User talk:JambaJuicy
Thank you!!
[edit]Hi Jamba Juicy, this is fun. Bnard1234 (talk) 18:50, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
JambaJuicy, you are invited to the Teahouse!
[edit]
|
Hi JambaJuicy! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Come join other new editors at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a space where new editors can get help from other new editors. These editors have also just begun editing Wikipedia; they may have had similar experiences as you. Come share your experiences, ask questions, and get advice from your peers. I hope to see you there! Ushau97 (I'm a Teahouse host) This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 26 October 2014 (UTC) |
BRD and 3RR
[edit]Hello, JambaJuicy. On Wikipedia, we have something called WP:BRD (Bold, Revert, Discuss). You have boldly edited, Jytdog has Reverted your edits (because they were, and still are, based extensively on primary sources) and explained the reasons on talk, and we are now at Discuss stage. Rather than waiting for discussion, you have reinstated your edits, which breach Wikipedia's medical sourcing guidelines. Please have a look at WP:3RR and WP:EDITWAR, and do not continue to add text based on primary sources without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, SandyGeorgia. I am sorry for that. I was not aware that rule existed, that you for bringing that to my attention. I will be patient and participate in further discussions about the post this concerning. JambaJuicy (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's very good news :) I had started through the edits you restored, identifying primary sources, and was finding quite a few. Even if the primary sources were in the article before you started editing, that's not a good reason to reinstate them. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-- often, when you first encounter a Wikipedia article, you find a mess, and cleaning it all up can be a huge task, but we at least try to not make the mess worse :). Now, to work with Jytdog, you can start by identifying the PMID number on any secondary review you want to use, and take it from there. Do you know how to tell from a PMID identifier (PubMed) if an article is a review or a primary source? If not, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help, or we can instruct you on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hi, JambaJuicy. Your local librarians also remain available to you! Please feel free to shoot us an email and we can set-up a time to locate additional review articles with you. Megs (talk) 17:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- That's very good news :) I had started through the edits you restored, identifying primary sources, and was finding quite a few. Even if the primary sources were in the article before you started editing, that's not a good reason to reinstate them. (See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS-- often, when you first encounter a Wikipedia article, you find a mess, and cleaning it all up can be a huge task, but we at least try to not make the mess worse :). Now, to work with Jytdog, you can start by identifying the PMID number on any secondary review you want to use, and take it from there. Do you know how to tell from a PMID identifier (PubMed) if an article is a review or a primary source? If not, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help, or we can instruct you on article talk. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:59, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
- Hello, SandyGeorgia. I am sorry for that. I was not aware that rule existed, that you for bringing that to my attention. I will be patient and participate in further discussions about the post this concerning. JambaJuicy (talk) 02:54, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
edit war warning
[edit]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Posttraumatic stress disorder. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.
Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:
- Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
- Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.
If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Jytdog (talk) 02:50, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for a great semester
[edit]Hi, User:JambaJuicy. Just a note to say it was great working with you this semester!! I've accepted a position at another institution, but you should always feel free to contact me on my talk page, should you have any questions about editing or just want to say hi. Megs (talk) 01:21, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!