User talk:Chilledsunshine

User:chilledsunshine

Doppler radar
Hi,

Doppler radar is a generic term for a radar that can mesure radial velocity of targets. The principle is used in all kind of devices from speed gun, to aircraft radar and is not restricted to meteorology. Using Doppler radar for weather radar is a misnomer coming from the US National Weather Service. Most, if not all, modern weather radar have Doppler capabilities. The use of Doppler radar is especially wrong with the loop of reflectivities that is shown in Typhoon Hiyan since it does not show velocities. It is not a degadation of PEGASA hardware to use the proper term. So please, let the link in these articles to weather radar.

Pierre cb (talk) 05:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for letting me know, I didn't realize that "doppler radar" is indeed such a generic term. I was being particular about the usage of "doppler radar" in this context because, until recently, PAGASA's weather radars did not have doppler capabilities. This, along with NOAA's constant use of "doppler radar", led me to believe that the distinction between doppler and non-doppler radar was a relevant and important one.


 * Chilledsunshine (talk) 06:30, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * My pleasure. I'm often confronted to this problem and I try to spread the knowledge. Pierre cb (talk) 10:54, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Hello, Chilledsunshine, and welcome to Wikipedia! My name is Ian and I work with the Wiki Education Foundation; I help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment.

I hope you enjoy editing here. If you haven't already done so, please check out the student training library, which introduces you to editing and Wikipedia's core principles. You may also want to check out the Teahouse, a community of Wikipedia editors dedicated to helping new users. Below are some resources to help you get started editing. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 18:35, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
 * 6) More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
 * 7) Citation details are important:
 * 8) *Be sure cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
 * 9) *Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
 * 10) *Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 11) *Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 12) We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 13) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!\
 * 14) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 15) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Jytdog (talk) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Sourcing and citations
The note above mentions and links to the three main guidance documents for editing about health --WP:MEDRS (sourcing), WP:MEDMOS (style), and WP:MEDHOW (important tips).

The note below provides a bit more brief information about sourcing per MEDRS and a concrete explanation on how to format citations from MEDHOW. But there is no substitute for reading the documents.

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.


 * 1) 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
 * 2) Then click on "templates",
 * 3) Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details beside a magnifying glass followed by clicking said button,
 * 4) If the article is available in Pubmed Central, you have to add the pmc parameter manually -- click on "show additional fields" in the template and you will see the "pmc" field. Please add just the number and don't include "PMC".

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) 14:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please
Please read and follow the guidance above, which should have been covered in your training material. I do not want to take another hour removing primary sources, fixing bad citation formatting, and putting periods before refs.

PMID 23746574 for example is a primary source. Jytdog (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2018 (UTC)


 * I think all of the content I've written on the social cognitive neuroscience article thus far is basic science, and the issue of whether it directly constitutes as "biomedical information" is thorny. It does not neatly fall into the "what is biomedical information" categories. Moreover, information about the functional anatomy of social cognition is not as directly related to medicine/disease/health as the example on the MEDRS guidelines: "if a disease is caused by low activity in a particular enzyme, then information about the enzyme's activity levels is treated like biomedical information." That said, I will try to use non-primary sources, and the cites I used in the updated default mode network section were mostly non-primary sources. However, review articles about topics in social cognitive neuroscience are not published often (it's a niche field) and thus tend to be older. As such, exclusively relying on review articles would limit the currentness of the content I can write. Also, PMID 23746574 is an "Opinion" article on Trends in Cognitive Sciences, which are the equivalent of review articles in other journals. In fact, many articles classified as "review articles" on the main page for ScienceDirect/Trends in Cognitive Sciences say "Opinion" within the article itself. Most review articles in social cognitive neuroscience, like many other areas of neuroscience and psychology, are written in a way that espouses the opinions of the authors through a synthesis of primary sources. I do apologize for the formatting mistakes and will correct them. I am going to put the default mode network section back with proper formatting. Chilledsunshine (talk) 23:45, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Please review editing policy and use the talk page
I think you should review Editing policy.Unless you're looking at content that is defamatory, copyright violation, grossly false and misleading, or otherwise unsalvageable, blanking is not warranted. WP:CANTFIX outlines what is meant by this. Otherwise, Wikipedia's policy is to keep imperfect content and make incremental improvements. It's impossible to build an encyclopedia if every flawed sentence is instantly deleted. If you think you see wording that doesn't match the sources, make the necessary changes to correct that. Or ask for clarification. But clumsily nuking it because you're unsatisfied for vague reasons is disruptive. And I do mean clumsily because it appears you didn't even pause long enough to look at the preview to see the red error flags you created with your edits.Please take a breath and go to Talk:Rice burner and explain what you think the problem is. Once we all understand each other, we can then go about fixing it. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:25, 5 March 2021 (UTC)