User talk:Jcalex286

Ways to improve Asticcacaulis biprosthecum

Hi, I'm MrNiceGuy1113. Jcalex286, thanks for creating Asticcacaulis biprosthecum!

I've just tagged the page, using our page curation tools, as having some issues to fix. Hi, a few incoming links to the text could work wonders. Best regards, (MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC))[reply]

The tags can be removed by you or another editor once the issues they mention are addressed. If you have questions, you can leave a comment on my talk page. Or, for more editing help, talk to the volunteers at the Teahouse. MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am still learning the wikipedia page editing and so far I like it a lot, I will expand the article once I know more.

About Asticcacaulis

Hi Jcalex286. I was giving a helping hand with the article Asticcacaulis biprosthecum (which I found on the list of recently created stubs) and I decided to create the article related to the genus as well. Just that. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 16:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

References

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN.

While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which says "cite" click on it
Then click on "templates",
Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,

We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Jytdog (talk) 17:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Then I think people need to wake up to the fact that highly reputable primary sources are what the scientific world relies on. If you wonder why, look at the how those people got Nobel prizes, try to see if any reviewing articles come up.

Edit warring promotional content

Please be aware of the WP:PROMO policy as well as the edit warring policy. The exposome page has clearly been subject to a bunch of academic spamming (which is, unfortunately, a thing) Jytdog (talk) 17:42, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I a not sure I understand here, all the bits of info are well-known and accepted by the experts in the exposome field, yet you call them promotional information? And I also do not understand why you would use NY-times as reliable secondary sources as no scientists would consider them as such. Moreover, I only look at scientific pages on Wikipedia, and it is very clear to me that most of the pages are indeed "literature review" like, and contains a lot of reputable primary sources of information. Of course when I say primary sources, I always mean articles published on reputable peer-reviewed journals, which is the most rigorous process possible in today's world to root out any promotional materials and such if you do not know. Actually, if you know how articles are produced by NY-times and Scientific American on scientific topics, you would know they write their pieces by interviewing authors of primary sources (I was interviewed several times, and yes whatever I said was written down). This is not any different from scientists summarizing their work at all. You may also not know that in the scientific field, the motto is to always use primary sources, and we only use secondary sources (mind you, NYtimes would not even qualify as secondary sources in the scientific world) when absolutely necessary. The reason is because, the secondary sources articles are written by --- also individual authors!!!--- who may very well have their own agenda and biases, and it is pretty rampant in academia. Primary source articles at least have to go through the very rigorous external anonymous reviewers, it's not like scientists can publish whatever they want!

Also explain to me how this statement "For complex disorders, specific genetic causes appear to account for only 10-30% of the disease incidence, but there has been no standard or systematic way to measure the influence of environmental exposures. Some studies into the interaction of genetic and environmental factors in the incidence of diabetes have demonstrated that "environment-wide association studies" (EWAS, or exposome-wide association studies) may be feasible.[15][16] However, it is not clear what data sets are most appropriate to represent the value of "E".[17]" IS NOT FROM PRIMARY SOURCES, do you want to delete everything on this page????

Formal edit warring

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

Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. Jytdog (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]