User talk:Cindery/Archive1

Adding citations
Your skills at wikpedia are clearly increasing with experience. Aside from our POV differences, you are providing interesting material and references. May I though offer some guidance on how to add details of sources into articles, as providing the full citation details is much easier for the original editor if they are able to directly.

Footnote link systems
References within articles should not be included as plain-text of the web addresses (URLs), eg as http://www.example.org. Instead one of a number of footnote and citation systems may be used: Hence: entered whilst editing, displays as;.
 * In line links are located in the article text by enclosing the URLs in a single square bracket.
 * In-line links are either liked by users or strongly disliked. The problem is that the link gives no idea as to what source is being linked to until the reader actual tries to follow the link. There are therefore perhaps best used when the source is mentioned in the text, eg:

"The Times editorial the following day, emphasised...."
 * Manual links, such as (2), to numbered tems in a Footnotes section should never be done as the footnotes section will in time have items added or removed, and the link number may not be adjusted accordingly by future editors.
 * There was a ref/note system with   tags in the text linking to the named   details  tags in the footnotes section. However awkward additional mark up was required for duplicate citating of the same footnote.
 * The current system is termed cite.php (after the coding to metawiki, the underlying software of wikipedia). See WP:Footnotes for the full details but in essence.
 * Details of a footnote are defined up in the text enclosed within   tags. Optionally a name may be given to the reference, eg  , which allows for a duplicate link later in the text using just  .
 * Some editors like to use html hidden tags   to force the ref tags onto their own line and indented for easier viewing when editing the article.
 * To indicate where to show the list of footnotes, the tag   should be entered as the only item in a "==Footnotes==" section.

Hence: Standard protocols for managing asthma have been set out. ==Footnotes==

appears as:

Standard protocols for managing asthma have been set out.

Footnotes

Citation details and styling
Quite separate from providing the automated numbered forward and back links from/to text & footnotes section, is how to markup or style the details of the source. A URL on its own gives no indication to the reader as to author, source, year or format of the link. The details can of course be entered manually, hence: This coding: Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5 appears as : Simpson (2004) "ABC of asthma" J.Resp Jan 2: 273-5

Various citation templates exist to standardise the citation style and are usually easier to use. So, in example just used, the Template:cite journal may be used: This coding: appears as :

PubMed
Rather than adding the full URL to the site and the abstract within it, wikipedia will recognise "PMID" and a number after it. Hence this entry : PMID 123456 Is displayed as : PMID 123456

For medical topics, finding the abstract entry at PubMed is very helpful, not only for a reader to lookup (one can often on the web find the full article to link to, rather than just PubMed's abstract), but also in generating the citation markup for use in wikipdia. Simply enter the PubMed abstract number into Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ and the full Template:cite journal is generated for one. This may then be copied & pasted into the wikipedia article (enclosing within tags).

If a full version of the article on the web is also known, this may be included in the Template:cite journal markup with the URL parameter which applies the hyperlink to the article's title

This coding: appears as :

Improving references
Hence to improve on an incompletely citated source, I first search PubMed at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi for the article (either by name of paper, but remove punctuation marks, or authro name). Then with the abstract number, eg 123456, I use Diberris tool and the full markup is shown (eg look at this for 123456).

Hope this is of help, but it is an awful lot of stuff - so please do ask if completely baffled or you have any questions :-) David Ruben Talk 02:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Simpler guide - Footnoted citation template from Inline external link
First task is to open up the external link and look to see what sort of source material it is. Then select the relevant citation template, eg template:cite journal, template:cite news, template:cite book. The template or their talk-pages have a blank version with all the parameters to copy & paste into the article you are working on. Note however that template:cite newspaper has few parameters and generally it is easier to give more details in a structured way with template:cite news. With Dalkon shield as an example (open up the 'Step x' links to see edit change):
 * 1) Step 1, add in the blank template block and some details transfered from the external webpage.
 * 2) Step 2 - It is then a simple matter to transfer over some parameter values
 * 3) Step 3 - Whilst what we now have works in a 'Reference Section' (just needs an '*' at the front to turn it into a bullet-pointed item), for footnotes we need store this citation for now and display instead at this location just the flag to the footnote (i.e. the ). Hence add opening   tags.
 * 4) Step 4 - compact down the template block from multiple lines to just one. To make clearer when viewed in edit mode, I tend to add html hidden tags    to indent refs on a new line (this works well in free text, but in a bulleted list there is a problem if further sentances come after the footnote)
 * 5) Finally - footnotes need their own section and the list of footnotes is shown by adding a   tag. Also as we have now added this footnote, the duplication of this source in the References section can be removed.

Hope this proves easier David Ruben Talk 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Simpler guide - Footnoted citation template from Biomedical journal paper via PubMed

 * 1) Find the article in PubMed by going to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi - enter article title or selective keywords. Note you may also add in surname of an author, but remove any punctuation from article title (e.g. convert "The Charge: Gynocide(Part 1)" to "The Charge Gynocide Part 1"
 * 2) Open as a separate internet explorer window Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ and ensure that PubMed ID is selected from drop-down list of options (the tool is also used for other types of wikipedia templates).
 * 3) Now copy and paste the located article's PMID abstract number across into Diberris tool and click 'Submit'.
 * 4) The template:cite journal markup for the article is now shown. As an example, for PMID 123456 the tool shows this. Copy and paste this into your wikipedia article; for example just given:
 * 5) Now enclose the citation template in opening   tags and ensure that there is a 'Footnotes' section with a   tag. hence for example just given we need:
 * (if there were an an online full version of this article, then add a  '| url= http://www.... ' parameter just before the closing curly brackets of the citation template)
 * (if there were an an online full version of this article, then add a  '| url= http://www.... ' parameter just before the closing curly brackets of the citation template)
 * (if there were an an online full version of this article, then add a  '| url= http://www.... ' parameter just before the closing curly brackets of the citation template)

Hope this proves easier David Ruben Talk 02:57, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit summary
When you're editing a page, under the edit window is "Content must not violate any copyright. Encyclopedic content..."

Under that statement should be "Edit summary:" and then a box. Anything an editor types in this box will appear as a comment next to the time/user name in the history.

Below that box are the 'save page' 'show preview' 'show changes' buttons.

I hope that helps. Let me know if you have any other questions. Lyrl Talk Contribs 20:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Bayer controversy section
I have removed your addition of the controversy section to the Bayer article. It is a complete copy and paste of which appears to violate its copyright. Metros232 20:53, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Bayer

It was a selected paste of corporate watch report, not complete. (I felt it was too long. You may think it was too long at the length I posted it? I think it's fair--there really is *that much* controversy about Bayer.) Corporate watch report also appears to have no copyright (I checked.) They may encourage reproduction/generous policy of fair use, esp. as it is a compilation of refs, not original research. I have sent them a message asking for explicit permission to excerpt, nonetheless.

Thanks, Cindery 21:05, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Here is official permission from site/I will be adding the info back, as I am correct that it is not a copyright violation:

 to me

Hi, I was one of the people who helped write the Bayer profile. As far as adding it to wikipedia thats fine by us, all of our work is anti copyright for not for profit use. However the profile is quite old (published in early 2003 and accurate then but not updated since) and I know the company has changed quite a lot since then (in terms of its structure and business areas, rather than its behavior). Might be worth simplifying the profile ( I remember it being very long and sprawling) and updating it where necessary. Most of the information on corporate crimes came from Coordination Gegen Bayer Gefahren in Germany www.cbgnetwork.org and its probably worth checking back to their website to look for updates. Any questions drop me a line Cheers Olaf

Olaf Bayer (any similarity between my surname and a certain German life sciences company is purely coincidental) Researcher Corporate Watch www.corporatewatch.org 01865 791391 olaf@corporatewatch.org

Editing habits
Could you please cut down on the number of consecutive edits. Editing so many times in a row is problematic for two reasons. 1) it is hard for other editors to keep track of page changes in the history when it is filled with edits by one editor that all occured on the same day and 2) it puts added stress on the main wikipedia servers. I'm not asking you to stop editing by any means. Instead, of hitting post every 5 minutes, why not combine all your edits into one or two larger edits? Thanks for your consideration.--Andrew c 14:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)


 * It looks like you are doing this again at mifepristone. Try to not hit "save page" as much, and instead make multiple edits with each save. If you need more space in the edit summary, you can always summarize larger edits on talk pages. I don't want to discourage you from contributing, but instead to contribute in a manner which is less taxing on the serve, and easier for other editors to follow in the page history. Carry on.--Andrew c 02:49, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I had this problem too and one thing that helps is hitting the "Show preview" button before saving the edits. Remember 19:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

progesterone only pill - 3RR warning
Whilst I personally agree with parts of your viewpoint re Progesterone only pill (not unreasonable concern that if progesterones in HRT increase risks then lower doses in POP might also have a smaller risk - but I agree evidence needs to be found to support or refute a reasonable concern), you are currently in a revert war and have reinserted a section x3 now, hence let me constructively draw your attention to  warning: Please refrain from undoing other people's edits repeatedly. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia under the three-revert rule, which states that nobody may revert a single page more than three times in 24 hours. (Note: this also means editing the page to reinsert an old edit. If the effect of your actions is to revert back, it qualifies as a revert.) Thank you.

Please also note Three-revert rule that cautions "This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day." So take a breath and debate on the talk page, or seek opinions of other editors (eg at WP:CLINMED). David Ruben Talk 01:10, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

taking things to talk concerning criticisms
Multiple edits in a row put extra stress on the serve. That is a fact. Having a page history filled with a bunch of minor edits mixed in with some major edits all from the same editor, all within a small time span can be confusing to other editors. This is a bit more subjective, but it is still a fact that it affects some editors. I commented to you twice about this. It had nothing to do with the content of your edits. Not citing your sources properly when you know how to do it creates work for other editors. I could be researching other things, or contributing in other ways, but instead I now have to go clean up your sloppy work. It would be one thing if you went to talk with your citations and asked for help from a number of editors. But throwing external links into a page that already have a good citation scheme degrades the article and creates work for other editors. This has NOTHING to do with the content of your edits. I feel your effort to find citations is good and a lot of your work is superior. I'm not trying to make you feel bad, and I'm not trying to criticize the content of your edits in a round about way. The edits I felt were problematic I spoke out about on talk. I, for one, would like to apologize if I have been too harsh, and I would appreciate if you didn't assume things about my motivations and secret intentions. I'm sorry that the formatting/etiquette issues have come up during content disputes, but I try to keep the issues seperated.--Andrew c 00:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I feel ridiculous responding to some of your accusations. Such as your claims that I intimidated an anonymous user away. The user suggested that we mention the 4 deaths were from an off-label use. I noted that that information was already included in the article. The user also pointed out that the FDA did not link mifepristone to the deaths, and that information also was already included. Finally, the anon ended their rant with Whomever wrote this needs to learn how to research. I told them, in a very civil manner that some of that information was included, some could be changed, and because it is a wiki, anyone, including them, could edit the article. I ended by kindly suggesting that they register becasue "it's fast and easy (and free), and editors tend to take you more seriously if you aren't an anonymous IP address". You can still be 100% anonymous if you regester. In fact, I feel it makes you even more anonymous because then your IP address is hidden and not just anyone can do a WHOIS check on you. I do not see how you can claim that exchange was hostile towards them. I also never made a value judgement on any IP editor. Next, I understand you disagree with a lot of thing I have said to you. You feel its fine that you hit "save page" every 2 minutes, even though it taxes the serve and is confusing to at least some editors. Ok, I've told you my part, I'll let it drop and you can ignore me at will. I've told you about the citations. You say you personally prefer EL to a footnote and you just haven't got around to formatting the citations. However, this is a matter of wikipedia POLICY. It is frowned upon to try and change or introduce a new style in an article that already has an established method. I tried to find out if you just didn't know how to do it, and offered my help. I understand that everyone can contribute to an article, but you can't expect other editors to do all the hard work for you, especially when you are breaking policy by using a different citation format. But I've said my piece. Whether you understand me or choose to act on this information is up to you. I can understand why you think mentioning these things are harrassment, considering your take on my exchange with the anon editor. Needless to say, I do not understand where you are coming from, but I hope we can get over these issues and focus on content. If I'm defensive, it's only because I have interpreted your tone to be hostile and accusatory (which was probably brought on by your interpretation of my tone being too critical).--Andrew c 01:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Mifepristone
The fact remains that you personally insulted Andrew c when you said, "...i think you should save bickering/nitpicking for personal talk pages, so as not to grievously bore everyone else." 

I understand that Andrew c's, "Why contribute at all?" comment was also out of line, but it was the direct result of your assumption that his motivation was incivility. I am not excusing this comment, of course, and but merely noting that presumptive defensiveness will quite often inspire defensiveness in kind.

However, in the matter of you and I, I am sorry that you have interpreted my comments to be condescending. I did not intend to come across in this manner, and, perhaps, a year of fielding disputes while at the same time trying to ensure that progress is made in abortion-related articles has taken its toll on my mediatory skills. I did not explain that it was your "NPOV to include one from each side" comment which prompted the Undue Weight explanation, and, I'm sorry if this wasn't clear at first.

Despite your use of words such as "harassment," "bullying," "obnoxious," or "patronizing," the fact remains that I have not been directly uncivil to you, as you and Andrew c have been to each other. At which point have I called your contributions, say, "worthless," or stated plainly that I find you to be an "insufferable bore?" Never.

If you equate removing content with name-calling, I suggest you learn not to take the editorial decisions of other Wikipedians personally, especially if you plan on editing divisive topics. I gave a perfectly reasonable explanation for my conduct in both the Talk page and my edit summary. WP:BOLD encourges us to be assertive in our editing, but, at the same time, it contains this caveat: "Also, of course, others here will boldly and mercilessly edit what you write. Don't take it personally. They, like all of us, just want to make Wikipedia as good as it can possibly be." Can I tell you how often my carefully-researched edits have been modified beyond recognition or removed entirely?

I don't know anything about your history with Andrew c. However, it is my objective judgment, given your recent reactions to both Andrew c and I on Talk:Mifepristone, that you are assuming bad faith. It took only one post on Talk:Mifepristone for you to jump to the conclusion that my intentions were hostile. You will find that it will precipitate far less disagreements and makes it a lot easier to work with your fellow Wikipedias if you are not so quick to judge. -Severa (!!!) 08:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I have indeed followed the edit history on Mifepristone and I still do not see what I am missing. Your contributions to the article, from my assessment, are useful and well-researched. I'm in agreement with Andrew c, though, your habit of breaking your contributions up into multiple edits does make things harder to follow. I'm not suggesting that this diminishes the strength of your contributions as a whole, but, if you want people to follow an edit history, try posting the closest to a finished product as you can. I also wouldn't have minded helping you format your citations, if you needed it, because this is something I do regularly on articles. I am generally a reasonable person, even if I sometimes come off as gruff or inflexible, because, believe it or not, I enjoy working with, rather than against, my fellow editors.


 * Contentious subjects like abortion, homosexuality, or religion will often test one's patience. These articles are especially prone to editorial disputes, but most disagreements can be resolved, if not entirely averted, when you understand that many editors are not so much obstinate as dedicated to a particular frame of mind.


 * It is not as though I am completely unfamiliar with editorial disputes and their resolution. For instance, in January, RoyBoy and I disagreed over how a summary of Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis should be written for Abortion. We saw the project through our disagreement, and, ultimately, the article, and our rapport as Wikipedians, is the better for it.


 * I am trying to approach this conflict from your perspective, but, I cannot understand why you feel the need to be so constantly on the defensive, nor why you feel the need to resort to ad hominem, like "ego-inflated" and "condescending."


 * Hopefully, in the future, you'll have more luck with conflict resolution, because I bet Mifepristone is not the only article which could stand to benefit from a little cooperative attention. -Severa (!!!) 10:02, 22 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia does not function on the basis of avoidance. If you want to get things done, you're going to have work with other people, which means learning to look past differences and resolve disagreements. This is why Wikipedia has so many methods, such as RfC and RfM, to assist in resolving disputes between editors. It was never my intent to cause you offense, but, I'm at least trying to see eye-to-eye. I'm not out to get you, alright. Do you really want to alienate people by continuing to be so dismissive, uncooperative, and uncivil? Wikipedia is a community-driven effort; nothing gets done if we refuse to work together. -Severa (!!!) 11:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Civilty
There is some unpleasantness occurring and at the very least WP:Civility is being stretched. All editors involved now risk being distracted by process, policy and arguing, rather than collaborating on actually improving articles. So let me suggest reflection by all editors on alternative approaches at this point:
 * Respond to posts with greater civility than that one perceives as having received
 * Start all responses with at least some positive acknowledgement of the other editor's contributions or points just raised.
 * Apologise to other editors for any hurt they have stated as having felt (even if unintentional) - whilst we're all trying to work together on something great, it would also be nice if we all can be rewarded with a sense of positive friendship gained in the process.

By way of constructive thoughts (again I really have not had time to look at the discussions on several editors talk pages, nor multiple article edit histories and comments) - I think Cindery is proving to be a valuable editor with both a committed interest in some topics and a desire to improve those articles; with clearly both background knowledge in those topics as well as ability to locate sources for the information. Cindery has started to learn how to markup citations and footnotes - processes that have rapidly evolved in the last year and are now quite complex and sophisticated for any editor to learn (see on going debates at WP:Footnotes for how complex some of issues can be and the wide range of opinions on this). Cindery is correct that it is not the responsibility of one new editor to ensure that contributions are perfect in all aspects and that the collaboration of other editors is the power of the wiki approach. Of course as experience is gained, then so should improve the acquisition of editing skills, techniques and tools (one can’t deliberately rely on others to undertake basic copyediting for one) – but Cindery has correctly concentrated on providing content and at least links to sources and is now starting to markup citations more fully and with the confusing range of citation templates. I also applaud unprompted editing of her own previously submitted material to tone down some phrases for the drier NPOV tone expected of an encyclopaedia – I thought this was most mature.

I get the gist that the number of sequential edits and the extent of marking up sources have been the issues recently argued over. My own perspectives on these topics (the following is my general views and not responses to any of the specific postings recently made):
 * Multiple edits - my preference is neither for multiple small edits nor single mega-edits. Too large a single edit becomes impossible to follow the undertaken changes in structure (eg add a section, revise a previous section to integrate better with the new section, do some general copyedit of spelling & markup = 3 or 4 edits). But equally, huge numbers of tiny edits are generally composed of insubstantial single edits – which no one is ever likely to specifically look at (vs. just comparing first to last versions). The ideal is a balance somewhere in-between – but where that balance lies is a matter for personal preference, varying between editors and dependant also upon the range otf tasks being undertaken upon an article. We all get this wrong at times (either too substantial a single edit or being too timid).
 * To source inelegantly or not to source ? See debates over Inclusionism or Exclusionism – but I tend favour inclusionism – i.e. it is better to add content and add roughly structured sources than not to add at all. That said, wikipedia is not a long collection of url addresses or lists of bibliographies. Given that there is no deadline for completing articles, I think it is best to add one section at a time to an article, taking care to add well written prose and with citations found and added (in whatever of several possible wikipedia styles is used by that article), before moving on to additional sections. Whilst wikipedia is not a completed project, articles are being accessed by general readers during our editing process and so they need to be in a reasonable state of presentation. I think adding large numbers of url addresses as citations, whilst eventually needed as part of the process to develop an article, is hard reading for a general viewer - it might be better to either wait a day  or two whilst a section can be patched together off-line, or use the talk page to propose new paragraphs and the incompletely marked up sources for this.

1 WikiMonth
Cindery, you are just about to reach the milestone of having been a contributing editor for one month, with your first edit on 25 July 2006. So happy 1st wikimonth, remain cool and continue your interesting contributions (I do appreciate your ensuring differing POVs are incorporated in articles under NPOV so making articles more rounded in their coverage, even if these are POVs I personal do not ascribe to). Yours :-) David Ruben Talk 03:58, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Cindery Rocks
Thanks for the edit.