634:. The third, fourth, and fifth items are the only things the bot should be doing. And the last limitation enforces accountability of editors, since if a manually-invoked edit is attributed to the bot, and not to an editor, there's no way to tell who made it. (Suggestions for implementing that include making a user-script version of the bot, or having the bot prepare a pre-filled edit box that the user could review and click, as some other tools do.) --
506:
scientific rather than medical), the convention seeems to be to provide a link, whatever - but then I guess that DOIs are rarely specified. I guess the crux of the matter is whether the title being linked is a genuine help to users, which was the sense I got from discussions on my talk page - I guess each of us has our own entrenched opinion that we're unlikely to change, so it would be helpful to get some views from the wider community!
774:
the human editor decides whether to implement or not. I'd be surprised if you could provide an example of where it would be a genuine advantage to know which editor had informed the bot that a page could benefit from its attention. To provide a disadvantage (the waste of my time aside), what would happen if the bot needed blocking again? It would still be able to make edits in the guise of other people's accounts.
1113:
951:
894:
47:
812:
to do that). Alternatively, does the bot know who invoked it? Because if so, it could simply note that in the edit summary, which would have the same ultimate effect, essentially an "audit trail". But I seem to be the only person worried about this, so perhaps it is not that important overall given the self-limitations of the bot. Best,
1044:
Looks great. I definitely endorse the URL replacement in #1 since it makes
Knowledge less dependent on doi.org specifically, which was one of my original concerns. And several sections above, when I wrote something like "may only edit citations where the journal is in the DOI or PMID system", I think
203:
database also contains citation details (title, author, year, journal etc), so tweaked the bot to add these parameters too where they were missing. If the CrossRef database contradicts the information in the article, the bot will stick with the data already in
Knowledge, and assume the error to be
826:
It would be possible to ask users to identify themselves when using the form to initiate the bot, but without requesting their password (which is A Bad Thing To Do for a number of reasons), it couldn't be verified. If you think this would be useful, I'd be happy to implement that. The edits of May
811:
About the edit attributions, I'm not sure what can be done. I certainly mean no criticism of your programming -- it's undoubtedly lightyears ahead of my abilities -- but I do know that there are user scripts that propose edits that the user ratifies, or submits them directly (alas, I don't know how
760:
Some day I might manage to communicate without confusing people - sorry!! Firstly, to reassure you that the bot is still completely unable to edit pages - LouScheffer was running the bot in order to see the DOIs it found, and I'm glad that he's found this useful. It absolutely won't edit the wiki
712:
As for Point 6, the idea is that if an automated tool is invoked by a user, the edit belongs to the user, and the accountability for the edit in terms of choice, wisdom, consistency, and compliance with policy belongs to the user. (Obviously, programming the bot by the bot owner -- i.e., telling it
619:
The first limitation is to keep the bot from trying to edit citations which do not involve DOIs. Whether that was a function of a code problem on May 4, or people trying to misuse it, the bot code should refuse to edit any citation that is not to an actual journal whose publisher has included it in
538:
uses the style I mentioned, so on that article the DOI bot shouldn't add URLs to citations that lack them, unless it knows the referenced papers are freely readable. For the style of articles you tend to edit, the heuristics might well differ and the DOI bot could be more aggressive in adding URLs.
421:
The bot will use two approaches to determining the nature of the page; firstly, if the page returns a "403 Access denied" header, it will log it as "subscription required"; secondly, if the url of the page contains the string "abstract" or "/abs" it will take it to be an abstract. If it receives a
211:
Because of the uneconomical way the bot's code has developed, it is actually simpler for it to clean up citations as it goes, removing duplicated parameters (some of which have been created by the previous run of DOI bot). In cases where there is more than one instance of a parameter, the bot will
207:
There have also been requests for the bot to correct common mistakes, such as replacing "id = PMID 123" with "pmid=123", percent-encoding parameters within dois so they link correctly, and replacing erroneously capitalised parameters (example: "Journal=Science" with "journal=Science"). Since these
856:
If that's addressed all your qualms, I'm now almost ready to start testing the bot on "real" pages: if a member of the Bot
Approval Group were able to check over the comments above and ensure that there's nothing potentially harmful or unwanted that I've overlooked, that would be most appreciated!
773:
Implementing point six would be beyond my programming skills. I also feel it would be misleading - once a page has been selected, a user does not have any control over the bot's edits, nor do they check them first - unlike editing tools, which (as I understand it) make suggestions of edits, which
396:
The description is a bit vague, so a complete example would help. One question: the usual style in articles I edit is that url= is reserved for articles where the entire text is freely readable, and that url= is not used for articles where just the abstract is readable (for that, you can just live
226:
I should make a final note to anyone reviewing the bot's edits that I recently re-wrote a large portion of the bot's code to make it more efficient, and to respond to comments on my user page; this was significantly buggy, and I unwittingly left the bot running on more test pages than I intended.
741:
as "bureaucratic reasons", and more importantly, that you are still running the bot even though it has not been unblocked (apparently it has some function that is not disabled by a user block), and seem to be pleased about that fact. I'd like to ask you to take immediate steps to fully disable it
652:
Point 6 (point 5 on WP:AN) appears to stem from a misunderstanding about how the bot works, and is completely unnecessary. As far as I can tell, it makes absolutely no difference whether a page is edited as a result of the bot adding it to the job queue, or a user adding it to the job queue; the
351:
I am a bit confused by the current function details listed - it says "The bot will never edit a manually added parameter." then it talks about fixing common mistakes, and removing duplicate parameters, both of which appear to be editing parameters. Some clarification would probably help. (If it
505:
Re your latter point, it's easy to say that speaking as someone who is used to reading journals etc, but comments by LouScheffer on my talk page (see section "DOI bot removing existing URLs?") suggest that this perhaps isn't always the case. In the majority of articles I edit (which tend to be
928:
damage to established pages, but I should like to try the bot on some articles and established citations before I am confident letting it loose on its own. Is it possible that the trial could be extended to, say, 200 edits, to give the bot a chance to encounter a wider range of "non-standard"
793:
Sorry to misunderstand you! I should not have jumped to conclusions, and I apologize for making assumptions based on that. About editing citations, I apparently overlooked the feature of what I think you'd called "tidying citations" which should be harmless. What I guess I'm getting at is what
827:
4th, as I've mentioned, were a result of me misapplying a patch, and the bot running when I thought it had turned itself off. The "fixed" bot had a successful tinker with my sandbox; for a representative edit of some previously troublesome citations that LouScheffer has kindly collected, see
448:
The style I prefer, which is used in several articles, is that url= is used only for citations to articles that are freely available (not just abstracts, but the whole thing), and that citations to non-free articles must content themselves with DOIs or PMIDs. This is a very common style: it's
416:(using the "format" parameter). The rationale for this is that casual readers may not understand that a DOI or PMID provides a link to the article, and that a title link is intuitive to follow. The bot can't really tell whether editors have only chosen to provide URLs to free texts, you see.
653:
same edit results, and is made by the bot. By your logic, every edit the bot makes to pages I've added to its queue - i.e. all 45,000 pages transcluding "Cite
Journal" - should be attributed to my account, inflating my edit count, and flooding the watchlists of people who ignore bot edits.
422:"400 Found" header and there is a "/fulltext/" in the URL, I think that's sufficient to specify "free full text" in the format. In the absence of these clues, the bot will leave the "format" parameter blank. This is very much open to discussion, though! Does it sound unproblematic to you?
204:
with CrossRef. Consensus appears to be that specifying a URL parameter is also useful; the bot can specify the URL that the DOI redirects to and in some cases make an intelligent guess as to its nature (abstract, fulltext etc) which can be recorded in the "format" parameter.
259:
template, as well as the parameters which are deemed worthy of inclusion, represents the current consensus - and at the end of the day is of limited importance. Discussion here should be restricted to potential problems that fulfilment of the tasks listed above may cause.
292:
The bot's not quite functional at the second - I've not quite finished patching a couple of bugs, and am going to wait until I have an idea of how much of this request will be approved (and I have time). The bulk of its edits will resemble this one:
977:
Just for reference, would it be possible for you to post a list that summarizes exactly what the bot does, functionally? Presumably each section of code does something specific, so I'm hoping that's something relatively simple to do. Thanks,
352:
will edit existing parameters, specifying what sorts of edits it will make.) Or is there some way it can distinguish manually added parameters from those added by itself or some other bot, and saying it will only correct the actions of bots?
1045:
that's dealt with by limiting the bot to use of CrossRef; if something is in CrossRef I think we can assume it is a legitimate part of the DOI system. Great work and thanks for being patient with me and the discussion here. Best,
1064:
Hi, the bot has made somewhere in the order of 200 edits since it was fixed. I'm satisfied that operation is now bug-free enough to consider the trial a success; if there's anything I've missed (i.e. not marked as fixed at
736:
on your user talk page, "Hi, been disabled for bureaucratic reasons. I hadn't realised it was still useful in its crippled state! It's back running again now." First, that you seem to dismiss the policy issues discussed on
761:(with the exception of userspace, which I will reactivate soon) until the full bureaucratic process of bot approval has been undergone, and until I am satisfied that the bot is not going to be causing upset by its actions.
227:
This accounts for the errant nature of edits after those with edit summary "Testing new better-mannered editing." An embarrassing mistake, for which I apologise - all of these edits were reverted as quickly as I could.
770:
An example of when the bot may edit a citation that doesn't have a DOI is to correct capitalisation errors, for example replacing "Journal=Science" with "journal=Science" so the citation displays correctly.
649:
The comments against Point 1 on the admin noticeboard received no reply; the point provides an unwarranted restriction on the bot. Please see my note above about the edits of May 4.
222:
If two non-identical values are present, it will use the one which appears later in the citation: this is the one which is used by the parser software when rendering the template.
1187:
924:
subpages while I get fine details tweaked (and because it's saving me time with citations I'm adding!). This has been very useful as I'm now comfortable it's not going to cause
572:. I believe it was supported in principle by a consensus there. (I removed the point about rendering of the citation, which was correctly noted as beyond the scope of the bot.)
702:
I'm afraid I don't understand your objection to Point 1. Under what circumstances would the bot edit a citation where there is no journal that is included in DOI/PMID, and why?
280:
397:
with the DOI or PMID or whatever). Will the bot support this convention? That is, on such articles will it refuse to add URLs to articles that aren't entirely readable?
249:. To avoid getting sidelined, please remember that how a DOI or URL is displayed in a citation is of no consequence to this bot; the current appearance of the
68:
208:
seemed uncontroversial I implemented these as I went, but my sense is that an official approval would placate some of
Knowledge's adminsitrators.
1095:: Would someone mind taking a look at this bot and giving it the official stamp, please? I'd like to roll it out into full opration asap. Thanks,
276:
Can you run a test on a sandbox page and post the diff here? I think this would give a clear picture of what exactly this bot does to cite tags. --
1019:
have been evolving in parallel. The current solution may be "a very bad idea", bad enough to seriously affect performance, so on the advice of
794:
happened with the edits on May 4 where the bot edited citations that were web sites or newspaper articles where an editor had erroneously used
21:
487:" won't have any trouble figuring out that the blue links in the DOI and PMID provide information about the article when clicked upon.
727:
is the user's, even though the work is done by the bot. I'm not sure why you are so opposed to that. It's how other user tools work.
656:
Finally, your statement that "3, 4 and 5 are all the bot should be doing" is not defended, in light of the proposal listed here.
88:
412:
I envision this being a possible bone of contention. I envision the bot providing a link where only an abstract is visible,
955:
Approved for trial (200 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
898:
Approved for trial (50 edits). Please provide a link to the relevant contributions and/or diffs when the trial is complete.
723:) -- is not what is contemplated by this). But if a user chooses a page and a particular citation or set of citations, the
1131:
83:
1089:
876:
522:
I quite agree that articles use different styles. Even within medical articles there are different styles; for example,
355:
Removing duplicates sounds like a good idea. Might be nice to clarify how define duplicate (e.g. lexically identical).
358:
Also, removing tags with empty parameters if the same tag with filled in parameters is also present might be handy.
239:
Just to mention that most controversy about DOI bot seems to boil down to personal opinions about the rendering of
118:
1125:
103:
453:. For such articles, if the DOI bot finds an citation with |doi= but without |url=, it should not add an URL
1173:
1140:
1106:
1080:
1054:
1034:
987:
970:
940:
903:
868:
821:
788:
751:
696:
669:
643:
548:
517:
500:
437:
406:
383:
367:
340:
313:
283:
271:
900:
372:
Sorry, I'm dreadful at being ambiguous/self-contradictory! I've re-worded the description appropriately.
462:
Abrahams BS, Geschwind DH (2008). "Advances in autism genetics: on the threshold of a new neurobiology".
798:
717:
679:
624:
580:
edit citations where the reference is to a publication included in the DOI system or referenced in PMID.
527:
450:
253:
243:
175:
148:
544:
496:
402:
98:
93:
1168:
1101:
1075:
1029:
935:
863:
783:
691:
664:
512:
432:
378:
335:
308:
266:
134:
1120:
1066:
1013:
964:
918:
535:
531:
523:
479:
78:
804:-- leaving aside the code errors, which I assume are or will be fixed, I'm not sure what was
1020:
742:
pending the outcome of this; otherwise I'd see it as an attempt to evade the block. Thanks,
471:
277:
363:
540:
530:. The DOI bot should work fairly well with all the major styles used in Knowledge. For
492:
398:
17:
1181:
1163:
1096:
1070:
1050:
1024:
983:
930:
858:
817:
778:
747:
686:
675:
NB. Since the "doilabel" parameter has been rendered obsolete by a recent change to
659:
639:
507:
427:
373:
330:
303:
261:
129:
199:
This bot originated as a tool to add DOIs to citations. I later discovered that the
993:
959:
738:
631:
569:
562:
58:
568:
This is the proposal, somewhat amplified regarding editing DOIs, that I posted in
685:, it would make sense for DOI bot to remove these parameters where they appear.
159:
Add missing parameters to citations from CrossRef database, and tidy citations
46:
359:
999:
On reflection, there are a couple of things that may be worth noting here:
482:
914:
Hi, I've just about reached the 50 edit ceiling; I've been mainly editing
1046:
979:
813:
743:
635:
200:
1123:
marked as under investigation; please take it slow until that's fixed.)
1006:" with "doi=#" - I think this was the one URL manipulation deemed okay.
457:
the URL is to a source that is freely readable (article body and all).
475:
611:
If the bot is used as a tool in "manual mode", the resulting edit
181:, with "on demand" editing of individual pages where applicable
1150:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1023:, I have been thinking of alternative ways to implement it.
414:
but marking the URL as "abstract" or "subscription required"
630:
template. The second limitation was discussed at length on
992:
Hi, a comprehensive (I think) list is now available at
836:
832:
828:
733:
326:
319:
300:
297:
294:
113:
108:
73:
1003:
299:
and addition of a missing parameter can be seen here:
1156:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
42:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.
325:PPS: Now the bot's running in "sandbox only" mode,
322:'s an edit which demonstrates its full potential.
601:fix a syntactically broken DOI or PMID reference.
526:is a featured medical article that does not use
36:The following discussion is an archived debate.
171:Complete run through of all pages transcluding
615:be attributed to the user who invoked the bot.
8:
1188:Approved Knowledge bot requests for approval
620:the DOI system, even if an editor used the
608:update an erroneous DOI or PMID reference.
594:add a DOI or PMID reference to a citation.
707:I am assuming that you agree to Point 2.
460:A casual user who sees something like "
329:'s an example of its current activity.
216:If one or more are empty, the empty one
166:(e.g. Continuous, daily, one time run)
7:
449:suggested in the documentation for
28:
1069:) do please let me know! Thanks,
808:to be done to to those citations.
44:The result of the discussion was
1111:
949:
892:
732:I am also very disturbed by the
587:remove or alter an existing URL.
392:Adding URLs to nonfree articles?
45:
957:Continue testing as needed. :)
296:; minor tidying happened here:
142:Automatic or Manually Assisted:
1:
1119:(though I note one issue at
839:" of some citation tidying.
713:to process everything with
1204:
1009:The bot and the template
996:under "function details".
1174:10:51, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
1153:Please do not modify it.
1141:10:35, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
1107:13:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
1081:11:27, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
1055:19:00, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
1035:07:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
988:18:13, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
971:06:35, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
941:07:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
904:20:06, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
869:07:54, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
822:06:42, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
341:18:48, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
219:Any identical duplicates
39:Please do not modify it.
789:23:52, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
752:22:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
697:20:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
670:09:33, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
644:21:50, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
549:19:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
518:07:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
501:23:54, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
438:10:45, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
407:09:58, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
384:09:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
368:01:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
314:17:53, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
284:16:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
272:09:50, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
1002:The bot replaces "url=
185:Already has a bot flag
1162:Great, thanks a lot!
528:Template:Cite journal
451:Template:Cite journal
22:Requests for approval
149:Programming Language
1126:dihydrogen monoxide
1090:BAGAssistanceNeeded
1004:http://dx.doi.org/#
929:citations? Thanks,
877:BAGAssistanceNeeded
1171:
1139:
1121:User:DOI bot/bugs
1104:
1078:
1067:User:DOI bot/bugs
1032:
938:
866:
831:; and here's a "
786:
694:
667:
536:Asperger syndrome
532:Tourette syndrome
524:Tourette syndrome
515:
435:
381:
338:
311:
269:
197:Function Details:
157:Function Summary:
137:
1195:
1167:
1155:
1129:
1115:
1114:
1100:
1094:
1088:
1074:
1028:
1021:User:Betacommand
1018:
1012:
967:
962:
953:
952:
934:
923:
917:
896:
895:
881:
875:
862:
803:
797:
782:
722:
716:
690:
684:
678:
663:
629:
623:
534:that's trivial.
511:
486:
431:
377:
334:
307:
265:
258:
252:
248:
242:
180:
174:
133:
49:
41:
1203:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1194:
1193:
1192:
1178:
1177:
1160:
1151:
1135:
1112:
1092:
1086:
1062:
1016:
1010:
965:
960:
950:
921:
915:
912:
893:
879:
873:
801:
795:
720:
714:
682:
676:
627:
621:
566:
476:10.1038/nrg2346
461:
394:
256:
250:
246:
240:
233:
178:
172:
153:PHP w/basicbot
124:
63:
37:
26:
25:
24:
12:
11:
5:
1201:
1199:
1191:
1190:
1180:
1179:
1159:
1158:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1133:
1061:
1058:
1042:
1041:
1040:
1039:
1038:
1037:
1007:
997:
975:
974:
973:
911:
908:
907:
906:
889:
888:
887:
886:
885:
884:
883:
882:
871:
847:
846:
845:
844:
843:
842:
841:
840:
809:
775:
771:
765:
764:
763:
762:
755:
754:
729:
728:
725:responsibility
709:
708:
704:
703:
673:
672:
657:
654:
650:
617:
616:
609:
602:
595:
588:
581:
565:
561:Proposal from
559:
558:
557:
556:
555:
554:
553:
552:
551:
490:
489:
488:
458:
441:
440:
424:
423:
418:
417:
393:
390:
389:
388:
387:
386:
356:
353:
348:
347:
346:
345:
344:
343:
316:
287:
286:
274:
237:
232:
229:
224:
223:
220:
217:
163:Edit period(s)
123:
122:
116:
111:
106:
101:
96:
91:
86:
81:
76:
74:Approved BRFAs
71:
64:
62:
56:
55:
54:
32:
30:
27:
18:Knowledge:Bots
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1200:
1189:
1186:
1185:
1183:
1176:
1175:
1172:
1170:
1165:
1157:
1154:
1148:
1147:
1142:
1137:
1128:
1127:
1122:
1118:
1110:
1109:
1108:
1105:
1103:
1098:
1091:
1085:
1084:
1083:
1082:
1079:
1077:
1072:
1068:
1060:Trial results
1059:
1057:
1056:
1052:
1048:
1036:
1033:
1031:
1026:
1022:
1015:
1008:
1005:
1001:
1000:
998:
995:
991:
990:
989:
985:
981:
976:
972:
969:
968:
963:
956:
947:
946:
945:
944:
943:
942:
939:
937:
932:
927:
920:
909:
905:
902:
899:
891:
890:
878:
872:
870:
867:
865:
860:
855:
854:
853:
852:
851:
850:
849:
848:
838:
834:
830:
829:this test run
825:
824:
823:
819:
815:
810:
807:
800:
792:
791:
790:
787:
785:
780:
776:
772:
769:
768:
767:
766:
759:
758:
757:
756:
753:
749:
745:
740:
735:
731:
730:
726:
719:
711:
710:
706:
705:
701:
700:
699:
698:
695:
693:
688:
681:
671:
668:
666:
661:
658:
655:
651:
648:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
633:
626:
614:
610:
607:
603:
600:
596:
593:
589:
586:
582:
579:
575:
574:
573:
571:
564:
560:
550:
546:
542:
537:
533:
529:
525:
521:
520:
519:
516:
514:
509:
504:
503:
502:
498:
494:
491:
484:
481:
477:
473:
470:(5): 341–55.
469:
465:
464:Nat Rev Genet
459:
456:
452:
447:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
439:
436:
434:
429:
426:
425:
420:
419:
415:
411:
410:
409:
408:
404:
400:
391:
385:
382:
380:
375:
371:
370:
369:
365:
361:
357:
354:
350:
349:
342:
339:
337:
332:
328:
324:
323:
321:
317:
315:
312:
310:
305:
301:
298:
295:
291:
290:
289:
288:
285:
282:
279:
275:
273:
270:
268:
263:
255:
245:
238:
235:
234:
230:
228:
221:
218:
215:
214:
213:
209:
205:
202:
198:
194:
192:
189:
186:
182:
177:
170:
167:
164:
160:
158:
154:
152:
150:
145:
143:
139:
138:
136:
131:
128:
120:
117:
115:
112:
110:
107:
105:
102:
100:
97:
95:
92:
90:
87:
85:
82:
80:
77:
75:
72:
70:
66:
65:
60:
57:
52:
48:
43:
40:
34:
33:
31:
23:
19:
1166:
1161:
1152:
1149:
1124:
1116:
1099:
1073:
1063:
1043:
1027:
994:User:DOI bot
958:
954:
933:
925:
913:
897:
861:
805:
799:cite journal
781:
739:Knowledge:AN
724:
718:cite journal
689:
680:cite journal
674:
662:
632:Knowledge:AN
625:cite journal
618:
612:
605:
598:
591:
584:
577:
570:Knowledge:AN
567:
563:Knowledge:AN
510:
467:
463:
454:
430:
413:
395:
376:
333:
306:
264:
254:cite journal
244:cite journal
225:
210:
206:
196:
195:
190:
187:
184:
183:
176:cite journal
168:
165:
162:
161:
156:
155:
147:
146:
141:
140:
132:
126:
125:
50:
38:
35:
29:
231:Discussion
144:Automatic
114:rights log
104:page moves
1117:Approved.
926:extensive
541:Eubulides
493:Eubulides
399:Eubulides
212:remove:
127:Operator:
109:block log
1182:Category
1164:Smith609
1097:Smith609
1071:Smith609
1025:Smith609
1014:cite doi
931:Smith609
919:cite doi
859:Smith609
806:supposed
779:Smith609
777:Cheers,
687:Smith609
660:Smith609
604:The bot
597:The bot
590:The bot
585:must not
583:The bot
578:may only
576:The bot
508:Smith609
483:18414403
428:Smith609
374:Smith609
331:Smith609
304:Smith609
262:Smith609
201:CrossRef
130:Smith609
84:contribs
51:Approved
20: |
961:krimpet
948:Sure -
835:" and "
734:comment
59:DOI bot
833:before
455:unless
278:Lemmey
910:Trial
837:after
360:Zodon
318:P.S.
188:(Y/N)
89:count
16:<
1169:Talk
1102:Talk
1076:Talk
1051:talk
1030:Talk
984:talk
936:Talk
864:Talk
818:talk
784:Talk
748:talk
692:Talk
665:Talk
640:talk
613:must
545:talk
513:Talk
497:talk
480:PMID
433:Talk
403:talk
379:Talk
364:talk
336:Talk
327:here
320:here
309:Talk
281:talk
267:Talk
236:Note
193:Yes
151:(s):
135:Talk
119:flag
99:logs
79:talk
69:BRFA
1047:MCB
980:MCB
814:MCB
744:MCB
636:MCB
606:may
599:may
592:may
472:doi
94:SUL
1184::
1093:}}
1087:{{
1053:)
1017:}}
1011:{{
986:)
922:}}
916:{{
880:}}
874:{{
820:)
802:}}
796:{{
750:)
721:}}
715:{{
683:}}
677:{{
642:)
628:}}
622:{{
547:)
499:)
478:.
466:.
405:)
366:)
302:.
257:}}
251:{{
247:}}
241:{{
179:}}
173:{{
1138:)
1136:O
1134:2
1132:H
1130:(
1049:(
982:(
966:✽
901:β
816:(
746:(
638:(
543:(
495:(
485:.
474::
468:9
401:(
362:(
191::
169::
121:)
67:(
61:2
53:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
