User talk:GeekyGadgetGirl

Welcome!
Hello, GeekyGadgetGirl, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, one or more of your recent edits did not conform to Wikipedia's verifiability policy, and may have been removed. Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or in other media. Always remember to provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed. Wikipedia also has a related policy against including original research in articles.

If you are stuck and looking for help, please see the guide for citing sources or come to the new contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Here are a few other good links for newcomers:
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Simplified Manual of Style

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, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or. Again, welcome. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

January 2019
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you may be blocked from editing. Note that our content on medical matters is governed by the medical sourcing policy Guy (Help!) 11:42, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Electromagnetic hypersensitivity
Hi, I just reverted your changes to Electromagnetic hypersensitivity, because the sourcing you provided was not reliable for the assertions that you were making. Guy has provided some good links in his welcome message to you above - I'd also encourage you to read through the MEDRS guidelines for sources on biomedical assertions, which hopefully explain why the sources you provided aren't really suitable for the assertions you were making. I'd also suggest taking a look at BRD and EW - I'm not accusing you of anything in saying that, they're just things that you should be aware of. Please don't reintroduce the changes without further discussion, which you initiate by creating a new section on the article's talk page. Cheers Girth Summit  (blether)  11:58, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Girth,

In all honesty I know my first edit wasn't great but I spent around 12 hours on that last one, painstakingly making sure I referenced everything correctly, they were all original and legitimate sources with educated qualified professionals in their fields. The only one that's weren't original refs were ones where I had already input the originals in and was referring to grouped professional papers which had links to several publications and that was in the society and culture section. I'm a mature student doing a degree in computer science so referencing is not an issue, it's almost second nature at this point. I made sure to leave the alternative perspective there but it would be great if you could just tell me the references you don't like and I'll change them?

Without knowing means I have to start again from the beginning which would be soul destroying. Everything copied was cited or quoted.. I really don't know where I'm going wrong. The current information that's up, comes across in a sceptical and condescending tone clearly hinting that anyone with EHS is delusional and should seek psychological help. It's all rather puzzling as this isn't a conspiracy theory topic, we're talking about peoples lives including children and harmful radiation. The evidence is all there, there's literally hundred and hundreds of studies, including the most expensive and extensive one carried out which is the $25m study by the National Toxicology Program on whether radiation was carcinogenic in rats and it was! Directly linked. So if it's just me getting a reference here or there wrong, please do let me know so I can fix it. Of course I won't edit again without your approval first.

Thank you Claire --GeekyGadgetGirl (talk) 14:35, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Sadly they were not legitimate sources for medical claims, and some were not legitimate sources at all. I left a link above to WP:MEDRS, our medical sourcing guidelines. We don't contradict multiple high level meta analyses with primary research. That is cherry-picking. We also take especial care not to represent fringe views as legitimate. Guy (Help!) 18:31, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi Claire, thanks for taking the time to write this, and I'm sorry that you've put so much effort into finding sources that are not going to be usable. I gave you a link to WP:MEDRS in my earlier post (the same link that Guy left above) - if you read through it, I think you will see for yourself which sources are not appropriate. If, having read it, you think that anything you found is usable, you could start a section on the article talk page and propose some changes.
 * As an aside, I can't understand why you inserted an image of the burn victim into the article. You said the burns were caused by fluoroscopy, which is a medical imaging technique that involves prolonged exposure to X-rays, and which has well-documented health risks which must be weighed against the potential benefits; I can't see how that is relevant to an article describing a purported sensitivity to the very low levels of radiation, such as those found in a domestic or office environment. I am not accusing you of scaremongering, but I hope that you will agree that we must be very careful not to conflate these two very different things. Girth Summit  (blether)  23:33, 8 January 2019 (UTC)