Talk:QPNC-PAGE

Chemistry Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chemistry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of chemistry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChemistryWikipedia:WikiProject ChemistryTemplate:WikiProject ChemistryChemistry articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Possible conflict

Certain patterns suggest that some of the editors here may be directly involved with the subject. If this should be the case, they should be aware of how to approach such matters on Wikipedia to avoid problems. Thank you.LeadSongDog come howl! 16:55, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

14 out of the top 15 contributors are a single-purpose account and likely sockpuppets. Many more of the contributors are probably socks, but that's as far down the list as I went. RockMagnetist(talk) 17:04, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that many recent editors obviously have a connection to this topic (and trianguating via commons supports this analysis). They are also spreading this content to wikibooks (wikibooks:Proteomics/Protein Separations- Electrophoresis/QPNC-PAGE. Neither page cites the other in their histories, so if chunks of the en.wp article match chunks of the wikibooks page, there's copyvio that should be nuked regardless of who contributed it. And quick google finds copyvio-level match to other sources as well. DMacks (talk) 07:19, 9 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there anyone else who sees a possible conflict that should be discussed? Otherwise, the COI tag can be removed.--134.94.66.255 (talk) 15:18, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ginkgo image

I removed the image because I can see no reason to have an image of a ginkgo leaf in this article, even if there is some link between this plant and Alzheimer's disease. This article should be about the method, not about areas of study the method has been applied to. In my opinion the image is as out of place here as it would be in the article on SDS-PAGE. If we keep the ginkgo image, why not have an image of blood, too? Or any other thing the method has ever been, or could be, applied to? Singling out ginkgo and Alzheimer's gives the impression that the method is only suitable for these two things, which it isn't. The method, although not very frequently used, is applicable to metalloproteins in general. Please give your reasons why you think that this image is necessary if you feel it should be kept. Rainbowwrasse (talk) 17:35, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]