Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:34, 7 October 2014

Thank you

Thanks for your sourcing help at Hitachi Magic Wand.

I don't suppose you could help me get access to the text of this source:

• Baba, Lisa R. (July 2010). "The Efficacy of Mechanical Vibration Analgesia for Relief of Heel Stick Pain in Neonates: A Novel Approach". Journal of Perinatal & Neonatal Nursing. 24 (3): 274–283. doi:10.1097/JPN.0b013e3181ea7350. ISSN 0893-2190. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)

?

— Cirt (talk) 02:36, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

You can request the full text. It is best to use reviews rather primary sources. See WP:REX. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Agreed, but do you think you could help finding reviews as well somehow? — Cirt (talk) 02:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The best way to update the article is to link to the pmid links and check for reviews. I could search for reviews. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Any help with finding additional sources, including reviews, would be most appreciated. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

If I updated the article I would delete a lot of dated sources. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please, please don't. It's been a great deal of effort on my part. IFF you have additional sources, please let me know, okay? — Cirt (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

That's what I do for any medical related claims. I delete old sources but I usually find newer reviews. It's not a bid deal to me to keep the dated sources for that article. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay phew thanks for saying it's not a big deal to keep the sources I've used so far for that article, because I'm trying to present an overview of the entire History of the subject from a chronological perspective. — Cirt (talk) 03:16, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Archive links and PMID

Thanks very much for the PMID links, I really appreciate it.

I've found in the course of my Quality improvement projects that unfortunately the Internet is prone to linkrot.

So I'd very very very much prefer to keep both the PMID links and the archive links.

Especially when folks at review places like WP:FAC always Check status of links at Checklinks. — Cirt (talk) 02:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

The pmid links should replace all the archive links IMO. I have never seen a linkrot for a pmid link. QuackGuru (talk) 02:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, but more generally I've seen linkrot for all sorts of random things. I'd rather have the double protection of the archive links. — Cirt (talk) 02:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Linkrot is never an issue with pmid links. The archive links should be replaced with the pmid. QuackGuru (talk) 02:53, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree -- not only because of potential for linkrot -- but also because sometimes links can change paths and they never do with archived links. — Cirt (talk) 02:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There has never been a problem with PUBMED. They are reliable. QuackGuru (talk) 02:59, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I agree they're reliable, but they may change link paths and keep the old links as redirects. That never happens with archived links. — Cirt (talk) 03:02, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

FYI: "PubMed RSS Feeds Suffer from Link Rot". Unfortunately, link rot can happen in loads of reliable places. — Cirt (talk) 03:09, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Okay but I never has has a problem with the links to PUBMED. QuackGuru (talk) 03:13, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

I know, and neither have I, but in those Checklinks results sometimes anything but Internet Archive shows up as "200" in the results, meaning slower response times. I just want the best possible scenario for Checklinks at all stages of Quality improvement review for this project, including GA review and perhaps one day WP:FAC. — Cirt (talk) 03:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

PMID request

Is there a PMID for https://escholarship.org/uc/item/48q9s83p ?

It's the only one currently that's still a "200" result on Checklinks -- so I'd gladly remove that link in favor of PMID instead!

(Looks like it's not available to be archived on Internet Archive at this time.)

— Cirt (talk) 03:28, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

See (PMID 15530291). QuackGuru (talk) 03:31, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Checklinks looks perfect now! — Cirt (talk) 03:35, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Edit warring on Acupuncture, with at least 3 reverts already

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.LesVegas (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)