User talk:Boyhominid
 | This user is new to Wikipedia. Please assume good faith, remain civil, and be calm, patient, helpful, and polite while they become accustomed to Wikipedia and its intricacies. |
Welcome Boyhominid!
| Some pages of helpful information to get you started: | Some common sense Do's and Don'ts:
|
| If you need further help, you can: | or even: |
Alternatively, leave me a message at my talk page or type {{helpme}} here on your talk page, and someone will try to help.
There are many ways you can contribute to Wikipedia. Here are a few ideas:
|
|
Remember to always sign your posts on talk pages. You can do this either by clicking on the 
button on the edit toolbar or by typing four tildes (~~~~) at the end of your post. This will automatically insert your signature, a link to this (your talk) page, and a timestamp.
To get some practice editing you can use a sandbox. You can create your own private sandbox for use any time. Perfect for working on bigger projects. Then for easy access in the future, you can put
{{My sandbox}} on your user page. By the way, seeing as you haven't created a user page yet, simply click here to start it.Sincerely, Jax 0677 (talk) 20:47, 3 January 2014 (UTC) (Leave me a message)
Re percent range
[edit]I note your addition of cn tag on halitosis. The range comes from one of my publications (a review), but I did not want to add the citation myself because of WP:COI. See also talk:Halitosis#Epidemiology (a selection of primary sources). I guess therefore the cn tag stays for now, but it is not just made up =) Kind regards, Lesion (talk) 18:12, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. I appreciate your honesty. I'll take a look at those sources shortly and see if I can fit them into the article. :-) Boyhominid (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- To clarify, my publication, the review paper which would potentially be a suitable source per WP:MEDRS, is not listed on the talk page. What we have on the talk page is a selection of primary epidemiologic studies, which per MEDRS are not suitable sources. We need a nice review paper or textbook. I will be reworking the page at some point, so feel free to leave the cn tag for now if you prefer. Lesion (talk) 01:17, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
- Thanks for contacting me. I appreciate your honesty. I'll take a look at those sources shortly and see if I can fit them into the article. :-) Boyhominid (talk) 00:44, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Psyduck
[edit]Concerning this edit, statements in the lead section do not need to have sources, as they are actually referenced in the body of the article, as the lead is a summary of the entire page, which includes reception. Sources in the lead get congested and muddled sometimes, so its better to avoid them if possible, unless the content in the lead section is not displayed elsewhere. Blake (Talk·Edits) 02:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)