User talk:CatPath

Welcome!

Hello, CatPath, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Quick introduction to Wikipedia
• How to write a great article
• Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
• Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome!  WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:18, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

More helpful links

• Wikipedia: The Missing Manual
• Template for citing medical articles

Edits on RNA thermometer

In this edit summary you state "The Shamovsky 2006 reference does not claim that RNA-1 is an RNA thermometer". In fact, the referenced article states:

Here we describe a previously uncharacterised non-coding RNA that is essential for heat-shock response activation and that could potentially serve as a thermosensor. Indeed, the concept of an RNA thermosensor, albeit with a different mode of action, has already been described in bacteria

While you could have added "potentially" I disagree with removing the whole paragraph so will be reinserting it. Please discuss, ideally on the article talk page, before removing large sections Thanks Jebus989^✰ 08:24, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the Hsp70 element, the referenced article states:

We suggest that one or both of these regions of secondary structure comprises a heat-sensitive inhibitory element that impedes access to the initiation codon at normal growth temperature. Furthermore, the ability of ribosomal subunits to recognize this region could be heat enhanced, presumably through thermal destabilization of the stem. This model draws by analogy on studies that have elucidated a mechanism of bacterial heat shock preferential translation. In that instance, a series of studies have shown that thermal melting of a stem-containing region including the Shine-Dalgarno region, and perhaps also a downstream box segment, allows rRNA base-pairing and ribosome recruitment only at elevated (heat shock) temperatures

But I accept that, although spelling it out, they do not use the phrase 'RNA thermometer/thermosensor', so I will not reinsert it at this time Jebus989^✰ 08:37, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

TB

Vaccine concerns are based on "However, some countries, such as the USA, do not routinely vaccinate with BCG, based on the uncertain efficacy against pulmonary TB in adolescents and adults, as well as the need to maintain the utility of tuberculin testing as a diagnostic test in the population."--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:53, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia Help Survey

Hi there, my name's Peter Coombe and I'm a Wikimedia Community Fellow working on a project to improve Wikipedia's help system. At the moment I'm trying to learn more about how people use and find the current help pages. If you could help by filling out this brief survey about your experiences, I'd be very grateful. It should take less than 10 minutes, and your responses will not be tied to your username in any way.

Thank you for your time,
the wub (talk) 17:33, 14 June 2012 (UTC) (Delivered using Global message delivery)[reply]

Cat, just checking in

No issue with the OR at Bb, User:CatPath let's just keep checking and if we see relevant source on the sensu, I'll be glad to extract and make the initial edit, if you post a citation there. (I did some drug discovery work on that organism years ago, as a medic hem / chem biol, not a microbiol). Alternatively on the sensu, I'd be glad to try to help you find a way to get a short scholarly note published. Never been easier with PLOS and the proliferation of niche J's. (I am envision a comment somewhere, or a reply, that incorporates your obs). RSVP, or we can go offline. Cheers. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 04:29, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental microbiology

Editors with conflict of interests aren't a speedy deletion criterion, and not really ever a deletion criterion. Editors can, and do, edit articles where they have a conflict of interest. They don't have any restrictions above or beyond regular editors - just that we acknowledge it's a trickier situation, and you need to be carefuler. You can read the whole mess, but basically all it says is don't push a POV against the interests of the encyclopaedia. I don't see any evidence of that in that case. Articles that are blatant spam get deleted because they're of no encyclopaedic value. Articles that are of encyclopaedic value, but - what? rely to heavily on sources from a single publisher? - may need some balancing/editing, but there's no need to delete them.

That said, if there're substantial copyright violations in the article, tag it as G-12, and then it should be speedily deleted. Copyright infringment needs to be nuked from orbit, and the article re-created from scratch. WilyD 09:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Well, if there are substantial amounts of copied text (or even small amounts!), that is a serious problem. Don't haraung someone over having a COI, unless their editing is otherwise problematic, but don't put up with copyright violations. WilyD 11:14, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please note my comment on the Leptospira talk page

See comment here

Esther Lederberg

Hi CatPath -- Wondering if we could talk on Talk:Esther Lederberg about the extensive changes you've been making? Thanks. --Lquilter (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion declined: Environmental microbiology

Hello CatPath. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Environmental microbiology, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: Too complex for speedy deletion. Try WP:Copyright problems instead. Thank you. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 03:07, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Water filtration article

CatPath,

removing apparently valid sources for an article which has been copied from the non-deleted source does seem quite a surprising action. I presume there must be some reason that isn't visible to the rest of us, such as that the deleted sources have been spammed into there? Otherwise, one might imagine that a good route for the article would be to use the non-CV sources to develop the article.

What's the situation? Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:41, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

removing Phylogenetic trees

Hi CatPath, u removed the tree that I created and said "‎Phylogeny: Deleted tree. Does not appear correctly on some screens. Should be presented as a figure, not as in-line text". I know you are trying to make the page clearer and more reader friendly, but instead of removing someones work altogether why don't you fix the errors to make it more legible and aesthetic. Don't mean to be rude but you seem to be doing this alot. The information present was gotten from credible sources and represent a useful addition to the knowledge base of Bacteriology, so agin why don't you solve problems rather than just delete problems. Videsh Ramsahai (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Lac operon

I see that you have been making many edits to different pages on how the lac operon works and its inhibition by glucose. I don't think it is wise to make wholesale changes without making clearer in the text why what is generally accepted to true in textbook may not be accurate. I don't know if this has been addressed in studies, but lac operon mutants that are insensitive to catabolite repression is explained in term of not requiring cAMP binding, and if the cAMP model is wrong, I'm still not sure how it could be affected by the glucose shutting down lactose permease. If one model is wrong, it doesn't mean the other is necessarily correct, therefore a clearer explanation of the different models is necessary. Hzh (talk) 14:31, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

About Applied Behavioral Analysis

Hi there,

I'm Luna, the person whose edit you rolled back on the ABA page. I was wondering if you could help me.

I realize that my edit didn't match Wikipedia's guidelines, so I'm okay with it going away. However, the issues I mentioned still remain: the autistic/parent community takes serious issue with many forms of ABA therapy for a number of ethical reasons. A lot of children and adults have been abused, scarred, and diagnosed with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a result of their experiences in ABA.

I feel that parents and others need to be aware of the controversy and risks when making this decision. I've heard of parents who say they were not informed about some of the things that happened in the therapy (e.g. pinning down a sobbing child, physical injury, taking away a child's AAC device as punishment). Ideally, parents would know that these things happen, so they can balance cost/benefit and know what to look out for if they decide to proceed with ABA.

Since I'm new and unused to the quality guidelines, I doubt that attempting to edit the article alone will result in an edit that stays. I'd like it to have a clear, appropriately-cited part somewhere so the article will describe both sides of the argument. Where and how can I get help to make this happen?

Thanks a lot, Luna MissLuna12 (talk) 15:32, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Edit to Borrelia burgdorferi

Greetings! I noticed that you reverted some edits that I made to Borrelia burgdorferi. References 4 and 5 document the consensus of researchers with reliable, high quality medical references that this pathogen is oncogenic and an infectious cause of cancer. Providing two important wikilinks to more information on this bacteria is appropriate. Best Regards,   Bfpage |leave a message  20:14, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bfpage, the only review source on the Bb oncogenesis discussion closes its only relevant section on the Bb-lymphoma association by saying, "Unlike gastric MALT lymphoma, only a few cases of PCBCL [primary cutaneous B-cell lymphoma] have responded to antibiotics (42, 57, 91, 141, 166, 206). As in the case of C. psittaci and ocular adnexal MALT lymphoma, if B. burgdorferi is truly associated with PCBCL, then there is wide geographic variability and other factors are probably involved" (see [1], p. 846, accessed 19 June 2015.).

Bottom line, correlation is not causality, and there is no support in this best source, for the broad conclusion you stated, Bfpage, that Bb as a "pathogen is oncogenic and an infectious cause of cancer." Please. State what the experts state, and only that. We are not allowed, or in this case, qualified to do more. Le Prof Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:15, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

A Barnstar for you

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		For careful expert scrutiny in your field of expertise. Leprof 7272 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you

I am so glad that you found the (embarrassing) mistake of my listing the same reference twice but with different lead authors in the Pelvic inflammatory disease article. Just because it has passed its GA review doesn't mean that it doesn't need more reviews-you have proven that and I am glad. I think where I went wrong is that I plugged in the doi into an automated, web-based referencing bot that spit out the 'wiki-ready' mark-up code with Clarke's name first instead of Sharma. So now I have the tedious job of going back over my contributions and created articles where I used this one reference as two....grrr. I created my own problem. Thanks again and feel free to point out the editing mistakes that I make-it can only make things better. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  23:42, 16 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Cat path-The revert

Ok. Then. That is fine. My mistake! SwagBucks101101 (talk) 18:37, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For being extremely nice during a discussion about 1 of my edits that I oops! made! Thanks CatPath- for you being nice! SwagBucks101101 (talk) 18:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Lyme Borreliosis

Hi CatPath,

I just wanted to comment on the recent changes you made to the Lyme disease microbiology article. The reference you cited doesn't claim these 21 species are "Lyme-associated." It just says there are 21 species which make host of deer ticks. Most of these 21 species don't have any proof for pathogenic potential.

See below:

"Although the pathogenic potential of many of these variants remains to be established, recognition is an essential first step towards unravelling their ecological role(s) and pathogenic capability. Within this category are borreliae, including B. americana, B. bavariensis, B. bissettiae, B. californiensis, B. finlandensis, B. kurtenbachii, B. mayonii, B. sinica, B. tanukii, B. turdi and B. yangtzensis, which share their vector with known pathogenic species."

So I think it's actually pretty irresponsible to call these 21 species "Lyme-associated" since the majority of them haven't been associated with Lyme disease at all. They've only been associated with host ticks which also carry the pathogenic lyme variants. Let me know your thoughts here.

Also, I gotta say, the source that I used that you removed explicitly stated the number of main species which cause Lyme disease. See below:

"Nearly all human infections are caused by three B burgdorferi sensu lato genospecies: Borrelia garinii, Borrelia afzelii, and B burgdorferi sensu stricto. All three species cause Lyme borreliosis in Europe, whereas only B burgdorferi sensu stricto causes Lyme borreliosis in the USA."

This is very much in line with a consensus of the medical literature.--Shibbolethink ^(♔ ^♕) 17:11, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's a misunderstanding here. Moving to article's talk page to keep everything in one place. CatPath (talk) 18:18, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

History of syphilis

Pleased to meet you. Your recent edit [2] was undone earlier today, so I'm here to ask your expertise in the matter and whether it belongs or not. Etsybetsy (talk) 12:41, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Leaky" vaccines

I have started a discussion regarding your revert of my recent contribution to the Pertussis vaccine article. I have also self-reverted an identical edit I had made to the Pertussis article, and added a comment to that talk page as well. --Outdowands (talk) 23:52, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for fixing the page on Hans Asperger

I had it on my watchlist, but I've been sporadic in my editing and you caught it first. Thanks and sorry for not responding quickly enough to keep you from having to deal with it. TheDracologist (talk) 08:29, 5 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It is not fair for the scientific world to use an outdated article if only you pay attention to the article I cited.

The old dot blot format is not suitable for high throughput immunoblot analysis. The new method quantify individual dot to define the linear range of the analysis. Therefore, it is a significantly improvement of the old method. Let me know if you do not agree, so we can discuss further. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 19:14, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The classic dot blot format is suitable for high throughput analysis. I have a 96-channel dot blot apparatus sitting in my lab. The real problem with the new article that you created is that the new method described with the QDB plate is not notable. Multiple reliable sources describing the QDB plate (e.g., scientific review articles in prominent journals) are needed to justify a new Wikipedia article about the method. Please see WP:Notability for more information. Also, if you are one of the authors of the paper describing the new approach, you have a conflict of interest; please see WP:COI regarding conflict-of-interest editing. CatPath (talk) 19:45, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathpath: If only you can honestly claim the 96-channel dot blot apparatus could fulfill what we have described in the article, then the QDB method I described here should be deleted. You should notice I have deleted all the relevant information about QDB plate. Indeed, it is the method I want to share with the scientific world. It is to my benefit to promote QDB method, but it is to a greater benefit to the scientific world to introduce QDB method to replace the outdated Dot blot method and Western blot method. Do not you agree? By the way, the article you cited is also single sources, and no apparatus was used in the article. Please respond to my questions, otherwise I will undo your change.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 20:36, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The QDB method should be deleted because of its lack of notability, according to Wikipedia guidelines. As I said above, more evidence that the new method is notable is required before it deserves an article on Wikipedia. I have started a Discussion on the Talk page of the article Quantitative dot blot. Please continue the discussion there. Yes, I provided only a single citation, but the general method of quantitative dot blot using the classic dot-blot apparatus is well established, and I can easily provide more references. CatPath (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Cathpath: I have followed your suggestion, please follow your response on the talk page. I would love to discuss further how to present this new information to the world appropriately with you. Please just take a couple of minutes try to understand why people consider it a new method. Believe me, i would not say it if I am the only one in the world think of this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jiandizhang (talk • contribs) 21:31, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Acinetobacter baumannii

Hello, you removed this part of the Acinetobacter baumannii wiki:

LPS structure

− Lipopolysaccharide isolated from A. baumannii demonstrated the biological activity similar to that of classical LPS from Escherichia coli, consistent with the presence of highly acylated lipid A in both strains. Interestingly, the former was a slightly weaker activator than the latter. This observation can be explained by the difference between the average length of acyl groups in the most abundant hexa- and heptaacylated forms of A. baumannii lipid A compared to E. coli lipid A. In A. baumannii lipid A, most of the acyl groups have 12 carbon atoms and only one or two have 14 carbon atoms, whereas in E. coli lipid A most of the acyl chains are C14 derivatives. Such LPS with high biological activity would be able to induce septic shock in susceptible patients, but at the same time this type of LPS provide proper recognition by TLR4/MD-2 complex of host innate immune system as compared to LPS with the low biological activity, as for example in the case of Pseudomonas aeruginosa.[1]

I wonder why you removed the whole part? It is correct. You just want an extra reference? Or what is the problem? Garnhami (talk) 15:20, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

References

1. Korneev, K; Arbatsky, N; Molinaro, A; Palmigiano, A; Shaikhutdinova, R; Shneider, M; Pier, G; Kondakova, A; Sviriaeva, E; Sturiale, L; Garozzo, D; Kruglov, A; Nedospasov, S; Drutskaya, M; Knirel, Y; Kuprash, D (2015). "Structural Relationship of the Lipid A Acyl Groups to Activation of Murine Toll-Like Receptor 4 by Lipopolysaccharides from Pathogenic Strains of Burkholderia mallei, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Pseudomonas aeruginosa". Frontiers in immunology. 6: 595. doi:10.3389/fimmu.2015.00595. PMID 26635809.

I responded on the Talk page of the article. CatPath (talk) 19:49, 29 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

C. albicans, Removal section that was copied verbatin

Hello, You beat me to it, I was going to change it, and integrate it the genome topic since I do feel the need to mention it. I do not know who wrote it, but you are indeed correct, that part was a rather simple copy of the article text. I'll try to rewrite it so it is better suited to integrate in the C. albicans page. Garnhami (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Candida albicans -Staphylococcus aureus biofilms

Hello, I noticed you removed the Staphylococcus aureus part from the Candida albicans page. However both of them are often (very often) found together in biofilms. It has already been shown that S. aureus actually uses C. albicans hyphea to penetrate tissue. It even seems they somehow communicate (quorum sensing like system) with each other. So I added the small part again with some extra references in the disease chapter, under systemic infections. In the introduction I left out the link between S. aureus and C. albicans. To my surprise there is not even a piece on this in the S. aureus wikipage. Which is rather weird to me because S. aureus and C. albicans biofilms are really important in terms of medical complications. Garnhami (talk) 16:34, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Why emphasize S. aureus? Other bacteria are also found in mixed biofilms with C. albicans. It's fine to mention mixed biofilms in the lead of the article, but not to highlight one bacterium over others that are also frequently found in biofilms with C. albicans. CatPath (talk) 18:54, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

the reason why I emphasize it, is simple: they are very often found together and they seem to help each other (or at least C. albicans helps S. aureus). + they communicatie with each other (there is a real specific interaction between them, this has not been shown , as far as I know, between candida and other bacteria + the mortality rate rises extremely when they are found together. Most studies are also done on this combination. + both are known as commensal organisms that are found in a bit part of the population. But I do understand your point, maybe I'll have to rewrite it a bit and mention that other bacteria are also often found together with C. albicans and then just give S. aureus as an example. Garnhami (talk) 05:06, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Microbial cooperation

I do not understand why you completely removed the small section I added to the entries microbial cooperation and quorum sensing. You wrote that the cited paper does not call the communication between viruses "quorum sensing". However, the paper I cited uses the term "quorum sensing" 13 times! In addition, the authors state: To our knowledge, this study is the first demonstration of actual small-molecule communication between viruses. Therefore, even if it correct to remove the text from the quorum sensing entry, it seems unjustified to remove it from the entry for microbial cooperation. Perhaps you feel that microbial cooperation only applies in this case where there is a discrete threshold, which creates coordinated behavior in the entire community at once. However, I think this is an overly narrow interpretation. In summary, I think that you should have simply changed the subtitle quorum sensing that I used to something else, and left the rest of the text (and the reference) in place. PloniAlmoni (talk) 13:35, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the Nature paper may mention quorum sensing 13 times, but my point remains - they don't ever call the communication between the viruses quorum sensing. Nor do they present it as an example of "cooperation." CatPath (talk) 17:30, 15 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Magnetoencephalography (MEG)

Dear CatPath, All the edits in the MEG section was done on behalf of Dr. David Cohen, the inventor of MEG, he shared the photos of the seminal MEG recordings and his shielded room at MIT. Thanks Sheraz — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sherrykhan78 (talk • contribs) 15:17, 3 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Changes on Jonathan Mitchell (writer) page

Hi Cat, I've suggested some changes on the Jonathan Mitchell (writer) page. Specifically the removal of the published works section as apart from the Mu Rhythm Bluff the only page stating they were published is a primary source (Jonathan Mitchell's own blog). One of the sources cited says writing not written, and a 3rd party source (cited in the talk page, not the main page) states they were never published. As I'm on a warning for vandalism I'd like someone to review my suggestions before I make the edit. Thanks, Mattevansc3 (talk) 00:01, 24 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

note re text

restored that text, with some changes as you suggested. thanks, To editor CatPath: . --Sm8900 (talk) 19:00, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The study doesn't deserve it's own section. A number of other studies have also identified sulfate breathing microbes in extreme environments. I went ahead and removed the section. I inserted the study where it fits better, in a much shortened version [3] so that the study is not given excessive weight. CatPath (talk) 20:25, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2020 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 7 December 2020. 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 2020 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) 02:26, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autism Speaks Is Not An Advocacy Group

Autism Speaks is widely considered to be an autism hate group by the autistic community. It is not an advocacy group. I'm going to undo the change you made and I recommend that you read about why Autism Speaks is so controversial.

Sorry if this came across as rude btw, that was not my intention.

Also I don't know how to revert your edit so I just redid mine, heh.

Queenofconfusion (talk) 06:42, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CatPath: So I'm pretty new to Wikipedia and just read a page that mentions re-reverting changes and how that's a bad thing so sorry about that. I do see that the change was discussed previously on the talk page for the article so I think that would be helpful to read. Sorry about re-reverting your change before discussing. Also, off topic-- I saw that you reverted my change on another article and went looking for what you meant about using secondary sources. Found the page and read it. Thanks for telling me about that because I genuinely didn't know. Queenofconfusion (talk) 08:10, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Queenofconfusion, I'm very much aware of what some in the autistic community think about Autism Speaks. An advocacy group can be controversial and still be an advocacy group. A number of reliable sources say that Autism Speaks is an advocacy organization. This discussion should continue on the Talk page of the Autism Speaks page. CatPath ^meow at me 09:31, 26 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Esther Lederberg

What a great article! If no one picks up the GAN, I’ll try to review it soon. But seriously great work there. - Aussie Article Writer (talk) 02:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Esther Lederberg

Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Esther Lederberg you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aussie Article Writer -- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 04:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Esther Lederberg

The article Esther Lederberg you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold . The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Esther Lederberg for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aussie Article Writer -- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your GA nomination of Esther Lederberg

The article Esther Lederberg you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Esther Lederberg for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already appeared on the main page as a "Did you know" item, or as a bold link under "In the News" or in the "On This Day" prose section, you can nominate it within the next seven days to appear in DYK. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not affect DYK eligibility. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Aussie Article Writer -- Aussie Article Writer (talk) 00:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:29, 23 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

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) 01:13, 29 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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) 00:40, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of passage and cited review article regarding airborne influenza

I'm not quite sure if the removal is warranted here and wanted to discuss it. Your statement ("The cited review article does not mention Influenza C") is definitely specifically correct. Thus I entirely understand your choice to remove it with that specific thought in mind.

That said - I believe the removed statement is still valid and justified enough that it might be includable if we can figure out a phrasing that's less weasel-wordy ("likely" is a part I don't like) or I could provide additional citations. The cited review article discusses in detail the mechanistic explanation of airborne transmission of respiratory viruses, the generation of aerosols during routine breathing, and past mistakes of assumption about routes of transmission. In light of that, I see no reason why Influenza C would need a dedicated mention in the underlying reference (indeed the authors omitted the exact species in several places) between different members of this genus.

Instead, I could also add the following reference: https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/veterinary-science-and-veterinary-medicine/influenzavirus-c#:~:text=Transmission%20of%20influenza%20viruses%20occurs,associated%20macrophages%20and%20dendritic%20cells.

Which sounds more reasonable? Test35965 (talk) 07:21, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The authors of the review could not have been referring to all four types of influenza because (1) the numerous influenza studies cited by the review looked only at types A and/or B and (2) at the time the review was published, at least two past studies had shown that type D could not be transmitted by the airborne route using the same animal models used to demonstrate airborne transmission of A and B (although a more recent study that was published after the review paper did show airborne transmission of influenza D using a different animal model). The new reference that you suggest is fine for the Influenza C article, but not Influenza D, which requires this more recent review article.

I also noticed that you inserted the same reference into a number of other Wikipedia articles even though the reference never discusses the pathogens (including a bacterium) that are the subjects of those articles. I removed your passage from those articles as well. The review article never claims that ALL respiratory pathogens are transmitted by the aerosol/airborne route (versus droplet-contaminated surfaces). What they do say is, "Airborne transmission of pathogens has been vastly underappreciated," and "the aerosol transmission pathway needs to be reevaluated for all respiratory infectious diseases."

CatPath ^meow at me 10:47, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]