linkage disequilibrium. Abductive (talk) 07:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I was also struck by the coincidence. There is this paper PMID 17434289 which suggests that certain APOE and not TOMM40 alleles are associated with an increased risk of developing Alzheimer's disease. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the TOMM40 article? Boghog2 (talk) 08:47, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. That paper is a direct refutation, but then why the recent press release that led me to edit the article? Does the most recent paper by Roses address or ignore that paper? (Either way it should go in, just with a different spin.) Abductive (talk) 09:02, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Now I am really confused. The Roses work so far has only been disclosed in a 15 minutes talk:

• Roses AD, Lutz MW, Huentelman MJ, Chiba-Falek O, Welsh-Bohmer KA, Reiman EM (2009-07-12). "Apoe-3 And Tomm-40 Haplotypes Determine Inheritance Of Alzheimer's Disease Independently Of Apoe-4 Risk". Alzheimer's Association 2009 International Conference on Alzheimer's Disease. Alzheimer's Association. Retrieved 2009-07-13. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• Cortez MF (2009-07-12). "Alzheimer's Gene Discovery May Help Predict Age Disease Hits". Bloomberg.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

The abstract of the talk does not mention the Yu et al. paper. I guess we will need to wait for the paper to come out to know more. Genetics is not my field, so it is difficult for me to sort out these apparently conflicting results. All we can to for now is to add the Yu and Roses citations and hopefully a review article will eventually come out that will clarify things. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

I went ahead and added citations in the TOMM40 article to the Yu (questioning) and Roses (supporting) the association between certain alleles of TOMM40 and AD. Please feel free to edit further. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 06:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Requesting correction to Phytoestrogens2.png

The table next to the isoflavone molecule has a column for R2, but there is no R2 in the molecule. I don't know much chemistry, so I don't know where it should go. Can you update the image, showing where R2 should go?

BTW, I'm a complete wikipedia contributor noob. I hope I've put this in the right place. If not, my apologies.

Thank you! Octagon88888888 (talk) 19:30, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

You have come to the right place and thanks for spotting the error. In the first structure (isoflavone), the oxygen atom at position-7 should be attached to R₂ rather than H. This has now been fixed. Boghog2 (talk) 20:29, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

HSD3B7

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of HSD3B7, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.rgd.mcw.edu/tools/genes/genes_view.cgi?id=734010. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 21:01, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Page in question:

{{NLM content}}

Notified CorenSearchBot. Boghog2 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

3 beta HSD

Hey, Boghog2 I put in a response to your discussion points on the page. Skingski (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:Yeast2Hybrid#Article_names_or_gene_symbols

Your input requested please... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Category talk:Human genes by chromosome

I removed the talk page discussion you just added. There is one discussion that is linked on the category page for category renames. The problem with the last discussion was that someone started a parallel discussion on the category talk page which resulted in two decisions, one that was official and implemented and one that was not considered and not implemented. There should only be one centralized discussion and not two. Vegaswikian (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, sorry for the confusion. I have renominated the category for move by adding the appropriate banners here and here. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 08:29, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Colored Pictures

User:Edgar181 didnt like the molecule I drew for epibatidine: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Epibatidine_structure.png

I noticed the molecule you drew for diosgenin which is the exact way I have learnt to color code it from an early age.

I am suspecting the only reason he edited has because some people prefer black & white.--Nuklear (talk) 19:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I have run into the same problem a few times (obviously I also prefer color). There are several issues:

• In your particular case, Edgar181 stated "please upload different image as a separate file" which is a reasonable request. But this may just be postponing the disagreement if you upload the file and change the image in the epibatidine article.
• NEUROtiker over at commons stated: Many of my images are used in more than one project and are drawn the way they are on purpose (e.g. black/white only). He didn't say exactly why he prefers B&W but he implies consistency which is a reasonable argument, especially if there are several different structures displayed in the same article. (On the other hand, the figure in question was not being used on any other page so I suspect he just prefers B&W).

The take home message appears to be not to overwrite existing images but upload new images using a new file name and then update the graphic in the article. If there are still disagreements, then the question needs to be settled by consensus on the article's talk page. The "traditionalist" argument for B&W might be something along the lines "that is the way they have drawn by organic chemists in journals and text books for years and I see no reason to change". My counter argument is that Wikipedia articles, even ones about organic chemistry, are for a wider audience than organic chemists. Use of color makes heteroatoms standout and therefore makes the entire figure easier to read. In addition, color makes the figures more visually appealing and will make it more likely for a casual reader to spend more time reading the particular article. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 20:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

drawing tool

Hi, Boghog2. I saw a signaling pathway (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Signal_transduction_pathways.png) drawn by you the other day and was quite impressed. And I wonder what drawing program you used to create this sort of graph. Littant (talk) 05:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I must admit I was not the original creator of that figure. I gave credit to User:Roadnottaken here, but that credit was somehow lost when transfered from Wikimedia Commmons to here. The thumbnail of the jpeg version of the file loaded by Roadnottaken for some reason did not display correctly inside Wikipedia (see here and look at the thumbnails at the bottom of the page). So I downloaded the file and converted it into png format which displays just fine. According to the comments here, Roadnottaken drew the graphic using Adobe Illustrator. I hope this helps. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 05:41, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. Thank you for your information. Littant (talk) 10:37, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for your help again, BogHog! It is interesting, what tool do you use now that Diberri's template tool is temporarily out of order. Cheers, --CopperKettle 06:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi CopperKettle! And thank you for your amazing high quality contributions! In answer to your question, I downloaded the diberri template filler Perl code from here and I am running a command line version of the template filler program on my local computer. I had some trouble installing it, but I finally got it to work. Unless you are somewhat familiar with Perl and already running a Perl interpreter, this solution is probably more work than it is worth. There are some other solutions proposed here but I have not tried them. Zotero looks especially promising. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 07:02, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

IUPHAR

Thanks about the IUPHAR links! --Tryptofish (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

After correcting my user details please consider my small contribution to this matter:- The links to IUPHAR-DB are essentially for enabling the general scientific and pharmacological community to obtain information on the recommended nomenclatures of the receptor-ion channels as agreed by IUPHAR. With respect to all your contributions, is the next best step forward to try and register the said IP address? If so how? I like the idea of the info box link, but how can this best be done? blackbutterfly 11:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC) blackbutterfly (talk) 11:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi! Thanks for registering and for your offer of help. As requested by Hu12 (a request which I completely agree with), we first must determine whether is support for adding the IUPHAR links at the appropriate Wiki Projects (WP:MCB and WP:PHARM). I will post a proposal and you are more than welcome to take part in the discussion. If there is support for the proposal, it should be straight forward to (1) add an optional IUPHAR parameter to the GNF_protein_box template and (2) add the appropriate IUPHAR accession numbers to the appropriate Wikipedia protein articles. Cheers. Boghog2 (talk) 17:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the adding of the IUPHAR accession numbers to the appropriate Wikipedia protein articles, maybe Chido Mpamhanga can provide a list of 'gene names' and accession numbers. They could then very quickly be added by a team of editors. Happy editing! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:26, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Chido, if you could provide us with a list of IUPHAR accession and corresponding HUGO gene names that would certainly make things much easier. Thanks for the suggestion and for your support Dirk! Ciao, Boghog (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

All sounds plausible, thanks Boghog for the step-by-step explanation on the IUPHAR template links.

How best should we progress and how can I help from here with the process? Here is the list of IUPHAR_accessions vs HGNC_IDs.. please download the CSV from www.iuphar-db.org/DATA/IUPHARDB_to_HGNC_mapping.csv Ciao,blackbutterfly (talk) 10:09, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I have already incorporated the data in your csv file into the {{IUPHAR}} and {{IUPHAR2}} templates. Wikipedia protein pages include either the {{protein}} or {{GNF_Protein_box}}. The former template has already been modified to in turn include the {{IUPHAR}} template which allows display of the IPHAR link. An example of its implementation may be seen in this diff. I have already included this link in a dozen or so pages that transclude the protein template. I plan to finish the rest this weekend. Concerning pages that transclude the GNF_Protein_box template, the template first must be modified. I put in a request here. Andrew has made the necessary changes in a test version and has requested that an administrator make the change in the production version here. As soon as that is done, all one needs to do to turn on the display of the IUPHAR link is to add a parameter "IUPHAR = yes" to the transcluded GNF_Protein_box in the protein page. Since there are only about ~500 entries in the IUPHAR database, we should be able to make the necessary edits very quickly. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 10:32, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi again, Thank you your effort on this... It would also be nice to get the community of pharmacologists to help with updating the stubbier wikipages for some of these receptors and ion channels...I can help by sending some emails to solicit for help from all contributors from IUPHAR. I will take the opportunity to do this as soon as the ~500 are complete. What do you think of this? - blackbutterfly (talk) 14:43, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

That would be fantastic! Because of some technical problems, it took longer than I initially thought, but the {{GNF_Protein_box}} template has now finally been updated to allow display of the IUPHAR link. In a somewhat related issue, there is now a way of creating GNF_Protein_box templates. For the ~500 pages in question I will in the next couple of days (1) convert all the protein templates to GNF_Protein_box templates and (2) include "IUPHAR = yes" parameter. Thank you for your help and patience in getting this implemented. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 15:06, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Hi, after noticing your recent edit to the GPCR-regulated K channel page, I noticed that the IUPHAR links there and on other pages are not shown (or at least I'm not recognizing them!). I'm wondering, what's the status of that these days? Thanks. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:32, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

I was concentrating on adding the IUPHAR links to the individual protein pages and not family pages. I have now added the IUPHAR link to the G protein-coupled inwardly-rectifying potassium channel article in this edit. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 19:44, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Saw it, thanks! I imagine it must be quite a lot of work to do it individually for each page, so thanks for that too. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:46, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Mianserin formulae

Please take care on the formulae of Mianserin as you did for Mirtazapine. Mianserin is a racemate too. Best regards, --Jü (talk) 12:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:19, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. --Jü (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

SOD/CAT

A few months ago we debated the merits of my SOD/CAT article. An antioxidant enzyme induction formula. Recently, the British Journal of Nutrition published an article strongly suggesting a formula such as SOD/CAT was a Sirtuin 1 activator, which might account for its antioxidant enzyme induction, (as sort of a side effect). As we discussed during our debate, I have years of anecdotal experience to suggest that phytoestrogens are effective SIR1 activators. Certainly, Resveratrol is well documented as such, and SOD/CAT certainly is by observation. While this doesn't necessarily improve the chances of a proprietary article surviving the editing process, it does tear open a new page for exploration and editing of the phytoestrogen article you appear to have contributed heavily to. Look into diadzein and SIRT1 activators. I believe you're the one of the best candidates to evaluate the data and determine how it best fits into the relevant subject matter. 71.105.255.183 (talk) 20:47, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for IUPHAR links

Thank you and the others for all your efforts with this!!

I know the pseudogenes are not included in the IUPHAR-db at the moment. IUPHAR-db will soon be extending to Nuclear Hormone receptors. But i will keep you abreast of this. I will also point to your efforts when trying to encourage the IUPHAR committees to help in updating all the stubbier wiki-pages for ion channels and GPCRs. I'm sure it is to the benefit of all pharmacologists that these are updated!

Lastly could you help me with a step by step procedure of what to do when IUPHAR-db publishes it's next set of receptors?

Kindest regards blackbutterfly (talk) 10:06, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Another bot job?

I just realized that we'd need to make this change to all PBB templates in order for all of Chris's improvements to show up. (The planned-but-not-yet-executed idea of completely removing {{GNF Ortholog box}}.) What do you think, is this another job that we can lean on BogBot for? (No rush of course, since the change to {{GNF Protein box}} can happen first with half the changes showing up immediately...) Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 20:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Sure. No problem. I will start this in a day or two. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Brilliant, thanks! Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 20:38, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely fantastic. Thanks so much for tackling this... Cheers, AndrewGNF (talk) 04:50, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

PMID to Cite

Thanks for expanding the PMIDs on the AFP article. Does this mean Diberri's tool is back? I have to go ... would you like to expand PMIDs also on Cruciate ligament? Thanks! --Una Smith (talk) 06:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I have expanded the citations in Cruciate ligament article as well. As mentioned above, Diberri's template filler is unfortunately still down. I have down loaded the Perl source and I am running a local copy. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you! --Una Smith (talk) 23:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for reference formatting in Bisphenol A! Sad to say I'm not familiar with the Perl code, but at least I can provide PMID to references until the day an online template filler works again.Mikael Häggström (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

AOC3 and other protein pages

Hi Bohog2! Is there an reason why all (or most) of the protein pages start "... is a human gene" instead of "enzyme", "ion channel" etc.? Just being curious --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 18:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I had precisely the same question two years ago. I have made a proposal to modify the lead sentence here. Unless there are any serious objections, BogBot will implement the changes in the next week or two. Your thoughts and suggestions are most certainly welcome. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:46, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed change to Reelin

I proposed a change to the citation style of the Reelin. I think it would make the article easier to navigate for editors (with virtually no change for readers). However, the effort to make the change is not trivial, so I would like to get feedback from editors before attempting a conversion. I've posting this message to editors who have a fair number of recent edits to that page. I've explained more details, along with a link to a test on the Talk PageSPhilbrickT 21:22, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Infobox rfam

Hi Boghog2, just taking a look at your edits on the Telomerase RNA component article. Your Template:Infobox rfam looks very nice! We don't systematically keep all the fields you've added eg. HGNC, OMIM, EntrezGene, etc. I think we probably could cross-reference to HGNC using human genome coordinates, OMIM etc could be trickier to get a hook into. I do like the 'Domain(s)' field -- we have this in the database but I haven't advertised it too much since occasionally sequence contamination makes us look silly eg. bacterial sequences in the rice genome means we would put 'Bacteria, Eukaryote' there when this is patently incorrect. We could replace the existing Template:Rfam box with your Template:Infobox rfam the next time we systematically run RfamBot over all the Rfam/RNA pages. Would that be ok? The time-frame may be a little slow -- we have a new release to get out before xmas so it wont happen until 2010 some time... --Paul (talk) 09:20, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Paul. Thanks for your positive feedback! The {{Infobox rfam}} template is still very much an experiment. It was prompted in part by a desire to reduce the size of the {{Rfam box}} template and also to make it more consistent with the analogous {{Infobox protein family}} and {{Infobox enzyme}} templates. Including HGNC, OMIM, EntrezGene, etc. fields is probably not appropriate for most Rfam entries unless there is a single unique human representative for that family. What would be desirable are fields for other RNA family databases but it appears that Rfam is the only game in town. You are certainly welcome to further edit the {{Infobox rfam}} template and transclude it where ever you feel it is appropriate. From my point of view, there is no rush to systematically replace {{Rfam box}} with {{Infobox rfam}} templates. Furthermore before carrying out such a replacement I think it would be good to solicit community opinion. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Hi Boghog, I think it is still a good start for providing an updated template. We may update rfam box/infobox rfam sometime in the future. We do have a few cross-links to other more specialised DBs eg. [www.mirbase.org miRBase] and [www-snorna.biotoul.fr snoRNABase]. About a 3rd of our families have hits in human -- we could for example link the highest scoring region to the UCSC and/or ensembl genome browsers. Loads of possibilities. Good idea to solicit community advice also. We'll try this closer to the time. Cheers. --Paul (talk) 22:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

Protein expression (biotechnology)

Thanks for moving protein expression! I think the way it's set up now makes much more sense. Pdcook (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

User_talk:TimVickers

Just letting you know I reverted your rollback here. I can't see any vandalism, and I'm presuming you had a misclick. Best - Kingpin¹³ (talk) 13:30, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Whoa! It was a misclick and thanks for reverting my roll back. Sorry about that. All the best. Boghog (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Please check Myoglobin

You seem to have deleted a lot of the myoglobin page, I assume this was accidental?     — SkyLined (talk) 22:16, 11 November 2009 (UTC) Never mind, I did not scroll down to where the original text ended up.... sorry :(     — SkyLined (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No problem, I can see where the diff would give you that impression. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 22:30, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Cathepsins

Thanks for correcting my move request for cathepsin H – that move would have been a bit stange! By the way, is cathepsin O missing on Wikipedia by any chance? --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 21:34, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up on on cathepsin O. I just converted this redirect into a stub. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine :-) ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 14:20, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

A bit of gratitide for ABCA13

Thank you for hepling out with ABCA13, Boghog! --CopperKettle 16:21, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

My pleasure and thank you for starting the article. The Knight et al. publication which links certain mental illnesses to mutations in the ABCA13 gene is fascinating. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating? I must confess I've only glanced at the abstract, but now I grew interested. If by chance you have in possession the full text.. and wish to share, my email is cukettle at gmail dot com. Would be very grateful. Best regards, --CopperKettle 18:27, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

G protein-gated ion channels

Some of my classmates and I have been expanding the G protein-gated ion channel article for our neuroscience project at Boston College. I would like to thank you for helping out with our article, but I was wondering if you might suggest some things we could to do move our article from "start" to "C" or "B" quality. Thank you in advance for your time. Bellamen (talk) 07:03, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Hexosaminidase A

We researched an enzyme (specifically Hexosaminidase A) for our chemistry class. All of our research is centered on HEXA, but we were directed to the general Hexosaminidase page when we tried to find Hexosaminidase A. As a result, we have now copied our information onto the HEXA page in hopes that this will clear up some of the confusion. We had previously deleted some of your additions because they did not pertain to Hexosaminidase A, but we have stopped editing the Hexosaminidase page. Please allow us to present our information on the HEXA page.

Thanks, Sarah and Cody

This message was sent to HappyInGeneral: I have been working on a Wikipedia project on an enzyme Hexosaminidase A which is an isozyme of Beta-Hexosaminidase, but you just reported my partner (SarahBarker) and I for vandalism. Originally, we were trying to update the Hexosaminidase (as a search for Hexosaminidase A directs you to Hexosaminidase), but after you and Boghog2 made changes to the last "good version." We decided to update the HexA site with all the information on the Hexosaminidase page which was information that we carefully researched, but it is now misinformative information because of the way the Hexosaminidase site is formatted. I'm just curious why you reported us for vandalism or why you keep reverting all the changes we make? We needed to research an enzyme for our end of the semester chemistry project, but we can't even publish our work online because of you. Im really confused? I wouldn't have a problem if you made minor changes, but accusing us of vandalism? Deleting all of our work? Thats ridiculous - especially when the whole page of information and figures on the Hexosaminidase site was added after a lot of careful research. I'd really appreciate it if we could just update a page for at least a few days, so then our professor could atleast accurately grade our project. Sarahebarker (talk) 03:34, 11 December 2009 (UTC)Codyshafer_2011

"Please allow us to present our information on the HEXA page." No problem, but please try to integrate your contributions with existing content rather than overwriting previous content. For example, the {{PBB}} template is much more appropriate for the HEXA page than the {{Enzyme}} template. I have restored the original {{PBB}} template. Please don't change it back. In addition, I have restored the original lead paragraph which provides a good introduction. Finally I have reformatted the references. I intend to further edit the article when I have time to fix the section headings and wiki links. Boghog (talk) 10:09, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

After further reflection, I think the material that you added is more appropriate for the hexosaminidase instead of the HEXA article since your figures refer to both HEXA and HEXB. You claim that "it is now misinformative information because of the way the Hexosaminidase site is formatted". What part of the current version is "misinformative"? Please state your concerns on the article's talk page. I am certain that we can work our a mutually agreeable compromise. Boghog (talk) 18:32, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

I now see at least part of the confusion is that hexosaminidase A ≠ HEXA. The former is a heterodimer composed of alpha and beta subunits while the later is the gene that encodes the alpha subunit. I now see that I mixed these up and I apologize for my error. I have further edited the hexosaminidase article to correct this mistake. Does it look OK now?

I am now quite certain that the material that you added is much more appropriate for the hexosaminidase rather than the HEXA article. The subject mater of the former covers both subunits while the subject mater of the later primarily concerns the HEXA gene and the alpha subunit protein that is encoded by this gene. Boghog (talk) 20:33, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

(undent) Great to see that experts found each other! Good work! --HappyInGeneral (talk) 20:13, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Disclaimer: I am certainly not an expert on this particular enzyme but after reading a few articles, I am rapidly coming up to speed. Thanks for your encouragement and for your good nature. Boghog (talk) 20:25, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Myostatin

Just noticed your deletion of MYO-T12 and the fake JACN article. Nice sleuthing, this is exactly what Wikipedia needs, because a lot of people see that there is a ref and assume it's legitimate. Nice work! -kslays (talk • contribs) 19:49, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! I initially assumed it was a legitimate citation and I wanted to provide a direct link to the original article on the JACN site. I quickly discovered that there was no such article. The vast majority of citations in that I have looked at in Wikipedia are legit, but occasionally I do find problems. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 12:21, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

citation in GLUT4

Perhaps my eyes are tired, but I can't locate the one you just removed:

James DE, Strube M, and Mueckler M (1989). "Molecular cloning and characterization of an insulin-regulatable glucose transporter". Nature 338: 83–87.

Now, having sat by while this article didn't even mention James as the prime mover in this field—the original discovery of the protein was his, wasn't it?—I think the readers deserve to be introduced to the topic in the order in which it evolved scientifically. Reword further if you wish, but the discovery of the transporter really has to come first, I'm sure you will agree.

Tony (talk) 14:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for the accidentally deleted citation. I have restored it and moved it in-line. I agree that the discovery should be presented in chronological order, but at the same time, I think the focus of the article should remain on the protein, not its discovers. Hence I have split out a separate discovery section from the lead. I hope this modification addresses both concerns. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 18:08, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

And now, for FV's traditional last-minute nonsectarian holiday greeting!

Here’s wishing you a happy end to the holiday season and a wonderful 2010. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 15:06, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

... disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate.

Hi Boghog2, could do with some support upon the disregard of the documentary evidence content of Hulda Clark's death certificate. Warm thanks; WATerian (talk) 12:41, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

• Note violation of canvassing. -- Brangifer (talk) 19:46, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

RfD nomination of "EntrezGene = 58155"

I have nominated Article ([[Special:EditPage/{{{1}}}|edit]] | [[Talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] | [[Special:PageHistory/{{{1}}}|history]] | [[Special:ProtectPage/{{{1}}}|protect]] | [[Special:DeletePage/{{{1}}}|delete]] | [{{fullurl:Special:WhatLinksHere/{{{1}}}|limit=999}} links] | [{{fullurl:{{{1}}}|action=watch}} watch] | logs | views) for discussion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at the discussion page. Thank you. — The Man in Question (in question) 22:38, 28 December 2009 (UTC)