User talk:Zad68/Archive 2013 Jun

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Changing formatting in cite doi templates

Hi Zad68, the cottontop tamarin article is looking great. Just a note about the formatting of cite doi templates, I don't think they should be changed from the style the bot/creator uses. One great advantage of cite doi is that one reference can be used on multiple pages without having to write out the whole thing, however if the formatting is not consistent then you may not be able to use the citation. If two articles were up for FA and they cited the same paper but one used different reference formatting, then the cite doi wouldn't be able to be used in one of the articles. Do you see the problem? If you're going to use cite doi, please format the article to its style. It's not t e biggest problem in the world but since cite doi is still in its infancy and doesn't have widespread adoption we should try to start with just one style from the beginning! Cheers, Jack (talk) 20:24, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

understood no problem will fix Zad68 20:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed now. Zad68 02:27, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

a barnstar from Ocaasi dated 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC) that was here has been moved to my barnstars list

Thank you for this Ocaasi! It can certainly be a trying subject area (if I had nickel for every time I heard "you're doing great!/no way I'm touching that"...) Zad68 04:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

ADHD

Hiya Zad - hope you are well. :) Just to let you know that I am almost finished with the sourcing issues. :-) Is there a time limit to this GA review? Am I moving too slowly?--MrADHD | T@1k? 21:30, 9 June 2013 (UTC)

Doing great, thanks! Keep at it, get it done right. I'm willing to allow it to take however long it needs, as long as you keep working at it. The important thing is that we end up with a truly good article, there's no deadline. Zad68 04:14, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Request for secondary sources for Promescent on the Premature Ejaculation page

I'm sorry if this communication should be elsewhere. I am relatively new to Wiki editing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Premature_ejaculation&diff=559170651&oldid=559170376

I thought that my two references - one from the National Institute of Health and the other from the FDA would be sufficient independent secondary sources. I'm sorry to ask you for this, but could you be more specific about which portion of the statement needs additional supporting information?

Thank you for your editing work. Dr.martin.miner (talk) 17:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sure, thanks for asking. From your question, I think you're on board with the idea that a topic needs to receive attention from an independent reliable source to establish that the topic might be noteworthy, and therefore possibly deserving inclusion in an article. Without the requirement of independent notice, any press release or catalog entry supplied by a product manufacturer could be used to justify mention of just about anything in our articles. This is the case with the sources supplied for Promescent: This link to the NLM's DailyMed database is simply a catalog entry supplied by the manufacturer, and is one of over 50,000 such catalog entries; This link is to a listing for a patent application related to the product, again supplied by the manufacturer. (And I'd be disappointed if the patent is granted, as there's clearly prior art and it's a pretty obvious idea... although I can't say I'd be surprised if it's granted, the USPTO grants some really ridiculous patents!) So neither one of those is an independent source, or a secondary source. If you'd like to follow up further let's continue at the article Talk page, so that others who might be interested in the article-related discussion can see it. Thanks much... Zad68 03:39, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for your fast and clear response. I certainly value your diligence and can see, without it, Wiki would be useless. When I find what I think is an appropriate independent source, should I run it by you first or simply make the edit? Dr.martin.miner (talk) 09:47, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

No problem. Either way is fine, if you feel confident about it go ahead and make the edit, or if you think it might be questionable you can run it by me here, or at the article Talk page. Wikipedia's guideline for biomedical sourcing is WP:MEDRS, if you haven't read it yet you should go ahead and do that, it'll save you a lot of time and frustration if you can ensure your biomedical sourcing complies with that guideline. Thanks, and don't be afraid to branch out your editing into other subject areas too. Zad68 20:30, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject AFC needs your help... again

WikiProject Articles for creation Backlog Elimination Drive

WikiProject AFC is holding a one month long Backlog Elimination Drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unreviewed articles. The drive is running from July 1st, 2013 – July 31st, 2013.

Awards will be given out for all reviewers participating in the drive in the form of barnstars at the end of the drive.
There is a backlog of over 1000 articles, so start reviewing articles! Visit the drive's page and help out!

A new version of our AfC helper script is released! It includes many bug fixes, new improvements and features, code cleanup, and more page cleanups. If you want to see a full list of changes, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creation/Helper script/Development page. Please report bugs and feature requests there, too! Thanks.

Delivered at 12:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC) by EdwardsBot (talk), on behalf of WikiProject AFC