User talk:Dcrjsr

This user participates in WikiProject Biophysics.

Hello, Dcrjsr! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Gimme danger (talk) 03:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Thank you for your work on Jane S. Richardson. I've noticed that you often remove a previously existing reference when you add another one. It's fine to have more than one reference for a statement, so this is unnecessary. You can find more about correctly formatting references here. Thanks again for the help. If you have any questions about this or anything else, drop me a line on my talk page. --Gimme danger (talk) 02:24, 18 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Said I'd give you a message here over on Commons. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for all the explanations. I wasn't sure earlier, from the edit summary, whether the revert was inadvertent or whether I really had said the wrong things. Next time I'll be sure to ask for feedback up front - but I think the bio is in pretty good shape, so it may not be an issue now, altho I might add another figure.

One problem is that I will probably revert to ignoring my Talk and everything else here for long stretches of time (it's incredibly seductive doing this stuff, but I do need to get back to the lab science!). So please don't take it amiss if I'm silent.

I'm currently working on putting a little more of the history into the Ribbon diagrams page. I added a retrospective reference about the history; also a lot of the nitty-gritty details are in the Methods in Enzymology article previously referenced there - but I don't think that's at all easily available, so I may put in a few sentences and pictures. But it may also motivate us to scan it in and serve it up on our web site, as we did with the Anatax article. This is, of course, an endless process! But it's fun to chip away at pieces of it. I'm also having fun uploading some of my plant, animal, and place photos to Commons. Dcrjsr (talk) 04:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dcrjsr. I just popped by to let you know that instead of starting a new section with "== Reply ==" each time you post a reply on a talk page, you can simply start a new paragraph, preceeded with a colon, as I have done here. It makes the paragraph indented.

Subsequent replies

Use additional colons.

Feel free to ask me any questions about Wikipedia processes; I'll try to help. I saw your spiral drawing at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. It's a nice picture, but I don't understand it! Heh. Happy editing, Matthewedwards (talk • contribs • email) 08:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

An image created by you has been promoted to featured picture status Your image, File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo mat.png, was nominated on Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates, gained a consensus of support, and has been promoted. If you would like to nominate an image, please do so at Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates. Thank you for your contribution! MER-C 05:54, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dr Richardson,

Just to let you know that the Featured Picture File:TriosePhosphateIsomerase Ribbon pastel photo mat.png is due to make an appearance as Picture of the Day on November 19, 2009. If you get a chance, you can check and improve the caption at Template:POTD/2009-11-19. Thank you for making your work freely available for anyone to use! howcheng {chat} 03:22, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was admiring that ribbon diagram you drew and I see you actually invented the things! The featured picture today is as beautiful as an Ernst Haeckel print. Nice work. --Sean 12:48, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And congrats yourself on a fine showing, given how little time there was for most people to get to know the candidates. I regret that I didn't get to do that quick interview with you! Perhaps we can do something like that as a followup to the elections - also answering some of the lingering questions of "how else can we realize the good ideas that come up at election time". Like transforming how we work with professional organizations. – SJ + 22:02, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Photographer's Barnstar
	For all of the wonderful Sierra photographs you have donated to Wikipedia, I hereby award you this barnstar! —hike395 (talk) 03:25, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I certainly like knowing that someone else appreciates the images - and I'm sure the two of us enjoy many of the same places. Dcrjsr (talk) 16:53, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Physics#Biophysics_taskforce -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:43, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

also: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Biology#Biophysics_project. I'll see if anyone responds over the next few days and if not we can just start a project (it can always get redirected later).

also see the rather cool Outline of biophysics! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 00:49, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you may find this helpful. My very best wishes (talk) 16:07, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dcrjsr, it is is good to see a real expert starting up WikiProject Biophysics. My area of expertise is geophysics, and when I write NSF proposals I am tempted to include contributions to Wikipedia as an example of broader impacts. Unfortunately, my colleagues are very skeptical. They are especially concerned that anyone can edit these pages. How did you sell the idea to your colleagues? RockMagnetist (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- yes, I think links would be just fine! I haven't added links to the education project yet, but certainly mean to.

Also, there's a new endeavor at Wikipedia:Teahouse -- we can point people there if they have questions too! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 02:33, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about that - I thought you'd removed it from Further Reading by mistake. Now I understand what you're doing. RockMagnetist (talk) 23:48, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No problem! It'll be interesting, actually, to figure out what things should go in Further reading. Is it OK to have it all come from things in the ref list? But presumably ones that have more meat than what they're cited for? Dcrjsr (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There are no rules about it. My tendency is to just put anything that is repeatedly cited in Further Reading. Or sometimes I divide them into Notes and References instead of References and Further Reading. RockMagnetist (talk) 03:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comments on DNA nanotechnology at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biophysics. I'd really appreciate it if you could share your views at the FAC page as well, as it would be really nice to have some input from someone who knows about nucleic acid structure, since subject matter experts are kind of hard to come by in this subject. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:02, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiWomen's Luncheon at Wikimania - You are invited!

Are you a woman attending Wikimania 2012? If so, join us on Saturday, July 14, for the annual WikiWomen's Luncheon (fka WikiChix Lunch) This event is for any women attending Wikimania. Pick up your lunch, compliments of Wikimania, and join us at 1:30pm in the Grand Ballroom for a lively facilitated discussion hosted by Sue Gardner. We look forward to seeing you there. Please sign up here. Sarah (talk) 15:37, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw your request on the peer review of Frederic M. Richards - I have not done many GAN reviews and am really pressed for time lately, so I will pass - sorry, but good luck. Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for letting me know. Dcrjsr (talk) 19:10, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article Frederic M. Richards you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Frederic M. Richards for comments about the article. Well done! There is a backlog of articles waiting for review, why not help out and review a nominated article yourself? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for all your good suggestions, and of course for passing it! I've made comments on 3 or 4 GAN and FAN; once I get thru my talk, I'll try to do an official GAN eval. Dcrjsr (talk) 02:55, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I came across your Commons user page and thought you may be interested in a new WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Women scientists. Sorry to drop in out of the blue like that - I've seen your ribbon diagrams and they're awesome! (I may or may not have spent quite a bit of time on Commons today...oops.) Anyways, if you're interested, we'd love to have you. Either way, happy editing! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 04:47, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, we're so happy to have you! I'm not sure about using that image on the list too, people tend to be pretty strict about fair use images just being used on the one page. However, images aren't my specialty, so I'd ask on WP:AN to be sure. :) I'm actually just an undergrad, so I had no idea that existed! Are young ones allowed to come? Anyways, I'm happy to be a part of the project and will definitely be working on biophysicists' articles. Thanks again for joining WPWS! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 15:43, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds amazing! I would love to go to Philadelphia and meet up with you all - I've never actually met any Wikipedians in real life. Do I need to be a member in order to go? Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, I found the BPS website and meeting information. I'll go talk to my department head about joining up; thank you so much for alerting me to this opportunity! Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 16:22, 6 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm very interested! Can I contact you from my university address to discuss the details? It sounds amazing! Thank you. I'm so very grateful. Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 03:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That looks great, thanks for adding it! Also, thanks for the edits clarifying what exactly she did...I need to read her papers in detail it seems. :) I'll send her an email today as well - hopefully she'll have something. Best, Keilana|^{Parlez ici} 22:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for creating Manuel Morales, Dcrjsr!

Wikipedia editor Anne Delong just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Hello, Dcrjsr. Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Your article about Manuel Morales is well written. If you can find outside sources that talk about Mr. Morales and his work it will help to round out the article. Good luck. —Anne Delong (talk) 02:35, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

To reply, leave a comment on Anne Delong's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Hi Dcrjsr -- The main reason for moving the primary references to a key articles section is that primary papers are poor evidence that the author was the first person to publish this result (even if it is claimed in the paper), whereas the secondary reference of the obituary gives the required third-party confirmation. Additionally, I think it makes it easier for readers to notice the articles -- a lot of non-technical readers won't so much as glance at the references. However, what do you think about putting them in both? Espresso Addict (talk) 03:44, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. Dcrjsr (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've restored them -- hopefully I've got them the right way round! Cheers, Espresso Addict (talk) 05:18, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's good. Thanks very much! Also, with this arrangement I can just add some later papers to the "key" set now, and get the text about them done later. Dcrjsr (talk) 14:15, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I've added another 5 key papers, and reordered the first 2 chronologically (I made a goof and ended up with the messiest short series of edits I can ever remember doing!) I've also deleted the redlinks to Hill and Podolsky, since a Google search looks as tho neither is notable on his own (the Hill coefficient is A.V. Hill). Dcrjsr (talk) 15:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think the usual convention for key publications is to do them reverse chronologically, but it might differ by subject. Not a big deal, either way, though. Espresso Addict (talk) 19:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think that would make sense. But I'll probably wait on reversing them until I get the further info from Julian Borejdo. Dcrjsr (talk) 16:21, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Biophysics for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Have a great day. –Mabeenot (talk) 18:12, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Is this still running? Sevendigits (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - the contest is open thru July 15. So if you'd like to enter, there's still more than a month to do something interesting. Dcrjsr (talk) 21:46, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the Chemical Heritage Foundation Edit-a-Thon, June 20, 2013. Build content relating to women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Use the hashtag #GlamCHF and write your favorite scientist or chemist into Wikipedian history!

We'd love to have your involvement Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 14:59, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please join the Wikipedia Edit-a-thon at THATCamp Philly, September 27, 2013, held at the Chemical Heritage Foundation. Bring your own content to work on, or get an early start on Ada Lovelace Day with our resources about women in science, chemistry and the history of science. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just read this. Thanks for all you're doing. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 04:04, 19 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have nominated Frederic M. Richards for featured article. Gamaliel (talk) 18:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much! Is it reasonable, during this process, to add some information from the Atlantic article (which was already added by Carrite to a Further Reading section)? Dcrjsr (talk) 18:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why not. I'm not terribly familiar with the FA process, but I assume regular editing can continue as it would normally. Gamaliel (talk) 20:59, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I have to add my congratulations on bringing this article to such a standard. If you really want it to be a featured article (I could understand why some wouldn't), a peer review would be very useful, to pick out what flaws there are. I know an editor who has done work with articles on (non-bio) physicists like J. Robert Oppenheimer, so he would perhaps (a very guarded perhaps) know the language well enough to help present it accurately but accessibly. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:39, 30 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for your congratulations and especially for the advice. I do indeed want to proceed with improving the biography, but can't do anything on it for a while. I'd also like to go by New Haven some time and search newspapers, talk to the conservation contacts, and see if I can get more help at Yale. I'll hope to get back to you and your physicist contact some time in the new year. Dcrjsr (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. I don't think Hawkeye7 (the editor I mentioned) is a physicist by trade, but he's familiar with the field. Look forward to the follow up. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 00:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

	The Graphic Designer's Barnstar
	Thank you for inventing the ribbon diagram, and then for placing free and high-quality examples on Wikipedia. Bearian (talk) 15:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You are invited! Join us remotely! World Virtual Edit-a-thon on Women in Science

Dates: 8 to 29 November 2015 Location: Worldwide/virtual/online event Host/Facilitator: Women in Red (WiR) in collaboration with Women scientists: Did you know that only 15% of the biographies on Wikipedia are about women? WiR focuses on "content gender gap". If you'd like to help contribute articles on women and women's works, we warmly welcome you! Sponsor: New York Academy of Sciences Event details: This is a virtual edit-a-thon hosted by WiR in parallel with a "phyisical" event during the afternoon of Sunday, November 22 in New York City. It will allow all those keen to improve Wikipedia's coverage of women in science to participate. As the virtual edit-a-thon stretches over three weeks, new participants will be able to draw on the assistance of more experienced editors while creating, translating or improving articles on women who are (or have been) prominent in the field. All levels of Wikipedia editing experience are welcome. RSVP and learn more: →here←--Ipigott (talk) 10:50, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:09, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Join us!
	Women Scientists - worldwide online edit-a-thon - a Year of Science initiative Hosts: Women in Red, Women Scientists Sponsor: WikiEdu April-December 2016 #wikiwomeninred #yearofscience #contentgap

(To subscribe, Women in Red/Invite list. Unsubscribe, Women in Red/Opt-out list) --Rosiestep (talk) 01:59, 1 April 2016 (UTC) via MassMessage[reply]

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

The categories for a new women scientist biography I've started (Elizabeth A. McMahan) have gotten changed, some very incorrectly, I presume by bots. For instance, she was a professor at UNC Chapel Hill and I assigned the UNCCH faculty category, but it got changed to UNCCH alumni. What can I either do differently, or allow me to change the mistakes? Thanks very much for help anyone is able to give! Dcrjsr (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The issue was you had been using {{}} brackets which are template containers, categories are contained in [[]]. I have fixed the issue for you you can see the difference here [1].McMatter ^(talk)/_(contrib) 14:14, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for the quick response! And I apologize for the stupid mistake - I do know better. Dcrjsr (talk) 15:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Did you know about Wikiversity Journal of Medicine? It is an open access, peer reviewed medical journal, with no publication charges. We welcome you to have a look. Feel free to participate.

You can participate in any one or more of the following ways:

• Publish an article to the journal.
• Sign up as a peer reviewer of potential upcoming articles. If you do not have expertise in these subjects, you can help in finding peer reviewers for current submissions.
• Sign up as an editor, and help out in open tasks.
• Outreach to potential contributors, with can include (but is not limited to) scholars and health professionals. In any mention of Wikiversity Journal of Medicine, there may be a reference to this Contribute-page. Example presentation about the journal.
• Add a post-publication review of an existing publication. If errors are found, there are guidelines for editing published works.
• Apply to become the treasurer of the journal
• Join the editorial board.
• Share your ideas of what the journal would be like in the future as separate Wikimedia project.
• Donate to Wikimedia Foundation.
• Translate journal pages into other languages. Wikiversity currently exists in the following other languages
  • Ceština, Deutsch, Español, Français, Italiano, 한국어, Português, Slovenšcina, Suomi, Svenska, Ελληνικά, Русский, العربية, 日本語
• Sign up to get emails related to the journal, which are sent to updateswijoumed.org. If you want to receive these emails too, state your interest at the talk page, or contact the Editor-in-chief at haggstrom.mikaelwikiversityjournal.org.
• Spread the word to anyone who could be interested or could benefit from it.

The future of this journal as a separate Wikimedia project is under discussion and the name can be changed suitably. Currently a voting for the same is underway. Please cast your vote in the name you find most suitable. We would be glad to receive further suggestions from you. It is also acceptable to mention your votes in the wide-reachwikiversityjournal.org email list. Please note that the voting closes on 16th August, 2016, unless protracted by consensus, due to any reason.

-from Diptanshu.D (talk · contribs · count) and others of the Editorial Board, Wikiversity Journal of Medicine.

Diptanshu^Talk 10:12, 7 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Tonestus peirsonii, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Involucre. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 10:14, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dcrjsr, it seems to me that you overdid it when you "condensed" the descriptions for Michael Rossman and Louise Johnson to nothing - unless maybe those entries were incorrect? RockMagnetist(talk) 21:31, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the heads-up -- but if I deleted those it was certainly not intentional. I can't find that they ever did have descriptions, but I have now added brief ones. Dcrjsr (talk) 23:12, 22 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it's good that you didn't find the old descriptions - yours are better. RockMagnetist(talk) 00:52, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited List of biophysicists, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page David Phillips. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article 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) 11:05, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dcrjsr. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dcrjsr. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dcrjsr. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]