User talk:SpelgroepPhoenix
Welcome!
Hello, SpelgroepPhoenix, and welcome to Wikipedia! 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 Wikipedia
- Tutorial
- How to edit a page and How to develop articles
- How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
- Manual of Style
I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Abergabe (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
Heya! Cool stuff with the editing. I was just looking over DUF1220, and i was wondering if you could remember the reference for this line:
- It is assumed that problems with DUF1220 might be one of triggers of 1q21.1 duplication syndrome and 1q21.1 deletion syndrome
If you ever have any trouble with scientific references, there's a nice little cheat: if it has a PubMedId, you can put the ID into this website and it will give you a formatted reference. Referencing made easy. Cheers, Abergabe (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)
- Yep, there is a reference, but it is on the 1q21.1 syndromes pages. I'll copy it for you. SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 06:37, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Cheers, you're a star ^_^ Abergabe (talk) 08:27, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
- Hi! I just noticed this thread and thought I'd pitch in, because there is a much newer reference for this question at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22901949 (Figure #5). Jonathon Keeney (talk) 19:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
Edits to Schizophrenia
[edit]Please read WP:MEDRS and WP:RECENTISM, and avoid adding unreviewed recent primary sources to articles. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello SandyGeorgia,
- Thanks for your message. I am most willing to improve my data. Could you please explain yourself a bit further on what I have done wrong in your opinion?
- SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 10:03, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
- Referring to this edit: medical statements on en.wiki should conform to WP:MEDRS, using primary sources only in certain instances, and avoid WP:RECENTISM, adding medical information that has not been by high-quality secondary reviews. The Dutch wiki may not have such a similar guideline on medical articles, and the Dutch article may not be a Featured article-- featured articles on en.wiki require high quality sources. This Dispatch may help you understand how to find high quality, secondary reviews. We shouldn't add statements about gene findings based on primary studies until secondary reviews have published about them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the latest attempt. Let me point out that Schizophrenia is a Featured Article. We work hard to make sure that information in featured articles is properly sourced, and that the articles are as well-written as we can make them. Addition of material without proper source is just not going to fly. If you work on more specialized or lower-quality articles, your chances of getting weakly sourced material to stay in are much better. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Hello Looie496, please do me a favour and google on "3q29 deletion schizophrenia", and see for yourself how many information there is available at the moment from several sources. And if you agree with me that it is necessary to make reference to this research, please make it in any way you like it. Like everyone else I am only trying to make the information as complete as possible. And for me the autism/schizophrenia-item is an important issue, because I do have two family members with an autism/schizophrenia-related problem. The greatest thing that happened to me was that a fysician at a university hospital contacted me on one of the wikipedia subjects and told me they had changed their research programs because of the item I wrote on that subject. So, I hope you understand, I do know what I am talking about. Or maybe you can take a look at the Schizophrenia research forum [[1]]
- SpelgroepPhoenix (talk) 13:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the latest attempt. Let me point out that Schizophrenia is a Featured Article. We work hard to make sure that information in featured articles is properly sourced, and that the articles are as well-written as we can make them. Addition of material without proper source is just not going to fly. If you work on more specialized or lower-quality articles, your chances of getting weakly sourced material to stay in are much better. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 20:38, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
- Referring to this edit: medical statements on en.wiki should conform to WP:MEDRS, using primary sources only in certain instances, and avoid WP:RECENTISM, adding medical information that has not been by high-quality secondary reviews. The Dutch wiki may not have such a similar guideline on medical articles, and the Dutch article may not be a Featured article-- featured articles on en.wiki require high quality sources. This Dispatch may help you understand how to find high quality, secondary reviews. We shouldn't add statements about gene findings based on primary studies until secondary reviews have published about them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 10:54, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!
[edit]
Hello, SpelgroepPhoenix. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.
The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.
If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)