User talk:Gklambauer

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Gklambauer, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Graph kernel. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome! QVVERTYVS (hm?) 22:02, 3 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

some more welcome[edit]

hi Gklambauer - I saw your edit to the Toxicology article, so came to say hi. We really need more expert toxicologists working in WP, so I wanted to come welcome you. Please do read WP:Expert which is a useful essay for folks like you, and please consider joining Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine (or at least starting to watch its talk page, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.) Project Medicine also has a "toxicology task force" that may interest you, Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Toxicology task force.

This place can be somewhat bewildering for new users - feel free to ping me, or to write here (I am "watching" this page now), if you have any questions. Again, welcome! Jytdog (talk) 12:40, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Gklambauer Hello, thanks for noticing. The article Toxicology really need substantial revision and labour. I will look at your suggestions, thanks again!

Great! i saw you struggled a bit with how to reply. let me explain how we talk to one another... it takes a while to get the hang of this place. when you post a comment on a talk page, "sign" your comment by typing four tildas after it, like this ~~~~. When you do that, the Wikipedia software converts that into a "signature" with your username and a datestamp, as you see appearing after my comment above and will see after this one. Also, in Wikipedia we thread comments in a discussion by indenting them... see how mine is indented? you create one indent by placing one colon <nowik> : </nowiki> at the beginning of your comment, and the wikipedia software converts the colon into a tab. One colon makes one tab, two colons make two tabs, etc, like this:

that has two colons

that has three colons.. and you can see how that threads a discussion. when there gets to be too many indents, you can "outdent" your comment by placing {{od}} in front of your comment, like this:

and it keeps the threading going. good luck! Jytdog (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I see it completely different - I am describing the articles before my edits:

* E.coli O104:H4: Method that identified Shiga-Toxin as the crucial gene and thereby saved many lives: MISSING!

* Article on copy number variation: Important method with 60 citations missing.

* Article on IBD: complete crap. Updated. The figure was displayed at ASHG2014 (American Society of Human Genetics meeting) in at least 3 presentations. Important methods missing.

* Kernel methods: needs substantial work.

* Toxicology: The article is a laughter and an insult to toxicology. Most important scientific publications are missing. Structure of the article is ridiculous.

* Toxicogenomics: Most important project with several hundreds of million of dollars volume missing. Best performing methods missing.

* Cytotoxicity: Most important papers missing. Best performing methods missing. Weak structure.

* Virtual Screening: Status as of 1996.

Just two more articles that are heavily biased towards certain groups:

* Feature selection

* Deep learning, reference [1] ^^

If I cite my work, then because it is a central scientific leap and there - of course - is a bias to scientific fields in which I have substantial knowledge. So I have noticed your comments, but I will neglect them and they still heavily insult me. Gklambauer (talk) 06:19, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]