Myceteae

Hello, Myceteae, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style
• Also feel free to make test edits in the sandbox.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will drop by to help. McSly (talk) 15:25, 28 February 2008 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for uploading File:O-alkylation.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from or who created it. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello. I'm part of a research group at the University of Washington (Seattle campus), and my group is reaching out to Wikipedians in the Puget Sound area. We're hosting a focus group designed to gather information on what Wikipedians would like to know about each other when interacting on Wikipedia. Our end goal is to create an embedded application that helps people quickly know more about others' history and activity on Wikipedia, and we feel our design will be much more useful if it's based on insights of users like you.

I'm hoping that the chance to help out local researchers, to engage in lively face-to-face discussion with other Seattle Wikipedians, and to contribute to Wikipedia in a new way will entice you to join us. The session lasts 2 hours and snacks are provided. Sessions will be held on UW Seattle campus - directions will be sent after registration. Your contribution will be greatly appreciated!

Willing and able to help us out? RSVP here. Want to know more? Visit our user talk page . Please help us contact other local Wikipedians, too! Commprac01 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)Reply

Hello Washington-user!! What do you think of this category?
Either on a scale of 1-10 or with commentary.
Let me know through the "Special:EmailUser/" section. #TTiT# 11:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by The-Traveller-in-Tacoma (talk • contribs)

I noticed your edits about glucose/fructose. Although many web sites say that glucose-fructose syrup, isoglucose, and glucose/fructose are HFCS that is not necessarily the case. While HFCS is often labeled as glucose-fructose syrup, isoglucose, and glucose/fructose non corn derived products are also labeled as such. [1] #17 [2] Invert sugar is another similar product in the UK made by enzymatic breakup of sucrose into glucose and fructose. Weetoddid (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I was actually reverting the article to a previous version. Someone without an account made [this edit] claiming that HFCS is called “corn syrup” in the UK, but did not change the references, [3] and [4], which both refer to glucose-fructose syrup, and did not add any new references to support this usage. I am not familiar with usage outside of the US, and I don't know who made the original claim about UK usage and added the references to support it. I undid this particular edit because corn syrup definitely refers to a different food product, and because the old version was supported by two references. --MYCETEAE - talk 05:20, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

Any ideas on how to incorporate this info into the article without over-complicating it? Weetoddid (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

I'm not sure. It looks like these products are not necessarily the same thing; usage seems to be based on the regulatory idiosyncrasies of each country. Like I said, I'm not familiar with international usage, so I can't really comment on the accuracy of the current article, or recommend any specific changes. I do think that the references currently given for glucose-fructose syrup in the UK are pretty weak. They appear to at least reflect colloquial usage, but legal definitions would be better, and the sites you linked to here appear official. If these products aren't exactly the same thing, a separate section or a brief mention of these similar products in the intro might be appropriate. Another thing to consider is which terms redirect to the HFCS article. Isoglucose does redirect to high-fructose corn syrup, but it's not listed as a synonym in the intro and only appears once in the article. On the other hand, glucose/fructose is listed in bold in the article opening as the Canadian name for HFCS, but this term does not redirect to the HFCS article. I think the relevant question is, what term or terms are people likely to search for on the English Wikipedia? If you want to expand the article, I say go for it, or start a discussion on the HFCS talk page. Is there a place on Wikipedia to solicit recommendations on standard usage throughout the Anglosphere? —MYCETEAE - talk 06:24, 6 November 2010 (UTC)Reply

In an edit at Acid you added the reference "Pavia, D.L., Lampman, G.M., & Kriz, G.S. (2004). Organic chemistry volume 1: Organic chemistry 351. Mason, OH: Cenage Learning. ISNB: 9780759342724". [5] Unfortunately, the ISBN you gave was invalid. I was wondering whether you could help in finding the correct one. Lmatt (talk) 01:15, 18 December 2011 (UTC)Reply

This is the ISBN that is printed on the back of my book. The textbook was specially printed for the organic chemistry course at my university, and while I believe it may have been published elsewhere, unfortunately I am not sure of that and cannot verify what might be printed in other editions. If any statements need to be removed because this reference can't be verified, I completely understand, but I believe that anything I've written can be verified in other basic chemistry texts. I wish I could be more helpful. MYCETEAE - talk 04:57, 19 December 2011 (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) 13:39, 24 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

Welcome, welcome, welcome Myceteae! I'm glad that you are joining the November 2024 drive! Please, have a cup of WikiTea, and go cite some articles.

Cielquiparle (talk) 12:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hey there, I'm reviewing some of the #NOV24 changes and I noticed that one of the references you used for this change did not contain the information it was being used as a reference for. (The archive'd link.) Please make sure there's a connection between the citation and the content being cited. :) Thank you! Smallangryplanet (talk) 14:48, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for catching that @Smallangryplanet. The same citation appears in the lead at receptor antagonist FYI. I should have read it more carefully. I was surprised to see the entire paragraph removed but I supposed I understand. I appreciate your taking the time to review and give me feedback. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:44, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Myceteae If you can cite the contents of the paragraph to something - feel free to put it back! Important to check resources on other pages before re-using them, I've found a whole bunch of stuff that needed to go or be moved to other places in articles as part of this drive 🥴, sometimes people change text without changing the reference or don't read the reference carefully enough. Smallangryplanet (talk) 16:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's a good reminder. I've encountered this issue on many pages. A challenge I encounter both as a reader and editor is when an inline citation is only intended to support the final sentence of a paragraph or the final clause of a sentence. Often there are straightforward options to reword or reformat but sometimes such attempts make the prose more awkward. One reason this occurs is when an editor considers some or all of the preceding text to be verifiable despite not being verified. Anyway, thanks again, @Smallangryplanet. I agree with your conclusion in this case that the citation in question did not support the text it was intended to support. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 17:26, 4 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Thank you 😊

I appreciate yours! GSL will of course remain contentious but I’m hopeful we can make progress. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 02:12, 5 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

There's no reason it should, it was relatively stable for nearly a decade. DN (talk) 07:16, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Hi Myceteae,

I did want to ask you about your account age and activity. It seemed highly unusual to have less than 500 edits when I believe we first began interacting, and then to suddenly become very active in 2024 all of a sudden. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:18, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Your account was started in November of 2007, which is very impressive! But then your first edit was this one on Gun show loophole. I did not find any earlier interest in that page. Iljhgtn (talk) 06:26, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I explain on my user page, I have been on Wikipedia for a long time but only became an active editor this year after years of reading with only sporadic contributions. I first came to GSL from NPOVN. I followed that discussion for a while but did not participate. I then saw your RM and jumped in. Isn’t the point of notice boards to get eyes on a discussion? I’ve been spending a lot of time on various notice boards as a way to engage with WP’s numerous policies and practices. I hope you will engage with some of my proposals. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 15:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Iljhgtn Also, I can't tell how you meant this, but to clarify, that was not my first ever edit on Wikipedia. (It's possible I made some IP edits before that—who can remember that far back?) I would describe my activity as moderately active from 2008 through 2013. After that there were several years where I did not make a single edit. I became much more active this year, especially in the later half. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 19:01, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

"...was this one on Gun show loophole..." meaning on that particular page, not ever. It looks like the subject matter that you used to edit was different, on therapy and acid and other related items. Just seems to be your first foray into this arena, but you seem pretty well versed in it. Iljhgtn (talk) 19:07, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Iljhgtn I thought that was what you meant but just wanted to be sure. You can see from my contribs that I contribute to a variety of topics, including the chemistry, biomedicine, and pseudoscience topics that were my main focus back in the day, although the balance has shifted. Lately I've been participating in a lot of RM discussions and I look at the list of open move discussions frequently.

With respect to Gun show loophole, I've tried to move forward productively by addressing and incorporating issues raised by you and others who object to the outcome of the RMs. My views have shifted as a result of recent and ongoing discussions. I would have been fine with the lead and body at the time the NPOV discussion started but I now favor better coverage of prominent issues with the term itself. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:34, 8 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Iljhgtn's edit history and questions here might also be considered highly unusual, but please don't worry about it. They are required to follow policy just like everyone else. Cheers. DN (talk) 08:35, 9 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Additionally, comments like this, accusing others of "ignoring" certain comments seems inappropriate, and distracting. I suggest hatting it. DN (talk) 07:13, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

What does "hatting it" mean? I looked it up. I am not familiar with that phrase. Where does it originate? Also, why are you responding on behalf of Myceteae on his or her talk page? Iljhgtn (talk) 16:22, 12 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

It's not unusual for editors to see and respond to posts on one another's user talk page. DN's comment are welcome here. (I admit I was surprised when I first encountered this community norm. I have come to appreciate it.) I was frustrated by the accusation that we are "ignoring" such comments in the midst of a long and complex discussion in which DN, myself, and others have repeatedly described and offered support for our assessment about the meaning and usage of GSL. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 20:31, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Since I am leaving the project, I wanted to thank you for your work on this and many other pages. The users who trashed previous attempts to create a SELCRIT seemed to have much the same agenda as the new ones: Having a SELCRIT means that the article is maintainable. If it is maintainable, it is a legitimate article, which poses a problem for their determination to delete it from the encyclopaedia entirely. I thought it was worth it to fight that agenda. I am hoping my withdrawal from Wikipedia won't end the discussion. Thank you again for making the encyclopaedia a better resource. Cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:06, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Last1in Best of luck to you and thank you for your contributions. Whether this is a temporary or a permanent departure, take care of yourself and protect your peace. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 21:15, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've been editing since April of 2005, usually not from my account because my previous employer's proxy service made logins impossible, but editing steadily nonetheless. After seeing what Bloodofox posted, I reviewed their edit history. Their attacks are wide-ranging, vicious and unrelenting. They appear to pursue editors from article to article, hounding editors until they surrender or quit. I am choosing the latter option. I expect that this will be my last edit, but I honestly, truly appreciate your constructive criticism of what I had hoped would make the Cryptid article better. Good luck and cheers, Last1in (talk) 21:29, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Last1in Only you know the best course of action for yourself at this point. For what it's worth, I felt the the conversation was constructive and so far I haven't seen a rash of challenges to items that have recently been removed. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 22:54, 13 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

Sorry, your !vote caught me a bit off guard. FYI, I have since added Version D which removes the combination of controversial & political and simply adds "controversial", and specified this is only a pre-RFC poll...no official RFC link have been set up.

• Version D:The gun show loophole is a controversial term describing the absence of laws mandating background checks for certain private sales of firearms in the United States.

Cheers DN (talk) 05:57, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply

I’m very much opposed to the word “controversial.” I think focusing on the opening sentence is the wrong move. I don’t know that I have anything else constructive do say… I’ll probably take another look at the options again tomorrow and see if I have anything new to add. Thanks for the heads up. --MYCETEAE 🍄‍🟫—talk 06:52, 18 November 2024 (UTC)Reply