Talk:Mediator (coactivator)

message: Hi! I'm determined to improve this article a lot. I started by adding an image and moving the alternate names to a note, so that the article doesn't get bogged down at the end of the first paragraph. I intend to add lots about function and structure, before letting the readers continue to hit the "brick wall" table at the end. I'm going to work on this a lot in one of my sandboxes and then transfer blocks of code into the article, rather than putting an under construction tag on the article. Don't hold your breath waiting for more changes. It's going to take time!  DennisPietras (talk) 21:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Start of large project to upgrade article 

message: I believe that the list of subunits should, at most, be in a "see also" section, and that the table shouldn't be in the article at all, because 1)it isn't up to date. 2)it is incomplete and 3) anybody who would be interested in the names in other species would easily be able to find that info on their own, IMHO. But, that material is at the end, and I've run out of steam. 
I intend to suggest this article for a "Did you know..." mention like: "Did you know that a mutation in mice causes hairy teeth? Somebody might even include the image!  DennisPietras (talk) 05:50, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at how complicated the DYK process is, I've scratched this off my to do list. DennisPietras (talk) 03:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm done with upgrades 2/19/2017 

message: User:JzG removed a reference without removing the statement it supports because they viewed the reference as being from a "predatory journal". I rolled it back. DennisPietras (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: That was silly. You could have clicked the link to predatory open access journal] in my edit summary and saved yourself some trouble. Second paragraph under History. Some of us think the notoriously litigious and thuggish OMICS is what drove Beall to shut down his list. Guy (Help!) 09:17, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I cannot find any peer reviewed primary sources that support the sentence, so I removed "Only one of each pair can associate with the other kinase module subunits, meaning that there are 8 different kinase modules in vertebrates." Fortunately, the paralogues do exist, so I'll leave it to the reader to think about how many different combinations there might be. And, you are right, it was silly of me to over-react to an edit by a red user. Now that I know that there is a cadre of red admins, I'll never look at a red user the same! Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 00:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's fine. What to leave or remove once a bogus source is gone, is a judgment call, and experience indicates that all possible answers are wrong according to at least somebody, but I am content to let people who know the subject make the call. Guy (Help!) 07:49, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  rollback of 3/12/17 

message: Great work updating this article DennisPietras. Currently the article has 4 images in the lead section. In general it is best to limit this to the 1-2 most 'summary' images, with the others being placed in the relevant sections (in this case the Structure and Function sections). T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 03:41, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thomas!  I have no strong attachment to where the images are located. I thought they all are related to an introductory overview of the complexity of the struture of mediator, so I put them at the start. If you want to move them or whatever, go ahead. BTW, there is some slight controversy about what is currently ref #6, and I or  (a long time user and administrator who for some reason that I don't understand has a red-username) may end up deleting that ref and the statement it supports. The journal, Proteomics & Bioinformatics, is on some sort of predatory journals list (which I also don't understand) and also isn't on medline. How it made it into a Nature review (that is, how the authors of the nature review knew it existed) isn't clear to me. DennisPietras (talk) 04:11, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I've mode some of the images down to later, more specialised sections. I think the doi:10.4172/jpb.S2-004 OMICS reference should probably be removed. It's not retracted as such, but the publisher is no longer viewed as having conducted sufficient peer review to be trusted. The onward-effects of such publications (e.g. the OMICS group) are as difficult to untangle on Wikipedia as they are in the main scientific literature. Ideally there would be an alternative source to cite. The obvious candidate is the doi:10.1038/nrm3951 Nature Review, but of course that was based on the doi:10.4172/jpb.S2-004 OMICS paper. In this case, it's probably best to remove the sentence that depends on doi:10.4172/jpb.S2-004 entirely, since we can't trust the original paper, and wait until it's independently verified. Sorry to not be able to give a more satisfying suggestion! As for JzG, some users simply choose to have an empty user page, so they show up as redlinks. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 05:46, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I'm more than satisfied to remove the sentence. This is a fine example of self-correction, whether it be in science or writing in wp, IMHO, rather than pre-emptive exclusion of statements. I'm actually tempted to write to Nature and point out the use of the reference, but I doubt that they will be swayed by a comment from backwaters Dennis. But, if one of you want to write something, I'll cosign!  Thanks, DennisPietras (talk) 01:09, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image organisation 

message: Omics is probably the paradigmatic predatory publisher.  Sued by the FTC for it. See here.  And see discussions at RSN here (thats a long one) and here.
Also this edit note is ... many things, but above all an invalid reason for reverting anything. Jytdog (talk) 04:59, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, I've pinged you on my responses above. I'm going to be more careful in the future, now that I know predatory journals exist, and a reference to at least one can find its way into a reliable review! I used to know these publishers as part of a "vanity press". DennisPietras (talk) 01:13, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  omics