User talk:Reba16

A belated welcome!

The welcome may be belated, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Reba16! I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may still benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introductory tutorial
• Contributing to Wikipedia
• Writing an article
• Five pillars of Wikipedia
• Community portal
• Task Center
• Help pages
• The Teahouse (newcomer help)
• Main help desk

If you don't already know, you should sign your posts on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) to insert your username and the date.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Again, welcome! Kj cheetham (talk) 18:43, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Reba16 (talk) 18:46, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Move request

Hi there! I just moved the page as requested at WP:RMTR, but wanted to let you know you could have probably done that one yourself as you have an "Autoconfirmed users" account now. :) -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:53, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

I tried. I was able to move a different article a few days ago, but it wouldn't let me move this one. I forget the error message it gave me. Thanks. Reba16 (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 13

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Cinnamon leaf oil, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Caustic. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar 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) 06:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Merge proposal for Prostaglandin-F synthase

Hi Reba16 You made the proposal to merge Prostaglandin-F synthase and Prostaglandin F synthase, which looks like a no-brainer for Support to me. However, you didn't start a discussion on the Talk Page of either article, which is where people could show their support (or otherwise). Perhaps you would like to do that now? You don't need to wait more than a couple of weeks after that, if there are no objections, before going ahead and doing the merger. Contact me for advice if you are unfamiliar with the process. Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:33, 5 March 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've started a discussion. I'll merge the two articles in a few weeks if there is no objection. Reba16 (talk) 15:19, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now merged the two articles. Reba16 (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi again Reba16. I see that you have now merged the pages and done a good job of that. Just a couple of minor points. We usually add the template {{R from merge}} to the page that has become the re-direct, so that it is clear to future editors that it already has an extensive page history. (I've done that for you.) Also, we don't normally re-direct Talk pages for the page that was merged — but no harm done in this case as the page was virtually empty. The full instructions are at Help:Merge and are a bit complicated!. Mike Turnbull (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the tips. I will be sure to familiarize myself with the merge instructions before the next time I merge two pages. Reba16 (talk) 19:01, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I've now taken a close look at the merged article and (as a chemist, not a molecular biologist) I'm getting very confused, so I hope you can sort out some of the issues I've noticed. These are:

• Why is the reaction in the lede of Prostaglandin F synthase written as if it was an oxidation, not a reduction? It is standard practice to put the starting materials on the left of a chemical equation, and this enzyme converts a ketone to an alcohol, or (if PGH2 to PGF2) breaks an O-O bond. The text later describes how NADPH is the source of reducing power and so logically fits on the left of the equation, not as the product of it. (I know that the IUBMB Enzyme database often gets this wrong!)
• How does Prostaglandin F synthase differ from AKR1C3 for which there is another article, where some of the PDB id's are the same, for example 1RY0?
• Why does the article on Prostaglandin H2 not describe the synthesis of PGF2 as one of the reactions from PGH2? Indeed, the diagram in that article would give the reader the impression that PGF2 is not formed directly but only through PGE2 (which chemically is odd since E2 is more oxidised than either H2 or F2).
• Similarly, why does the article on Prostaglandin D2 not describe the synthesis of PGF2 from it?

It looks to me as though a lot of these articles have been built up over the years without anyone taking an overview. Are you able to do that and work out how to fix inconsistencies like these, or should we be approaching one or more of the Project groups who have expressed an interest? Mike Turnbull (talk) 15:45, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

These are tough questions. I'm not an enzymologist, but I do have a little bit of experience in this area, so I'll tackle them as best I can:

• Some reactions catalyzed by enzymes are reversible, and the difference between which side is called a reactant and which is called a product is arbitrary (or a matter of convention or perspective) in these cases. Under some biological conditions, the reaction may proceed in one direction and in other conditions it may go the other direction. I suspect that the original article at Prostaglandin-F synthase (where the reaction in the lede was merged from) was created by some automated process and that the content came from a database that was created by some other automated process. And the reason that the reaction was shown as an oxidation rather than the biologically relevant (I think) reduction is merely an artifact of those automated processes. But when the newer article on the same topic, Prostaglandin F synthase, was created it was written by an actual human being who recognized that the reaction written as a reduction makes more sense from the perspective of the biosynthesis of biologically relevant chemical compounds.
• I have no good idea about how Prostaglandin F synthase differs from AKR1C3. The article AKR1C3 seems to conflate information about an enzyme and a gene that encodes for that enzyme. Maybe the two articles Prostaglandin-F synthase and AKR1C3 were intended at some point to be one about the gene and one about the enzyme, but they've now become overlapping? There is certainly some overlap in identifiers and in some content, but there is enough content that is different that it makes me unsure how exactly the topics of the two articles are related.
• The diagram File:Eicosanoid_synthesis.svg confuses me too. As you've noted, it does appear to be inconsistent with the content at Prostaglandin F synthase. I share your concern that the sequence PGH2 --> PGE2 --> PGF2 does not make sense based on the chemical structures of those three compounds.
• I would guess that Prostaglandin D2 does not describe the synthesis of PGF2 from it because the article is just incomplete. This is very typical of Wikipedia, based on my years of reading Wikipedia articles. Niche articles like this tend to be written by people with narrow fields of research who write only about what they know best. You end up with articles that describe one aspect of topic really well without covering some other aspect at all, just because the one researcher who's an expert in that other aspect of the topic doesn't contribute to Wikipedia.

Sorry I can't be of too much help. Asking for input from WikiProjects is probably the best way forward; but since these articles seem to be written by people who aren't long term Wikipedia editors, you'll probably need some luck to find someone who knows this topic well. Reba16 (talk) 00:54, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Reba16, I think your analysis is spot on. I can tell that a number of articles on enzymes (id at List of enzymes) were created in the early days of Wikipedia and used very stilted language which persists at Prostaglandin F synthase when the lede says "Thus, the two substrates of this enzyme are .... whereas its three products are". I first ran into this when I re-wrote Cobalamin biosynthesis to add a much fuller account and found that most of the enzymes on the pathway had their own articles written just like that (I changed then all!). In my view as a chemist, there should be an article on a given notable chemical (e.g. Vitamin B12) and if the biosynthesis is complex and notable another covering that topic with, as is usually the case yet another on each of the enzymes involved. My bias is to focus on the actual chemical reaction being catalysed (which is what the EC number inks to) so there are sometimes multiple genes that give different proteins all of which function in the same, or very similar, ways. My suggestion now is that an article on, say Prostaglandin F synthase, should focus on the enzyme itself, including how it is arises from the genetics and what reaction it catalyses BUT NOT on the full pathway in which it is just one component. So, as currently written it is on the right lines. Do you have any further comments before I try to compose something for the Project page(s)? Mike Turnbull (talk) 11:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I've got a partial explanation of the confusions in the present articles. The diagram they all use is from 2004 or so. Hence it lacks some of the reaction details. It turns out that PGH2 -> PHE2 is known (reaction EC 5.3.99.3) and PGE2 can give PGF2α (reaction 1.1.1.189). However, PGH2 direct to PGF2α is also possible (reaction 1.1.1.188). Likewise, PGH2 -> PGD2 is known (reaction EC 5.3.99.2) and PGD2 can give PGF2α (reaction 1.1.1.188). So the diagram is incomplete rather than wrong. The best place to get all this information in one place is the "MetaCYC database here". Mike Turnbull (talk) 12:27, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think I have any more comments. I'll have a look once you're done and see how it looks to me. Reba16 (talk) 00:58, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Convolvulus scammonia

Last Sunday, you removed quite a lot of text from Convolvulus scammonia. In general I agree when claims about healing effects are removed if they are only based on semantically empty statements in folklore. But when you removed the text on the medical use of Convolvulus scammonia, you justified your edit with: "Most of this is unreferenced and the one paper cited is published in a low quality predatory journal." That's not totally true. Most of the text was literally copied from the 1911 edition of Encyclopaedia Britannica.

Being over one hundred years old, the contents of that work should most likely be reviewed in order to present reliable data on proven medical effects today. But the species has a long history of use in medicine. The reason I ever had a look at the article was because Pierre Belon mentioned the species and its use in medicine in his report on his journey to the Middle-East in 1547 (report appeared 1554). Although the effects of the drug may be questioned, they are of interest in a historical sense. Instead of removing the text completely, I guess it would be correct to refer to the purported medical effects, as reported in the past. That would also much better explain why the species was of so much interest to early Renaissance scientists. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 20:16, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I did not realize that the section was a direct quote from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica and wouldn't have just removed the content if I had realized that. I guess I was thrown off by the {{citation needed}} tags throughout that section. While EB is generally considered a reliable source, I don't think such an old publication should be considered an appropriate source for specific claims of medical effectiveness, dose, etc. per Wikipedia guidelines (WP:RSMED). I have restored some of the content that I had removed. Please have a look and let me know what you think. Reba16 (talk) 23:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I could not have done it any better. 77.164.133.132 (talk) 10:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	i am daily user of wiki Ab.rehman sheikh (talk) 23:49, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Talk:Katharine Pearce

Please see Template:WikiProject Disambiguation, which explains "Please do not use this template solely to create talk pages that otherwise have no content." There's no point in adding the banner because all disambiguation pages are automatically within the remit of this Wikiproject, and the existence of the talk page means that editors with questions about the page have an unnecessary extra page to check. It's better if the talk page doesn't exist, unless there is actually something talked about. Thanks. PamD 16:21, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, understood. Reba16 (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for July 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Sigma receptor, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Subtype.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Merger proposal for Glycine hydrochloride

Hi there, I saw your {{mergeto}} tag that you added to Glycine hydrochloride. I'd just like to echo the points made by Mike Turnbull earlier this year above about how it's important to start a discussion when proposing mergers and follow the steps at WP:MERGE; just tagging one page is ineffective at getting anything to happen. Keep in mind though that you can also boldly do mergers yourself without any discussion or waiting if you think it's uncontroversial and have a vision for how the content should be merged into the target article, but in some cases it might get reverted and require discussion anyway. I find that tagging the pages, starting a discussion, and waiting a week is a good way to check for any objections (even if nobody comments) before then doing the merger, and a week is not an undue delay. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 00:40, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I now notice you started a discussion at Talk:Glycine_hydrochloride#Merge_suggestion, I apologize for not noticing that before. The problem is that the {{mergeto}} template points to the destination talk page by default. Merge discussions are usually held at the proposed destination page rather than the source page because that is the talk page that will persist if the merge is completed. I moved what you said over there and linked between the pages to avoid confusion. Cheers, Mdewman6 (talk) 06:49, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the information and thanks for moving text around to fix things. I'll try to get it right next time. Reba16 (talk) 23:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:58, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia

Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny
Associate Professor
Hanyang University
If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Reba16. Thank you for your work on Coenzyme Q5. User:SunDawn, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating the article!

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|SunDawn}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~. (Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

✠ SunDawn ✠ (contact) 02:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:49, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Chat GTP

chat GTP was not used in the making of trimethoxysilane. 213.124.175.212 (talk) 16:45, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for letting me know. Reba16 (talk) 17:15, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Reba16:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 2500 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

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

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on S-Methyl thioacetate

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page S-Methyl thioacetate, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

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, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 02:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)