Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 06:57, 7 December 2006

Welcome!

Hello, Cindery, and welcome to Misplaced Pages! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Misplaced Pages
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Misplaced Pages:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!  JFW | T@lk 21:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Adding citations

Your skills at wikpedia are clearly increasing with experience. Aside from our POV differences, you are providing interesting material and references. May I though offer some guidance on how to add details of sources into articles, as providing the full citation details is much easier for the original editor if they are able to directly.

Footnote link systems

References within articles should not be included as plain-text of the web addresses (URLs), eg as http://www.example.com. Instead one of a number of footnote and citation systems may be used:

• In line links are located in the article text by enclosing the URLs in a single square bracket.

Hence:  entered whilst editing,
displays as; .

In-line links are either liked by users or strongly disliked. The problem is that the link gives no idea as to what source is being linked to until the reader actual tries to follow the link. There are therefore perhaps best used when the source is mentioned in the text, eg:

"The Times editorial the following day, emphasised...."

• Manual links, such as (2), to numbered tems in a Footnotes section should never be done as the footnotes section will in time have items added or removed, and the link number may not be adjusted accordingly by future editors.
• There was a ref/note system with {{ref|name}} tags in the text linking to the named {{note|name}} details tags in the footnotes section. However awkward additional mark up was required for duplicate citating of the same footnote.
• The current system is termed cite.php (after the coding to metawiki, the underlying software of wikipedia). See WP:Footnotes for the full details but in essence.
  • Details of a footnote are defined up in the text enclosed within <ref> details </ref> tags. Optionally a name may be given to the reference, eg <ref name="xxx"> details </ref>, which allows for a duplicate link later in the text using just <ref name="xxx"/>.
  • Some editors like to use html hidden tags <!-- hidden text --> to force the ref tags onto their own line and indented for easier viewing when editing the article.
  • To indicate where to show the list of footnotes, the tag <references/> should be entered as the only item in a "==Footnotes==" section.

Hence: Standard protocols for managing asthma have been set out.<!--
          --><ref>Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" ''J.Resp Jan'' '''2''': 273-5</ref>
        ==Footnotes==
        <references/>

appears as:

Standard protocols for managing asthma have been set out.

Footnotes

1. Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5

Citation details and styling

Quite separate from providing the automated numbered forward and back links from/to text & footnotes section, is how to markup or style the details of the source. A URL on its own gives no indication to the reader as to author, source, year or format of the link. The details can of course be entered manually, hence:

This coding: Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" ''J.Resp Jan'' '''2''': 273-5 
appears as : Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5 

Various citation templates exist to standardise the citation style and are usually easier to use. So, in example just used, the Template:cite journal may be used:

This coding: {{cite journal | author=Simpson | title=ABC of asthma | journal=J.Resp |
              year=2004 | volume=2 | pages=273-5}}
appears as : Simpson (2004). "ABC of asthma". J.Resp. 2: 273–5.

PubMed

Rather than adding the full URL to the site and the abstract within it, wikipedia will recognise "PMID" and a number after it.

Hence this entry : PMID 123456
Is displayed as  : PMID 123456

For medical topics, finding the abstract entry at PubMed is very helpful, not only for a reader to lookup (one can often on the web find the full article to link to, rather than just PubMed's abstract), but also in generating the citation markup for use in wikipdia. Simply enter the PubMed abstract number into Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ and the full Template:cite journal is generated for one. This may then be copied & pasted into the wikipedia article (enclosing within <ref> ... </ref> tags).

If a full version of the article on the web is also known, this may be included in the Template:cite journal markup with the URL parameter which applies the hyperlink to the article's title

This coding: {{cite journal | author=Simpson | title=ABC of asthma | journal=J.Resp |
              year=2004 | volume=2 | pages=273-5 | url=http://www.Jresp.com/ABC/asthma.html}}
appears as : Simpson (2004). "ABC of asthma". J.Resp. 2: 273–5.

Improving references

Hence to improve on an incompletely citated source, I first search PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi for the article (either by name of paper, but remove punctuation marks, or authro name). Then with the abstract number, eg 123456, I use Diberris tool and the full markup is shown (eg look at this for 123456).

Hope this is of help, but it is an awful lot of stuff - so please do ask if completely baffled or you have any questions :-) David Ruben 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpler guide - Footnoted citation template from Inline external link

First task is to open up the external link and look to see what sort of source material it is. Then select the relevant citation template, eg template:cite journal, template:cite news, template:cite book. The template or their talk-pages have a blank version with all the parameters to copy & paste into the article you are working on. Note however that template:cite newspaper has few parameters and generally it is easier to give more details in a structured way with template:cite news. With Dalkon shield as an example (open up the 'Step x' links to see edit change):

1. Step 1, add in the blank template block and some details transfered from the external webpage.
2. Step 2 - It is then a simple matter to transfer over some parameter values
3. Step 3 - Whilst what we now have works in a 'Reference Section' (just needs an '*' at the front to turn it into a bullet-pointed item), for footnotes we need store this citation for now and display instead at this location just the flag to the footnote (i.e. the ). Hence add opening <ref> and closing </ref> tags.
4. Step 4 - compact down the template block from multiple lines to just one. To make clearer when viewed in edit mode, I tend to add html hidden tags <!-- --> to indent refs on a new line (this works well in free text, but in a bulleted list there is a problem if further sentances come after the footnote)
5. Finally - footnotes need their own section and the list of footnotes is shown by adding a <references/> tag. Also as we have now added this footnote, the duplication of this source in the References section can be removed.

Hope this proves easier David Ruben 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpler guide - Footnoted citation template from Biomedical journal paper via PubMed

1. Find the article in PubMed by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi - enter article title or selective keywords. Note you may also add in surname of an author, but remove any punctuation from article title (e.g. convert "The Charge: Gynocide(Part 1)" to "The Charge Gynocide Part 1"
2. Open as a separate internet explorer window Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ and ensure that PubMed ID is selected from drop-down list of options (the tool is also used for other types of wikipedia templates).
3. Now copy and paste the located article's PMID abstract number across into Diberris tool and click 'Submit'.
4. The template:cite journal markup for the article is now shown. As an example, for PMID 123456 the tool shows this. Copy and paste this into your wikipedia article; for example just given:

   {{cite journal | author = Grados O | title = | journal = Bol Oficina Sanit Panam | volume = 78 | issue = 4 | pages = 318-22 | year = 1975 | id = PMID 123456}}

5. Now enclose the citation template in opening <ref> and closing </ref> tags and ensure that there is a 'Footnotes' section with a <references/> tag. hence for example just given we need:

   <ref>{{cite journal | author = Grados O | title = | journal = Bol Oficina Sanit Panam | volume = 78 | issue = 4 | pages = 318-22 | year = 1975 | id = PMID 123456}}</ref>

   (if there were an an online full version of this article, then add a '| url= http://www....' parameter just before the closing curly brackets of the citation template)

Hope this proves easier David Ruben 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

When you're editing a page, under the edit window is "Content must not violate any copyright. Encyclopedic content..."

Under that statement should be "Edit summary:" and then a box. Anything an editor types in this box will appear as a comment next to the time/user name in the history.

Below that box are the 'save page' 'show preview' 'show changes' buttons.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Lyrl _Contribs 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bayer controversy section

I have removed your addition of the controversy section to the Bayer article. It is a complete copy and paste of which appears to violate its copyright. Metros232 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bayer

It was a selected paste of corporate watch report, not complete. (I felt it was too long. You may think it was too long at the length I posted it? I think it's fair--there really is *that much* controversy about Bayer.) Corporate watch report also appears to have no copyright (I checked.) They may encourage reproduction/generous policy of fair use, esp. as it is a compilation of refs, not original research. I have sent them a message asking for explicit permission to excerpt, nonetheless.

Thanks, Cindery 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is official permission from site/I will be adding the info back, as I am correct that it is not a copyright violation:

<olaf@corporatewatch.org> to me

Hi <blank>, I was one of the people who helped write the Bayer profile. As far as adding it to wikipedia thats fine by us, all of our work is anti copyright for not for profit use. However the profile is quite old (published in early 2003 and accurate then but not updated since) and I know the company has changed quite a lot since then (in terms of its structure and business areas, rather than its behavior). Might be worth simplifying the profile ( I remember it being very long and sprawling) and updating it where necessary. Most of the information on corporate crimes came from Coordination Gegen Bayer Gefahren in Germany www.cbgnetwork.org and its probably worth checking back to their website to look for updates. Any questions drop me a line Cheers Olaf

Olaf Bayer (any similarity between my surname and a certain German life sciences company is purely coincidental) Researcher Corporate Watch www.corporatewatch.org 01865 791391 olaf@corporatewatch.org

Editing habits

Could you please cut down on the number of consecutive edits. Editing so many times in a row is problematic for two reasons. 1) it is hard for other editors to keep track of page changes in the history when it is filled with edits by one editor that all occured on the same day and 2) it puts added stress on the main wikipedia servers. I'm not asking you to stop editing by any means. Instead, of hitting post every 5 minutes, why not combine all your edits into one or two larger edits? Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing this again at mifepristone. Try to not hit "save page" as much, and instead make multiple edits with each save. If you need more space in the edit summary, you can always summarize larger edits on talk pages. I don't want to discourage you from contributing, but instead to contribute in a manner which is less taxing on the serve, and easier for other editors to follow in the page history. Carry on.--Andrew c 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I had this problem too and one thing that helps is hitting the "Show preview" button before saving the edits. Remember 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

progesterone only pill - 3RR warning

Whilst I personally agree with parts of your viewpoint re Progesterone only pill (not unreasonable concern that if progesterones in HRT increase risks then lower doses in POP might also have a smaller risk - but I agree evidence needs to be found to support or refute a reasonable concern), you are currently in a revert war and have reinserted a section x3 now, hence let me constructively draw your attention to {{subst:3RR}} warning: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Please also note Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule that cautions "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." So take a breath and debate on the talk page, or seek opinions of other editors (eg at WP:CLINMED). David Ruben 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

taking things to talk concerning criticisms

Multiple edits in a row put extra stress on the serve. That is a fact. Having a page history filled with a bunch of minor edits mixed in with some major edits all from the same editor, all within a small time span can be confusing to other editors. This is a bit more subjective, but it is still a fact that it affects some editors. I commented to you twice about this. It had nothing to do with the content of your edits. Not citing your sources properly when you know how to do it creates work for other editors. I could be researching other things, or contributing in other ways, but instead I now have to go clean up your sloppy work. It would be one thing if you went to talk with your citations and asked for help from a number of editors. But throwing external links into a page that already have a good citation scheme degrades the article and creates work for other editors. This has NOTHING to do with the content of your edits. I feel your effort to find citations is good and a lot of your work is superior. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, and I'm not trying to criticize the content of your edits in a round about way. The edits I felt were problematic I spoke out about on talk. I, for one, would like to apologize if I have been too harsh, and I would appreciate if you didn't assume things about my motivations and secret intentions. I'm sorry that the formatting/etiquette issues have come up during content disputes, but I try to keep the issues seperated.--Andrew c 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel ridiculous responding to some of your accusations. Such as your claims that I intimidated an anonymous user away. The user suggested that we mention the 4 deaths were from an off-label use. I noted that that information was already included in the article. The user also pointed out that the FDA did not link mifepristone to the deaths, and that information also was already included. Finally, the anon ended their rant with Whomever wrote this needs to learn how to research. I told them, in a very civil manner that some of that information was included, some could be changed, and because it is a wiki, anyone, including them, could edit the article. I ended by kindly suggesting that they register becasue "it's fast and easy (and free), and editors tend to take you more seriously if you aren't an anonymous IP address". You can still be 100% anonymous if you regester. In fact, I feel it makes you even more anonymous because then your IP address is hidden and not just anyone can do a WHOIS check on you. I do not see how you can claim that exchange was hostile towards them. I also never made a value judgement on any IP editor. Next, I understand you disagree with a lot of thing I have said to you. You feel its fine that you hit "save page" every 2 minutes, even though it taxes the serve and is confusing to at least some editors. Ok, I've told you my part, I'll let it drop and you can ignore me at will. I've told you about the citations. You say you personally prefer EL to a footnote and you just haven't got around to formatting the citations. However, this is a matter of wikipedia POLICY. It is frowned upon to try and change or introduce a new style in an article that already has an established method. I tried to find out if you just didn't know how to do it, and offered my help. I understand that everyone can contribute to an article, but you can't expect other editors to do all the hard work for you, especially when you are breaking policy by using a different citation format. But I've said my piece. Whether you understand me or choose to act on this information is up to you. I can understand why you think mentioning these things are harrassment, considering your take on my exchange with the anon editor. Needless to say, I do not understand where you are coming from, but I hope we can get over these issues and focus on content. If I'm defensive, it's only because I have interpreted your tone to be hostile and accusatory (which was probably brought on by your interpretation of my tone being too critical).--Andrew c 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mifepristone

The fact remains that you personally insulted Andrew c when you said, "...i think you should save bickering/nitpicking for personal talk pages, so as not to grievously bore everyone else."

I understand that Andrew c's, "Why contribute at all?" comment was also out of line, but it was the direct result of your assumption that his motivation was incivility. I am not excusing this comment, of course, and but merely noting that presumptive defensiveness will quite often inspire defensiveness in kind.

However, in the matter of you and I, I am sorry that you have interpreted my comments to be condescending. I did not intend to come across in this manner, and, perhaps, a year of fielding disputes while at the same time trying to ensure that progress is made in abortion-related articles has taken its toll on my mediatory skills. I did not explain that it was your "NPOV to include one from each side" comment which prompted the Undue Weight explanation, and, I'm sorry if this wasn't clear at first.

Despite your use of words such as "harassment," "bullying," "obnoxious," or "patronizing," the fact remains that I have not been directly uncivil to you, as you and Andrew c have been to each other. At which point have I called your contributions, say, "worthless," or stated plainly that I find you to be an "insufferable bore?" Never.

If you equate removing content with name-calling, I suggest you learn not to take the editorial decisions of other Wikipedians personally, especially if you plan on editing divisive topics. I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for my conduct in both the Talk page and my edit summary. WP:BOLD encourges us to be assertive in our editing, but, at the same time, it contains this caveat: "Also, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Misplaced Pages as good as it can possibly be." Can I tell you how often my carefully-researched edits have been modified beyond recognition or removed entirely?

I don't know anything about your history with Andrew c. However, it is my objective judgment, given your recent reactions to both Andrew c and I on Talk:Mifepristone, that you are assuming bad faith. It took only one post on Talk:Mifepristone for you to jump to the conclusion that my intentions were hostile. You will find that it will precipitate far less disagreements and makes it a lot easier to work with your fellow Wikipedias if you are not so quick to judge. -Severa (!!!) 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I have indeed followed the edit history on Mifepristone and I still do not see what I am missing. Your contributions to the article, from my assessment, are useful and well-researched. I'm in agreement with Andrew c, though, your habit of breaking your contributions up into multiple edits does make things harder to follow. I'm not suggesting that this diminishes the strength of your contributions as a whole, but, if you want people to follow an edit history, try posting the closest to a finished product as you can. I also wouldn't have minded helping you format your citations, if you needed it, because this is something I do regularly on articles. I am generally a reasonable person, even if I sometimes come off as gruff or inflexible, because, believe it or not, I enjoy working with, rather than against, my fellow editors.

Contentious subjects like abortion, homosexuality, or religion will often test one's patience. These articles are especially prone to editorial disputes, but most disagreements can be resolved, if not entirely averted, when you understand that many editors are not so much obstinate as dedicated to a particular frame of mind.

It is not as though I am completely unfamiliar with editorial disputes and their resolution. For instance, in January, RoyBoy and I disagreed over how a summary of Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis should be written for Abortion. We saw the project through our disagreement, and, ultimately, the article, and our rapport as Wikipedians, is the better for it.

I am trying to approach this conflict from your perspective, but, I cannot understand why you feel the need to be so constantly on the defensive, nor why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem, like "ego-inflated" and "condescending."

Hopefully, in the future, you'll have more luck with conflict resolution, because I bet Mifepristone is not the only article which could stand to benefit from a little cooperative attention. -Severa (!!!) 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages does not function on the basis of avoidance. If you want to get things done, you're going to have work with other people, which means learning to look past differences and resolve disagreements. This is why Misplaced Pages has so many methods, such as RfC and RfM, to assist in resolving disputes between editors. It was never my intent to cause you offense, but, I'm at least trying to see eye-to-eye. I'm not out to get you, alright. Do you really want to alienate people by continuing to be so dismissive, uncooperative, and uncivil? Misplaced Pages is a community-driven effort; nothing gets done if we refuse to work together. -Severa (!!!) 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Civilty

There is some unpleasantness occurring and at the very least WP:Civility is being stretched. All editors involved now risk being distracted by process, policy and arguing, rather than collaborating on actually improving articles. So let me suggest reflection by all editors on alternative approaches at this point:

• Respond to posts with greater civility than that one perceives as having received
• Start all responses with at least some positive acknowledgement of the other editor's contributions or points just raised.
• Apologise to other editors for any hurt they have stated as having felt (even if unintentional) - whilst we're all trying to work together on something great, it would also be nice if we all can be rewarded with a sense of positive friendship gained in the process.

By way of constructive thoughts (again I really have not had time to look at the discussions on several editors talk pages, nor multiple article edit histories and comments) - I think Cindery is proving to be a valuable editor with both a committed interest in some topics and a desire to improve those articles; with clearly both background knowledge in those topics as well as ability to locate sources for the information. Cindery has started to learn how to markup citations and footnotes - processes that have rapidly evolved in the last year and are now quite complex and sophisticated for any editor to learn (see on going debates at WP:Footnotes for how complex some of issues can be and the wide range of opinions on this). Cindery is correct that it is not the responsibility of one new editor to ensure that contributions are perfect in all aspects and that the collaboration of other editors is the power of the wiki approach. Of course as experience is gained, then so should improve the acquisition of editing skills, techniques and tools (one can’t deliberately rely on others to undertake basic copyediting for one) – but Cindery has correctly concentrated on providing content and at least links to sources and is now starting to markup citations more fully and with the confusing range of citation templates. I also applaud unprompted editing of her own previously submitted material to tone down some phrases for the drier NPOV tone expected of an encyclopaedia – I thought this was most mature.

I get the gist that the number of sequential edits and the extent of marking up sources have been the issues recently argued over. My own perspectives on these topics (the following is my general views and not responses to any of the specific postings recently made):

• Multiple edits - my preference is neither for multiple small edits nor single mega-edits. Too large a single edit becomes impossible to follow the undertaken changes in structure (eg add a section, revise a previous section to integrate better with the new section, do some general copyedit of spelling & markup = 3 or 4 edits). But equally, huge numbers of tiny edits are generally composed of insubstantial single edits – which no one is ever likely to specifically look at (vs. just comparing first to last versions). The ideal is a balance somewhere in-between – but where that balance lies is a matter for personal preference, varying between editors and dependant also upon the range otf tasks being undertaken upon an article. We all get this wrong at times (either too substantial a single edit or being too timid).
• To source inelegantly or not to source ? See debates over Inclusionism or Exclusionism – but I tend favour inclusionism – i.e. it is better to add content and add roughly structured sources than not to add at all. That said, wikipedia is not a long collection of url addresses or lists of bibliographies. Given that there is no deadline for completing articles, I think it is best to add one section at a time to an article, taking care to add well written prose and with citations found and added (in whatever of several possible wikipedia styles is used by that article), before moving on to additional sections. Whilst wikipedia is not a completed project, articles are being accessed by general readers during our editing process and so they need to be in a reasonable state of presentation. I think adding large numbers of url addresses as citations, whilst eventually needed as part of the process to develop an article, is hard reading for a general viewer - it might be better to either wait a day or two whilst a section can be patched together off-line, or use the talk page to propose new paragraphs and the incompletely marked up sources for this.

1 WikiMonth

Cindery, you are just about to reach the milestone of having been a contributing editor for one month, with your first edit on 25 July 2006. So happy 1st wikimonth, remain cool and continue your interesting contributions (I do appreciate your ensuring differing POVs are incorporated in articles under NPOV so making articles more rounded in their coverage, even if these are POVs I personal do not ascribe to). Yours :-) David Ruben 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cindery Rocks

Thanks for the edit.

Footnotes

One of the issues with the cite.php footnote style is that you have to add the "references/" tag at the end, or the footnotes won't display. It's completely non-obvious and not at all a dumb question. I've added the tag in the male contraceptives article so you can see how it works. Lyrl _Contribs 01:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Picture

Hi Cindery. It appears the page you linked to is copyrighted, which includes the picture, I assume. In order to use images here, we have to be sure they're released under GFDL, or something at least as free. If you have an image that's free to use, then you can upload it by clicking the "upload file" link over on the left side of the page. I hope that answers your question; please let me know if I can help more. -GTBacchus 18:21, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The article's on my watchlist, and I'll contribute what I can, when I can. For finding images, try Misplaced Pages:Requested pictures. I'm no image expert, but I think the people there will know some stuff. Thanks for the good editing. -GTBacchus 07:16, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

re:primary/secondary sources in sci/med

I think the issue is a little bit bigger than that. If I emphasized using popular sources, then I admit I was wrong there. But the use of reliable secondary sources (monographs, scientific textbooks, etc) still seems more favorable than citing individual studies all the time. I know it can be hard to find secondary sources for current events, so that can be a challenge as well. What I most importantly want everyone to keep in mind is the "no original research bit". Sometimes it takes an expert to be able to interpret scientific studies. And publishing such interpretations for the first time here on wikipedia violates OR. Towards the top of the page you quoted me is:

"In general, Misplaced Pages articles should not depend on primary sources but rather on reliable secondary sources who have made careful use of the primary-source material. Most primary-source material requires training to use correctly, especially on historical topics. Misplaced Pages articles may use primary sources only if they have been published by a reliable publisher e.g. trial transcripts published by a court stenographer, or historic documents that appear in edited collections."

They focus more on having things be verifiable and reliable and representive of the "scientific consensus". Following these guidelines, I still feel the rat study of mifepristone has nothing to do with the human deaths, unless we can cite a reliable source connecting the two (not a popular press article, but something that first WP:RS). Side note, good work with the ME article! Oh and I'm glad your user page isn't a redlink anymore. (sounds like we have a lot in common)--Andrew c 16:28, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't know where to go from here. I hadn't heard from you or been in conflict with you in 10 days, then you decide to post a snipet of policy on my talk page. How could I not interpret that as anything but you trying to wave the fact that I was wrong about something in my face? I replied and tried to defend myself, while admitting I was wrong about somethings. And I tried to be calm and civil. And now I get a fairly long reply attacking me personally (in my first reply, I didn't mention you personally except to compliment you twice), demanding an apology, chiding me on policy, and accusing me of not doing my research. I'm sorry, I cannot reply to your accusations point by point. I do not want to get defensive again. I know we got off on a bad foot, and if we are going to be working on some of the same articles, I'd really like to be friendly, and civil, and put all of this behind us. If admitting you are right about everything will bring us to that point, I'm willing to do that. If we can admit that we both got defensive and had knee jerk reactions in the past and took things personally, and that we may not always see eye to eye, but we can disagree in an adult and professional manner, I'm ready to move on. However, if there are still specific matters you want me to personally address, or if we still need to sit down and work things out from our past, lets do that. --Andrew c 20:08, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Finding urls

I replied on my talk page. Lyrl _Contribs 22:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

EC

I reverted your edit to the Emergency Contraception article since I think you removed more than you intended. Thannks --TeaDrinker 17:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. here is the diff from my revert. I assumed you were editing in Firefox tabs or something similar, since the last few sections disappeared with your edit (something that happens accidentally with certain browsers). I didn't think you had intended to deleted, for instance, the language links or references section. Was this actually your intent? I probably should have been clearer with my message... Thanks, --TeaDrinker 17:53, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No problem, I've been having a morning like that too. Cheers, --TeaDrinker 18:04, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible Google Toolbar bug?

I know I keep getting the warning:

Attention, users of Firefox with Google Toolbar: You may find that long pages are cut off unexpectedly while editing in tabs; please be careful. This issue has been reported to Google, and appears to have been fixed; please upgrade to the latest version of Google Toolbar.

I have the Firefox imitation Google Toolbar, rather than the one that's actually made by Google, so I haven't been affected by the bug. But, I wonder if that's what happened to you? If so, upgrading the Google Toolbar should fix it. Lyrl _Contribs 23:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Silver Surfer Sez

Actually, he wouldn't say anything. He'd just jump on his surfboard. You know, the Meat Puppets have a song called, 'I'm a Mindless Idiot.' I think I'd rather be an East Coast Intellectual. Mumblio 21:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Your filing of 3RR

Please follow the instructions in WP:AN/3RR#Copy-paste-edit this for a new report and then paste it after the bottomost report. --WinHunter 09:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you would like to give me the name of the article where the 3RR violation took place? That way I can assess whether 3RR was being broken. --WinHunter 09:24, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Protected Abortion

I am not going to block anyone for 3RR violation at this time, call it an amnesty if you may. I have protected the page instead, please discuss the changes in the talk page instead of reverting each other. Many thanks. --WinHunter 09:44, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Mumblio Speaks!

I've kept up with the abortion page, Cindery. If things were this rough on the boxing page, there would be blood in the streets! I may be young in the ways of Wiki - before two days ago, the only sock puppets I'd heard of were in WHAT ABOUT BOB - but I am sadly experienced in the ways of the world ('for he who increaseth knowledge, increaseth sorrow.'). However, it looks like things are moving in a good direction. I think I'll go back to the page and do some proofing and a bit of copy-editing post-consensus.

Welcoming

I saw that you just tried to welcome a user (it showed up on the bootcamp channel on IRC because of the helpme template). For future reference, the template to use is {{subst:welcome}} ~~~~. Hope that helps you out! -Royalguard11(Talk·Desk) 01:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

After I welcomed a user (explaining why I had reverted one of their edits), one of the admins told me anyone can welcome new users, and pointed me to Misplaced Pages:Welcome templates that has a bunch of different messages.

I do not know, but suspect, that admins go to blank user talk pages to put the welcome message. So if someone starts leaving messages for a new user before an admin welcomes them, that user's talk page will no longer be on the admin's "needs to be welcomed" list. Lyrl _Contribs 16:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Speaking for myself, I welcome as I notice and see fit. I am not sure what you mean by a "needs to be welcomed" list. KillerChihuahua 10:20, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

FYI, you may wish to check out the welcoming committee. KillerChihuahua 10:22, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Editing

Hey there Cindery. What do you need help with? --Casper2k3 15:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

two pages I have been working on--Menstrual extraction and Jesse Reklaw are missing things as though they had been unintentionally blanked after edits I made (section headers, references, external links..) the blanked things seem to be in the article when I edit--but they just don't show up? I can't figure out how to fix this. Tks Cindery 16:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can see what you mean - the Jesse Reklaw has gone a bit 'wonky'! I'm having a look-see through the article now to see where the problem might be.

At first glance Menstrual extraction seems to be ok. What things are missing from that one? --Casper2k3 16:14, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for helping. Menstrual extraction is completely missing a section called "Use after legalisation of abortion," and a New York Times citation... Cindery 16:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

One down, one to go! The problem with Jesse Reklaw was you didn't complete the last reference in the article. I removed <ref name="yale"> from the page and it's working fine. Have a look here to see how I fixed it. Gonna have a look at the Menstrual extraction article now. --Casper2k3 16:32, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

helpme

I am trying to give the surreal barnstar to User:Astanhope, but I have done it wrong and can't figure out why... Cindery 01:29, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi there! The code you should have used is :

		The Surreal Barnstar
		message Ali K 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

. I have fixed it on the other user's page. --Ali K 01:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

or not... It seems you have tried to edit at the same time. I will leave you to fix it :) --Ali K 01:43, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

• Thank you! How kind! --AStanhope 17:05, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Postmarketing surveillance

I can't find an article on the topic. How shocking. To the credits of pharmaceutical companies, they still haven't realised that Misplaced Pages would be a great marketing tool if they could get their representatives edit articles! (Won't give them ideas.) Will you start the article? I'll contribute in due time. There is some roughly useful basic content on pharmaceutical company. JFW | T@lk 20:04, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Misplaced Pages better -- thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from ForteTuba, SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot 04:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Related Statistics and Studies

Hey Cindry, I'm kinda new to wikipedia so I apologize for not noting my changes until recently. I have several issues with you edits though.

1) In the statement regarding "Two peer-papers studies have shown that when emergency contraception is available, the incidence of unprotected sex does not increase." You claim that the ref does not claim that unprotected sex doesn't increase. This is false, both papers make this claim.

In the "Norris Turner A, Ellertson C (2002). "How safe is emergency contraception?". Drug Saf 25 (10): 695-706. PMID 12167065." reference this is a direct quote from the paper:

"Nevertheless, at least two published studies report that when emergency contraception is more available, women are more likely to use it when needed, but that their incidence of unprotected sex does not increase."

In the "Harper C, Cheong M, Rocca C, Darney P, Raine T (2005). "The effect of increased access to emergency contraception among young adolescents.". Obstet Gynecol 106 (3): 483-91. PMID 16135577." this is the other quote:

"Adolescents aged younger than 16 years behaved no differently in response to increased access to emergency contraception (EC) from the other age groups. As with adults, EC use was greater among adolescents in advance provision than in clinic access (44% compared with 29%; P < or = .001), and other behaviors were unchanged by study arm, including unprotected intercourse, condom use, sexually transmitted infection acquisition, or pregnancy. "

You need to actually read the articles!!! Being lazy and just reading an abstract may not give you all the important information contained in the paper.

2) In terms of your summary of the Swedish study I edited it cause it was clearly biased and purposefully misleading. Try and be a little more fair in summarizing the studies.

3) In statement regarding "A United States study of 2,117 people up to age 24 including 964 adolescents (90 of them younger than 16) found no differences in pregnancy rates or rates of new sexually transmitted infections between individuals given access to ECPs and those under traditional care. Additionally, access to ECPs did not effect regular contraceptive use or risky sexual behaviors.".

The existance of a non-ECP group is completely irrelevent. People want to know what might possibly happen if ECPs are made readily available as opposed to only being available through prescription. This is the crux of the argument regarding making ECPs available over the counter. Therefore a proper control group would involve a population of individuals under traditional care (i.e. ECPs only being available with presciption). A non-ECP group has very limited relevance as such a group doesn't exist in most modern countries.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by RegisA (talk • contribs) 23:15, 29 September 2006

Advanced techniques for use with new users

Thats tips for you to use when dealing with new users, not things to be applied to you, a now seasoned editor :-)

Hi Cindery, I try to continue to read the updates to contraception topics. Most of the finer discussions are above my own level of knowledge/familiarity with the research, or my more limited time now to research into (work has picked up). I thought you responded well to the anon's above posting on their talk page (especially ignoring the straying from strict WP:AGF tone). Couple of advanced tips for your growing repetoir:

• To belatedly add a signature on ones talk page to someone elses unsigned posting, use the {{unsigned| <user name or the anon's URL address> }} tag. Hence I've just added for you above :{{unsigned|RegisA}} 23:15, 29 September 2006
• If adding the 1st posting to a new users talk page, add a welcome template message. These provide links to important policies and guidelines for a new user to beome aware of and discuss why & how to sign talk pages. Should the new user later prove disruptive, they can't complain no one pointed them in the right direction of the policies. With welcome templates, direct linking to the template is not done, but instead the markup code can be automatically substituted in for one using {{subst: <template name> }} tag. Hence {{subst:welcome}} generated this change to the anon's talk page. Other welcome templates are listed at Misplaced Pages:Welcome templates :-)David Ruben 15:10, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

{{help me}}

i need to report a 3RR violation by 71.242.186.236 for the 4th time tonight, he insisted on inserting uncited, irrelevant info about himself into an article not about him... Cindery 06:54, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

First, make sure that there actually has been a 3RR; they must have removed another's edit 4 times to have broken the rule (which in the case of inserting information against consensus requires 5 insertions). If you think they have broken the rule you can report the matter at the 3RR noticeboard. --ais523 07:29, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Inserting information, then inserting different information, is not a revert, so it's not 3RR. However, if you think the anon is being disruptive, you could take the issue to AN/I, or use one of the dispute resolution processes. --ais523 07:43, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

User:Swkap

I've unblocked this account after he sent me an email protesting that he hadn't committed vandalism. I decided that given the minor nature of the contributions, I couldn't justify connecting him with the IP, and apologised and unblocked him. Unforunately, I overlooked the fact that the email was coming from - sigh - Samuel Kaplan, the name being inserted into the article, which is a pretty significant connection.

I'm not reblocking now, but I'm going to keep an eye on what he does to the article in the future. If he makes such obviously self-promotional edits as before, then I'll reblock. But if he continues with edits like those from this account that aren't obviously self-promotional, then I'd like you to consider them independently and not automatically treat them as vandalism for the time being. Sorry about this mess. --Sam Blanning 20:51, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd better say that at least he's spoken to someone now, which is a significant change from his previous behaviour where he doesn't seem to have made any attempt to communicate - so even leaving my mixup aside, I think he needs to be given a chance to contribute properly. --Sam Blanning 21:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Planned Parenthood

You know, with all the crap my wife (and I, by extension) get for working for PP from our various right-wing relatives for "killing babies" and "promoting promiscuity", I'm kind of glad that there are those for whom her ideological committment to what she does is insufficiently pure because her organization has a fundraising arm.

I look forward to the day when you spend sixty hours a week going to inner-city public high schools explaining to kids that no, you don't have to have sex just because your boyfriend wants to, and if you do, you don't have to get pregnant, if you do get pregnant when you don't want to, you don't have to have a baby. I'm sure you'll do it some community-based way that somehow manages to not bring profit to a single for-profit entity. Good luck with that. --Jfruh (talk) 20:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, it's just going to make me furious. I'm unwatching the page. There ought to be a Misplaced Pages version of the serenity prayer (accept things that can't be changed etc.).

By the way, it's my wife who's employed by PP, not me, and on the education side, not the medical side, which I think is pretty important and valuable. --Jfruh (talk) 21:44, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back

Welcome back from your wikibreak. I'm glad to see you still watching contraception related article. Keep up the good work.--Andrew c 23:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, you may want to take a look at Talk:Depo Provera. Someone is making a compelling case to remove some information that I believe you added. Either way, your opinion in the matter would be valued. Thanks.--Andrew c 00:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Cindery, I've modified my comments a bit to avoid saying anyone's right, or even mostly right. I really don't want to get involved in an edit war or give opinion on who is behaving well (leave that for the admins). I disagree with SlimVirgin that the article is not "Depo Provera use in humans". 99% of the article is human-oriented, as is the case with most drug articles on Misplaced Pages. Those two bullet points sit amongst other points that are clearly human-specific and based on human studies. The author of the second paper does "predict" what you claim. Whether a prediction by a basic researcher is worthy of mention, I'm not sure. My own (lay) experience of anticonvulsant research is that lots of things are predicted by basic research that turn out to be mistaken when human studies are performed.

Perhaps I am being dim, but I don't see your quote re: secondary/primary. I see stuff about popular press/newspapers but many folk regard them as poor tertiary sources, when it comes to science/medicine. I would like to be corrected if you can show me that "primary is best", since lots of editors (not just in medicine) seem to have this impression. Colin Harkness° 11:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Hi Cindery, many thanks for the barnstar - I'm well chuffed :-) Out of interest was it for any specific action/edit or just generally trying to welcome new editors I encounter on articles that I look at ? I had started to wonder what might have happened to you (hope it was just a planned holiday), glad it was only a short wikibreak, and welcome back. David Ruben 00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Depo Provera talk

MastCell asked for my commentary on Talk:Depo Provera, I've tried not to take sides - I well appreciate your contributions to the article and your greater familiarity than myself with the research into this area. As MastCell invited commentary having recognised their own sense of "getting more argumentative", I've most focused on their style of debate. However I did feel only fair to then offer as an example an alternative wording to one of your postings too. I truely do not wish to cause either of you ill feeling, so please read the points as positive friendly constructive suggestions and, with MastCell claiming inexperience, I am sure your past exemplary application of NPOV will help resolve the impass :-) David Ruben 01:48, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

re:EC

I'll talk a look at the page and see if I can't figure out what is going wrong sometime in the next half-hour or so. Thanks for calling it to my attention.--Andrew c 22:10, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, pretty sure everything is fixed, but you should double check.--Andrew c 22:21, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

The cite.php protocol created a new tag for the use of citing references on wikipedia. That tag is the <ref> tag (with which I'm sure you are familiar). And like all tags used in html (and other coding languages), if you open the tag, you must also close the tag (i.e. </ref>). Therefore, the problem on the EC page was that there was an open ref tag, followed by the citation template without the closing ref tag. This made all the text after the citation show up in reference #35. All I did was add the </ref> after the citation template you had copied over from the deleted section. Make sense?--Andrew c 22:38, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Good faith

I hope it's stating the obvious that your comments on User Talk:Davidruben here are a fairly huge breach of WP:Assume good faith and verge on a personal attack. Please step back and realize that although we disagree on a number of content issues, I am not motivated by personal animus toward you. My edits were made with the motivation of improving the page in question. Prefacing your statements with "It seems unfair to say this, but..." does not absolve you of being civil, assuming good faith, and avoiding personal attacks. I'm happy to work with you on these articles, and I welcome your well-informed input, but please focus on the article rather than seeing edits which don't accord with your point of view as motivated by personal animus. MastCell 05:28, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I think now, based on your behavior the last two days, that you probably did engage in borderline wikistalking, and that you are probably are personally over-engaged with reacting to me out of aniumus. What I find disturbing is that I have made an effort to completely disengage with you/have carefully worded all my comments on EC talkpage, but you still seem quite hostile --your kneejerk accusation of OR yesterday that you had to cross out, your inappropriate comment today which I just ignored re "the sulfurous smell of pharmaceutical companies" or whatever...It's not necessarily assuming bad faith to point obvious things like that out--it can also be called "naming the conflict," per meatballwiki. If you find yourself, as you said, "being more argumentative than you should," you should make an extra effort to disengage emotionally, not find ways to amplify your engagement, like writing aggrieved opinionated notes to my talkpage, full of inappropriate accusations. This is a "content over community" endeavor, and I am not obligated to personally engage with you. Please leave me alone, and restrict your comments to impersonal discussion on the talkpages of articles.

Cindery 06:42, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Conception probabilities

My knowledge of FA is related to a woman determining when she is near ovulation, and I'm pretty good at that. However, my knowledge of conception probabilities is not much more extensive than this, and I've never heard of any of the different theories or methods you mentioned. Sorry to disappoint, but I don't have the knowledge base to write such an article. Lyrl _Contribs 01:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Barrington hall

Hi, Thank you for not deleting content from Misplaced Pages. Thanks also for remembering that "Misplaced Pages is not a Bureaucracy"--that means if there is a disagreement, you should discuss on talkpage, not assume or insist that your interpretation of WP:EL doesn't need to be discussed with the editors of an article. While one obvious solution is to send Mahlen an email asking him to post that when he uploaded the film onto the internet for free more than 10 years ago, he meant for it to be free/freely used by everyone (and yes we know him, and no that film is not under copyright), there's nothing wrong with formatting uncopywritten content in youtube for easier access than a cache provides. Cindery 10:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see this. Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy is not a matter here at all. Please revert your edit. — Nearly Headless Nick 10:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted your edit. YouTube vidoe links, especially videos with no copyright info are not allowed on wikipedia per WP:EL. Cheers!--May the Force be with you! Shreshth91 11:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert Anasi

I just noticed that Anasi's entry doesn't mention his foreward to 'The Sweet Science.' Should that be in there? Mumblio 03:47, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the note. Im a bit of a tortoise when it comes to picking up new things. Mumblio 06:29, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Jesse Reklaw

Hi! I wasn't trying to get into a revert war with you just now - I just didn't realize you were editing at the same time as me. We can certainly discuss whether the details about Slow Wave need to be in both articles, but your edit summary is telling me to refer to the talk page and you don't seem to have written anything there. I have some other comments on style etc. which I was going to write up after I finished this round of edits, but I'll take a minute to do that now. ←Hob 05:55, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please stop editing for just a second so we can talk. I've documented my reasons for every edit in some very lengthy edit summaries, and I think you may not have read them. For instance, I moved the 13 Cats info further up in the article - so you've just reintroduced a redundant sentence - and I removed the reference to it being an excerpt of a graphic novel because, despite what the Yale alumni reporter thinks, it's not. ←Hob 05:58, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm gonna give it a rest at least till tomorrow, so do whatever you think is best and reply as needed, and I may or may not argue some more later. I'll just say this, and hope I don't sound too much like an asshole: it looks like you started editing four months ago. OK, maybe you were around earlier under a different username or something, and I'm no Jimbo Wales. Still, it's really not such a great idea for your very first communication with someone to be like this - "Please do not aggressively remove sourced information because you disagree with it .... removing it could be called vandalism" - unless you're really really sure that they totally don't know what they're doing and you do. You jumped in with reverts while I was still moving stuff around - where's the fire? Do you think text is lost for all time if a revision exists without it for one evening? Does my own edit history really look like someone who's just goofing around or is unfamiliar with WP or comics articles? I know you put a lot of good work into the article, but that's no reason to go in with guns blazing when someone's 2/3 of the way through a large revision and is carefully commenting every single edit. You don't have to agree with me but please assume good faith; I will do the same. ←Hob 07:38, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You removed 3/4 of the article, all of it cited content, with zero discussion on the talkpage... Cindery 07:42, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Archiving...

Hay, just a friendly suggustion... you talk page is getting fairly massive (71kb). You might consider archiving. If you need help archiving, let me know. ---J.S (t|c) 23:56, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

YouTube

Hey there, just so you know, the fact that a video "might not be copyvio" doesn't mean it's therefore ok to put into the article. First of all you'd have to be able to say definatively that it "definately is not", and secondly, I'm pretty sure youtube is unacceptable on wiki because it doesn't give copyright info. It's not judged on a clip-by-clip basis - it's not used because each clip has no info on copyright so that noone can check if it's copyvio. TheHYPO 13:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for taking time to give me feedback, it's good to see what works and what doesn't, even on the simplest levels. Resonanteye 17:12, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Indenting

I would like to politely request that you follow established editing guidelines for indenting replies on talk pages. Indenting is important to help make the talk page more readable and the conversation easier to follow.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I feel that when I see you continue to ignore talk page policy it makes me think you are attempting to show a disdain for wikipedia in general. I want to assume that I'm wrong. I want to assume that you respect the community and it's standards, but I'm finding it harder and harder. ---J.S (t|c) 21:31, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

..talkpage is a guideline, not a policy; formatting should be consistent, colons not absolute. Your assumptions all clear violations of AGF bordering on harassment and vioaltion of NPA, particularly "I have decided what you do means x, therfore y" on YT "project page." I understand you're in your early 20s; not my problem. I would suggest you follow "If you find you cannot get along with someone, try being more friendly, else it is probably better to avoid them"--in your case, I think that's a clear injunction to refrain from petty complaints on my talkpage, and stick to discussions of substantive matters on article talkpages, as impersonally as possible. Thanks! Cindery 22:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I've tried to post here politely and you respond with incivility. Fine. Now that it's clear you don't care, I won't bring up "petty" matters of talk page etiquette any further.

However, using my age as a straw-man argument to imply incompetence is a personal attack and I expect it to stop. ---J.S (t|c) 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

I understand you're in your early 20s; not my problem. Perhaps you should take a time out to reread the humorous WP:DICK, if you find yourself contantly insisting that your personal preferences --colons, YouTube--are "policies" other people are violating and should be harassed about. That said, I realize Misplaced Pages revolves around you, and therefore all actions of all editors which offend your personal preferences are not only policy violations, but intentional acts of "disrespect" directed at you personally :-) Cindery 23:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

/Archive 1

Adding citations

Your skills at wikpedia are clearly increasing with experience. Aside from our POV differences, you are providing interesting material and references. May I though offer some guidance on how to add details of sources into articles, as providing the full citation details is much easier for the original editor if they are able to directly.

Footnote link systems

References within articles should not be included as plain-text of the web addresses (URLs), eg as http://www.example.com. Instead one of a number of footnote and citation systems may be used:

• In line links are located in the article text by enclosing the URLs in a single square bracket.

Hence: entered whilst editing, displays as; .

In-line links are either liked by users or strongly disliked. The problem is that the link gives no idea as to what source is being linked to until the reader actual tries to follow the link. There are therefore perhaps best used when the source is mentioned in the text, eg:

"The Times editorial the following day, emphasised...."

• Manual links, such as (2), to numbered tems in a Footnotes section should never be done as the footnotes section will in time have items added or removed, and the link number may not be adjusted accordingly by future editors.
• There was a ref/note system with tags in the text linking to the named details tags in the footnotes section. However awkward additional mark up was required for duplicate citating of the same footnote.
• The current system is termed cite.php (after the coding to metawiki, the underlying software of wikipedia). See WP:Footnotes for the full details but in essence.

• Details of a footnote are defined up in the text enclosed within tags. Optionally a name may be given to the reference, eg , which allows for a duplicate link later in the text using just .
• Some editors like to use html hidden tags to force the ref tags onto their own line and indented for easier viewing when editing the article.
• To indicate where to show the list of footnotes, the tag

should be entered as the only item in a "==Footnotes==" section.

Hence: Standard protocols for managing asthma have been set out.

       ==Footnotes==

1. Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5

appears as:

Standard protocols for managing asthma have been set out.

Footnotes

1. ^ Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5

Citation details and styling

Quite separate from providing the automated numbered forward and back links from/to text & footnotes section, is how to markup or style the details of the source. A URL on its own gives no indication to the reader as to author, source, year or format of the link. The details can of course be entered manually, hence:

This coding: Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5 appears as : Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5

Various citation templates exist to standardise the citation style and are usually easier to use. So, in example just used, the Template:cite journal may be used:

This coding: Simpson (2004). "ABC of asthma". J.Resp. 2: 273–5. appears as : Simpson (2004). "ABC of asthma". J.Resp 2: 273-5.

PubMed

Rather than adding the full URL to the site and the abstract within it, wikipedia will recognise "PMID" and a number after it.

Hence this entry : PMID 123456 Is displayed as  : PMID 123456

For medical topics, finding the abstract entry at PubMed is very helpful, not only for a reader to lookup (one can often on the web find the full article to link to, rather than just PubMed's abstract), but also in generating the citation markup for use in wikipdia. Simply enter the PubMed abstract number into Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ and the full Template:cite journal is generated for one. This may then be copied & pasted into the wikipedia article (enclosing within tags).

If a full version of the article on the web is also known, this may be included in the Template:cite journal markup with the URL parameter which applies the hyperlink to the article's title

This coding: Simpson (2004). "ABC of asthma". J.Resp. 2: 273–5. appears as : Simpson (2004). "ABC of asthma". J.Resp 2: 273-5.

Improving references

Hence to improve on an incompletely citated source, I first search PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi for the article (either by name of paper, but remove punctuation marks, or authro name). Then with the abstract number, eg 123456, I use Diberris tool and the full markup is shown (eg look at this for 123456).

Hope this is of help, but it is an awful lot of stuff - so please do ask if completely baffled or you have any questions :-) David Ruben Talk 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpler guide - Footnoted citation template from Inline external link

First task is to open up the external link and look to see what sort of source material it is. Then select the relevant citation template, eg template:cite journal, template:cite news, template:cite book. The template or their talk-pages have a blank version with all the parameters to copy & paste into the article you are working on. Note however that template:cite newspaper has few parameters and generally it is easier to give more details in a structured way with template:cite news. With Dalkon shield as an example (open up the 'Step x' links to see edit change):

1. Step 1, add in the blank template block and some details transfered from the external webpage. 2. Step 2 - It is then a simple matter to transfer over some parameter values 3. Step 3 - Whilst what we now have works in a 'Reference Section' (just needs an '*' at the front to turn it into a bullet-pointed item), for footnotes we need store this citation for now and display instead at this location just the flag to the footnote (i.e. the ). Hence add opening tags. 4. Step 4 - compact down the template block from multiple lines to just one. To make clearer when viewed in edit mode, I tend to add html hidden tags to indent refs on a new line (this works well in free text, but in a bulleted list there is a problem if further sentances come after the footnote)

5. Finally - footnotes need their own section and the list of footnotes is shown by adding a

1. ...
2. and closing

tag. Also as we have now added this footnote, the duplication of this source in the References section can be removed.

Hope this proves easier David Ruben Talk 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpler guide - Footnoted citation template from Biomedical journal paper via PubMed

1. Find the article in PubMed by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi - enter article title or selective keywords. Note you may also add in surname of an author, but remove any punctuation from article title (e.g. convert "The Charge: Gynocide(Part 1)" to "The Charge Gynocide Part 1" 2. Open as a separate internet explorer window Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ and ensure that PubMed ID is selected from drop-down list of options (the tool is also used for other types of wikipedia templates). 3. Now copy and paste the located article's PMID abstract number across into Diberris tool and click 'Submit'. 4. The template:cite journal markup for the article is now shown. As an example, for PMID 123456 the tool shows this. Copy and paste this into your wikipedia article; for example just given:

Grados O (1975). "". Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 78 (4): 318–22. PMID 123456.

5. Now enclose the citation template in opening tags and ensure that there is a 'Footnotes' section with a

1. and closing

tag. hence for example just given we need:

(if there were an an online full version of this article, then add a '| url= http://www....' parameter just before the closing curly brackets of the citation template)

Hope this proves easier David Ruben Talk 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary

When you're editing a page, under the edit window is "Content must not violate any copyright. Encyclopedic content..."

Under that statement should be "Edit summary:" and then a box. Anything an editor types in this box will appear as a comment next to the time/user name in the history.

Below that box are the 'save page' 'show preview' 'show changes' buttons.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Lyrl Talk Contribs 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bayer controversy section

I have removed your addition of the controversy section to the Bayer article. It is a complete copy and paste of which appears to violate its copyright. Metros232 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bayer

It was a selected paste of corporate watch report, not complete. (I felt it was too long. You may think it was too long at the length I posted it? I think it's fair--there really is *that much* controversy about Bayer.) Corporate watch report also appears to have no copyright (I checked.) They may encourage reproduction/generous policy of fair use, esp. as it is a compilation of refs, not original research. I have sent them a message asking for explicit permission to excerpt, nonetheless.

Thanks, Cindery 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is official permission from site/I will be adding the info back, as I am correct that it is not a copyright violation:

<olaf@corporatewatch.org> to me

Hi <blank>, I was one of the people who helped write the Bayer profile. As far as adding it to wikipedia thats fine by us, all of our work is anti copyright for not for profit use. However the profile is quite old (published in early 2003 and accurate then but not updated since) and I know the company has changed quite a lot since then (in terms of its structure and business areas, rather than its behavior). Might be worth simplifying the profile ( I remember it being very long and sprawling) and updating it where necessary. Most of the information on corporate crimes came from Coordination Gegen Bayer Gefahren in Germany www.cbgnetwork.org and its probably worth checking back to their website to look for updates. Any questions drop me a line Cheers Olaf

Olaf Bayer (any similarity between my surname and a certain German life sciences company is purely coincidental) Researcher Corporate Watch www.corporatewatch.org 01865 791391 olaf@corporatewatch.org

Editing habits

Could you please cut down on the number of consecutive edits. Editing so many times in a row is problematic for two reasons. 1) it is hard for other editors to keep track of page changes in the history when it is filled with edits by one editor that all occured on the same day and 2) it puts added stress on the main wikipedia servers. I'm not asking you to stop editing by any means. Instead, of hitting post every 5 minutes, why not combine all your edits into one or two larger edits? Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like you are doing this again at mifepristone. Try to not hit "save page" as much, and instead make multiple edits with each save. If you need more space in the edit summary, you can always summarize larger edits on talk pages. I don't want to discourage you from contributing, but instead to contribute in a manner which is less taxing on the serve, and easier for other editors to follow in the page history. Carry on.--Andrew c 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I had this problem too and one thing that helps is hitting the "Show preview" button before saving the edits. Remember 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

progesterone only pill - 3RR warning

Whilst I personally agree with parts of your viewpoint re Progesterone only pill (not unreasonable concern that if progesterones in HRT increase risks then lower doses in POP might also have a smaller risk - but I agree evidence needs to be found to support or refute a reasonable concern), you are currently in a revert war and have reinserted a section x3 now, hence let me constructively draw your attention to Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages. At any rate please do not do more than three reverts in a 24h period. Rather than reverting, discuss disputed changes on the talk page. The revision you want is not going to be implemented by edit warring. Thank you. warning: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Misplaced Pages under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Please also note Misplaced Pages:Three-revert rule that cautions "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." So take a breath and debate on the talk page, or seek opinions of other editors (eg at WP:CLINMED). David Ruben Talk 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

taking things to talk concerning criticisms

Multiple edits in a row put extra stress on the serve. That is a fact. Having a page history filled with a bunch of minor edits mixed in with some major edits all from the same editor, all within a small time span can be confusing to other editors. This is a bit more subjective, but it is still a fact that it affects some editors. I commented to you twice about this. It had nothing to do with the content of your edits. Not citing your sources properly when you know how to do it creates work for other editors. I could be researching other things, or contributing in other ways, but instead I now have to go clean up your sloppy work. It would be one thing if you went to talk with your citations and asked for help from a number of editors. But throwing external links into a page that already have a good citation scheme degrades the article and creates work for other editors. This has NOTHING to do with the content of your edits. I feel your effort to find citations is good and a lot of your work is superior. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, and I'm not trying to criticize the content of your edits in a round about way. The edits I felt were problematic I spoke out about on talk. I, for one, would like to apologize if I have been too harsh, and I would appreciate if you didn't assume things about my motivations and secret intentions. I'm sorry that the formatting/etiquette issues have come up during content disputes, but I try to keep the issues seperated.--Andrew c 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I feel ridiculous responding to some of your accusations. Such as your claims that I intimidated an anonymous user away. The user suggested that we mention the 4 deaths were from an off-label use. I noted that that information was already included in the article. The user also pointed out that the FDA did not link mifepristone to the deaths, and that information also was already included. Finally, the anon ended their rant with Whomever wrote this needs to learn how to research. I told them, in a very civil manner that some of that information was included, some could be changed, and because it is a wiki, anyone, including them, could edit the article. I ended by kindly suggesting that they register becasue "it's fast and easy (and free), and editors tend to take you more seriously if you aren't an anonymous IP address". You can still be 100% anonymous if you regester. In fact, I feel it makes you even more anonymous because then your IP address is hidden and not just anyone can do a WHOIS check on you. I do not see how you can claim that exchange was hostile towards them. I also never made a value judgement on any IP editor. Next, I understand you disagree with a lot of thing I have said to you. You feel its fine that you hit "save page" every 2 minutes, even though it taxes the serve and is confusing to at least some editors. Ok, I've told you my part, I'll let it drop and you can ignore me at will. I've told you about the citations. You say you personally prefer EL to a footnote and you just haven't got around to formatting the citations. However, this is a matter of wikipedia POLICY. It is frowned upon to try and change or introduce a new style in an article that already has an established method. I tried to find out if you just didn't know how to do it, and offered my help. I understand that everyone can contribute to an article, but you can't expect other editors to do all the hard work for you, especially when you are breaking policy by using a different citation format. But I've said my piece. Whether you understand me or choose to act on this information is up to you. I can understand why you think mentioning these things are harrassment, considering your take on my exchange with the anon editor. Needless to say, I do not understand where you are coming from, but I hope we can get over these issues and focus on content. If I'm defensive, it's only because I have interpreted your tone to be hostile and accusatory (which was probably brought on by your interpretation of my tone being too critical).--Andrew c 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

1. Grados O (1975). "". Bol Oficina Sanit Panam. 78 (4): 318–22. PMID 123456.