User talk:Tracklete14

Welcome!

Hello, Tracklete14, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles

When editing articles related about medical-related topics, please bear in mind is that the standards for citations for these is higher than the general standard for sources in Wikipedia articles. Focus more on review articles and less on the latest discoveries. Findings like these are very difficult for a non-expert to put in the proper context without synthesizing a whole body of research literature. While we encourage the use of secondary and tertiary sources in general, this is especially important in medical-related topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:34, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Time, in an enccylopedia

Please do not write content including vague references to time in the encyclopedia - please don't write things like "currently" or "at this time". Think about it. What will that mean in a year, or two years? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:34, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Primary source material

When editing articles, please keep in mind that Wikipedia articles should be based on recent, secondary sources. Studies which report preliminary findings, or which suggest a relationship between things, should be avoided. Single studies should be avoided - instead, we should focus on review articles that look at a large number of studies. A single study is a starting point; finding a correlations between one thing and another may provide a starting point, but it's a long way from indicating that there actually is a causal relationship. Many studies pointing in the same direction, on the other hand, makes such a relationship more likely. So stick to review articles, preferably ones less than five years old, especially in areas related to health and medicine. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 19:33, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

comment: your edit was good!

This was a good edit. really good. I know this was last month, so water is down the bridge, but as a declared learner I think you need support/ attention/discussion. I also sense that the way this went down wasnt helpful for you

I totally disagree with the reversal. The stated reasons were knee-jerk, almost obsessively adhering to a guideline. To say 4 years old max and allow a 3 year younger study in a much lower grade journal without evaluating/ comparing their quality is not intelligent. Comparing their quality is no easy job, you have to read both, understand both. it takes enormous time for science students and is still taught to postgrads, it takes a lot of experience for advanced folks. will say: some rather skip that step, look at the year of publication, shortcut like 'out with the old in with the new'. esp when done so hastily I suspect that other motives than fair editorial review may reign.

I have seen this editor wield all over the chemical, biotech and fracking articles acting as if impregnated with science, or as if dressed in a lab coat, and with an authoritative "we" (pluralis maiestatis). I have argued and dialogued with him, mostly to no avail. Most importantly, this user is predictably making the same WP:POV decisions over and over again, no accident. someone actually favors one opinion over another... Paid or not paid, nobody knows, unless someone starts an investigation on WP, which is really like a lawsuit, intense. Also, this user does not act alone and mostly in concert with like-minded coats that magically come to the rescue and can trump the lone voice. You have seen them on the page, no need to mention names, look at angry edit summaries with big red negative numbers. That says it all.

I wish I could do more here, but have too many irons in the fire now. I just wanted you to know that your edit was good, it was right and actually exemplary. I think its wise that you didnt return to the article, very wise of you! Intact instinct. What can be learnt in a battle field? Not how to edit. keep up the good work. I know a track athlete is persistent. --Wuerzele (talk) 06:34, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]