User talk:Foobar~commonswiki

Welcome to the Commons, Foobar~commonswiki!

First steps tutorial Our first steps help file and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki - it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the Community Portal. You may ask questions at the Help desk, Village Pump or on IRC channel #wikimedia-commons. You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your Graphics abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal Gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page, write this: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], it makes this: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|Correct name}} For more information read the full Deletion guidelines
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Image Tagging Image:Cotranslational membrane insertion type2and3 step2.png

This media may be deleted.

Thanks for uploading Image:Cotranslational membrane insertion type2and3 step2.png. I notice the image page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikimedia Commons (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag, then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use {{GFDL-self}} to release it under the GFDL or {{PD-self}} to release it into the public domain. See Commons:Copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find all your uploads using the Gallery tool. Thank you. --ßøuñçêY2K 13:31, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Steroids and Lipids

Hello, wherefrom do you get the idea that steroids really are lipids? Certainly not from here which should be your reference. That they are built from isoprene at some stage can be no reason, most biochemicals are. -- Ayacop 14:54, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, Wikimedia is not my reference at all and in any case. And uses Wikipedia as reference to Wikipedia sounds strange for me :-) (why the english wikipedia should be better than an another wiki?). Steroids can be considered as lipids as far as the word lipids is loosely defined. It depends to which person you have in fornt of you: If it's a medicine doctor, I will propbably don't agree to classified steroids as lipids. If you have a biochemist, he will be probably agree with me. For the IUPAC ( which should be your reference :-) ), steroids are indeed not classified with «classical» lipids. However, 1) this classification have been made in 1991 if I remember wellm ans 2) as steroids are directly derived from the cholesterol synthesis pathway, which is a lipid anabolic pathway, it make sense to put them in the Lipids category. I you want more reference on my point of view I can give you some links several publication published in journals such as Biochemistry or Journal of Lipid Reseach. Additionnally, lipids is only loosely defined yet. I mean there is not a unique definition of lipids or so general that a lot of coumpounds can be considered as lipids. Of course, the better thing to do is probably to put the steroids in several cateories to satisfy the medicine doctors and the science doctors: What do you think about this idea? -- Foobar 16:31, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

If you think steroids are lipids then ok just add 'Category:Lipids' to the steroid category instead of doing this to each of its members. That's why we have categories at all. Set theory says if A is in B then everything in A is in B. Please answer my argument: if most biochemicals are derived in lipid pathways thwn why have a category lipids at all? It would serve no purpose. Your references are very vague I must say; please give full biographical information, and do not changw things here but try to convince experts in the en-WP. I guess you will fail. -- Ayacop 18:26, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have not well explained the problem. I don't «think» that steroids are lipids and don't try to «convice» anybody of that, I just say that this classification depends strongly on the people involved. The International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC, the organisation that regulates the nomenclatures and symbols in chemistry and related) has created a distinct entry for steroids but in several (hum, a lot of in fact)books and articles, you will find that the authors considered steroids (and more generally sterols) as lipids (Christie W. (2003) Lipid Analysis. 3rd edition. Oily Press, Bridgewater, UK). Additionaly, this study (I have absolutely no link with the authors) explains clearly why sterols are lipids and why steroids can be included in the sterol category : Fahy et al. (2005) A comprehensive classification of system for lipids, Journal of Lipid Research, vol.46:839-861. Additionally (and if I have well understand), wikimedia commons is not only for the use of en:wikimedia but for all wikipedia (at least there is a wikimedia:commons for each languages?). And I don't understand why en:wikipedia «should be» a reference?. Moreover, you will see on the en:Lipid and en:Steroid articles that steroids are indeed considered as lipids :-). Cheers -- Foobar 18:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC) (please could you answer me about the Biolipids category?)

OK you were right, wishful thinking on my part. So you use en-WP as ref yourself ;-) Honestly, I do not use en-WP for everything. For example, European plants and also many animals are much deeper handled by the German WP. But usually, it is just the amount of work (not the Englishness) that went into en-WP that makes a difference, and in many fields you can see the real experts at work, like plant taxonomy, where you can throw away most "reference" books because the newest findings are in taxonomy databases and en-WP first. -- Ayacop 07:39, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image:Glycerophospholipid.png

Likewise, you removed Image:Glycerophospholipid.png and others from Category:Biolipids, and put them in Category:Lipids and Category:Biochemicals. Incidentally, Category:Biolipids is already in those two categories, so your move was not necessary at all. Will you please refrain from such things in the future? -- Ayacop 15:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I should have explained my point of view previously. For most of people (I mean biologist, biochemist, and even non-scientific people) biolipid has no meaning. It's like talking about bioprotein or bioDNA. And as far as I know, the word biolipid is only use by a (very) small commumity of researchers in very particular circumstances. So, the word biolipids is not recognized officially: as you can check on the [ http://www.iupac.org/ IUPAC ] web site, there is no entry for biolipids. And most recent study doesn't mention it (e.g. Fahy et al. (2006) A comprehensive classification of system for lipids, Journal of Lipid Research, vol.46:839-861 ). Please, keep the Lipids category. If you really want have a Biolipids category, just add it aside of the Lipids on. Sorry for the over categorization in Biochemicals, I have made a mistake (bad reading of the help pages). -- Foobar 16:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

OK I agree with that. -- Ayacop 07:29, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Image

Bonjour, je vois que tu as crée pas mal d'image de molécules, quel logiciel utilises-tu ? (sous-entendu utilises-tu un logiciel de de dessin de chimie assisté ? moi oui : BKchem mais il n'est pas génial-génial). Sinon, je viens de vectoriser Image:Popc details.png en Image:Popc details.svg, j'en ferais d'autres de temps à autres. VIGNERON * ^discut. 19:15, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Bonjour et désolé pour la réponse tardive mais je ne suis pas souvent dans le coin. J'ai fait toute les images avec IsisDraw et les ai exportées en postscript. J'ai ensuite retravaillé les postscripts avec Adobe Illustrator puis ai tout exporté en PNG. J'ai essayé le SVG mais il dans ce cas, tous les caractères disparaissaient. Comme je n'ai pas trop de tempsà consacré à ça, je suis resté en PNG. -- Foobar 15:21, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Residue unit.png

Hi Foobar. I have marked Image:Residue unit.png with {{Disputed chem}} because the repeating unit in a protein contains an amide functional group, not an ester. If you would like to fix the image, please just remove the tag. Thank you. Edgar181 (talk) 21:21, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

File:Popc details.png

File:Popc details.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests/File:Popc.svg so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about it there. Ed (Edgar181) 18:50, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Beta-estradiol.png

File:Beta-estradiol.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

DMacks (talk) 06:22, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Your account will be renamed

Hello,

The developer team at Wikimedia is making some changes to how accounts work, as part of our on-going efforts to provide new and better tools for our users like cross-wiki notifications. These changes will mean you have the same account name everywhere. This will let us give you new features that will help you edit and discuss better, and allow more flexible user permissions for tools. One of the side-effects of this is that user accounts will now have to be unique across all 900 Wikimedia wikis. See the announcement for more information.

Unfortunately, your account clashes with another account also called Foobar. To make sure that both of you can use all Wikimedia projects in future, we have reserved the name Foobar~commonswiki that only you will have. If you like it, you don't have to do anything. If you do not like it, you can pick out a different name.

Your account will still work as before, and you will be credited for all your edits made so far, but you will have to use the new account name when you log in.

Sorry for the inconvenience.

Yours,
Keegan Peterzell
Community Liaison, Wikimedia Foundation

20:55, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Renamed

This account has been renamed as part of single-user login finalisation. If you own this account you can log in using your previous username and password for more information. If you do not like this account's new name, you can choose your own using this form after logging in: Special:GlobalRenameRequest. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk)

03:02, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

File:Cholesterol.png

File:Cholesterol.png has been listed at Commons:Deletion requests so that the community can discuss whether it should be kept or not. We would appreciate it if you could go to voice your opinion about this at its entry. If you created this file, please note that the fact that it has been proposed for deletion does not necessarily mean that we do not value your kind contribution. It simply means that one person believes that there is some specific problem with it, such as a copyright issue. Please see Commons:But it's my own work! for a guide on how to address these issues. Please remember to respond to and – if appropriate – contradict the arguments supporting deletion. Arguments which focus on the nominator will not affect the result of the nomination. Thank you!

Alfa-ketosav (talk) 17:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)