User talk:BillFowler

Welcome to the Teahouse!
I am a first time editor. I copied a page into my sand box and created a one paragraph addition with three new citations. Everything looked great in the sandbox. The new citations appeared in the text and the details of the citations were in the Reference section with the others. Unfortunately, when I copied the one paragraph addition into the main article the references were not superscript and their text did not occur in the Reference section.

The web page is the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fludeoxyglucose_(18F)

My bungled edits can be seen on the history page. Any help would be appreciated.

from: BillFowler

License tagging for File:FDG synthesis fluorination.svg
Thanks for uploading File:FDG synthesis fluorination.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information.

To add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia. For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:05, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

License tagging for File:F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose.svg
Thanks for uploading File:F-18 fluorodeoxyglucose.svg. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 21:06, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Welcome, but be careful
Hi, your citations to Fowler et al. caught my attention. I am sure that these cites were made with the best intentions, but FYI, here are suggested readings: WP:SECONDARY and WP:COI. The gist of these guidelines are:
 * Wikipedia prefers citations to reviews and books, not primary journal references (tens of thousands appear annually). Citing secondary sources is the encyclopedic style.
 * Do not cite yourself or your colleagues. It's called conflict of interest.  Many new editors cite themselves mainly.  Such behavior is inappropriate although new editors make this mistake so dont worry too much.   If you have questions, many editors can offer advice.  Happy editing.--Smokefoot (talk) 23:20, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

I need the advice of experienced editors. Because I am new I am not quite sure how to get help so I will try a couple of things. The following is the situation: 1.	I just retired from a career of research and education in chemistry at a State University and now have time to explore my interests in science and education. 2.	I have an interest in nuclear medicine because a member of my family has worked in this field for the last 45 years. Having published over 300 papers in this area she has a wealth of knowledge to share. 3.	An important compound in nuclear medicine is F-18 labeled fluorodeoxyglucose (FDG). I recently looked at this web page and found it confusing, incomplete and contains at least one significant error (e.g. FDG was first synthesized via electrochemical fluorination. FDG has never been made by electrochemical fluorination.) 4.	I thought I could edit this entry to make it more accurate and useful to those who are not familiar with the impact FDG has had in science and medicine. I proceeded to edit the entry and ran into the Conflict of Interest (COI) problem because my LAST name is the same as the name of one authors of the papers added in the reference section. 5.	This is a legitimate COI. Although this is not me she is a member of my family. However, it also makes no sense not to have the folks most knowledgeable about subject not to be able contribute to its Wikipedia entry. Since I suspect this is not the first time this situation has occurred there must be a common sense solution to this problem. One possibility is to edit the FDG entry and first submit the changes to editors who can evaluate whether or not it violates the Conflict of Interest guideline. If it does not violate the Conflict of Interest guideline then it could be posted. Is this a possible solution or are there other possible solutions? BillFowler (talk) 12:33, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well I am no judge and jury. A few extra comments since you are open:


 * Many tens of thousands of publications appear annually in tech journals, this is my reason to stick to WP:SECONDARY. People outside of the science business underestimate the scale of the publication business and overestimate the significance of a tech publication.
 * If you have a potential COI with an article where there exists an egregious mistake, correct it. Seems like the sensible thing to do. Otherwise, avoid topics where there would be a COI. I have lots of friends and colleagues who would love for me to mention their achievements. If I feel a strong need to edit a topic involving a possible COI, I still stick to WP:SECONDARY.  Happy editing,--Smokefoot (talk) 15:14, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I will do my best.

Use of the secondary literature certainly makes sense and this is easy to do for most everything. I will use common sense and avoid COI, certainly in citations. I really appreciate the educational value of Wikipedia. I use it all the time.