User talk:Gypsydoctor

Welcome to Wikipedia!
Dear Gypsydoctor: Welcome to Wikipedia, a free and open-content encyclopedia. I hope you enjoy contributing. To help get you settled in, I thought you might find the following pages useful:


 * Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Community Portal
 * Frequently Asked Questions
 * How to edit a page
 * How to revert to a previous version of a page
 * Tutorial
 * Copyrights
 * Shortcuts

Don't worry too much about being perfect. Very few of us are! Just in case you are not perfect, click here to see how you can avoid making common mistakes.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type   on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Wikipedians try to follow a strict policy of never biting new users. If you are unsure of how to do something, you are welcome to ask a more experienced user such as an administrator. One last bit of advice: please sign any discussion comment with four tildes (~&#126;). The software will automatically convert this into your signature which can be altered in the "Preferences" tab at the top of the screen. I hope I have not overwhelmed you with information. If you need any help just let me know. Once again welcome to Wikipedia, and don't forget to tell us about yourself and be BOLD! Krakatoa Katie  02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles for creation
Thanks for submitting a suggestion to Articles for creation.

The Article for creation process is intended for anonymous users. Since you are a logged-in registered user, you don't need to use this process; you can create articles yourself. If you'd like to create this article, follow the steps and guidelines listed on Help:Starting a new page. Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Krakatoa Katie  02:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Your edits to URL redirection
Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, Gypsydoctor! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but please note that the link you added in is on my spam blacklist and should not be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links policy for more information. If the link was to an Imageshack or Photobucket image, please read Wikipedia's image tutorial on how to use a more appropriate method to insert the image into an article. If your link was genuine spam, please note that inserting spam into Wikipedia is against policy. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! Shadowbot 14:03, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

References in Robert Cornog
Ideally, statements in Wikipedia need to be directly referenced, although the vast majority of articles don't do this successfully. For example, something like "His graduate student research led to the co-discovery, with Luis Alvarez, of hydrogen and helium of atomic mass 3 (tritium and helium-3)." would ideally need to have the citation as a footnote, showing which source or paper can verify this. You would put such a citation in between tags and then have a references section at the end of the article. You would then be able to list the references simply by adding Reflist in the References section. This template then calls all the information between the tags and places it in a numbered list for easy browsing. You can see examples of this on many other pages, e.g Hoover Dam.

For "official" Wikipedia guides on verifiability and references, see Verifiability and Citing sources. For templates which can be used to show citations in a standard format, see Citation templates.

As an example particular to your article, you have cited two sources, so I would put footnotes at the end of each statement or sentence which has been derived from these sources; any other statement mark with April 2007. I can help you if you are not confident making these changes, but remember, be bold in updating pages, which is the best way to learn. I hope this helps; I appreciate it may be a bit daunting. — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 22:55, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

RFA nomination
I have been nominated to be an admin. If you support me, please indicate so on the RFA page. Thank you. — superbfc  [  talk  |  cont  ] — 23:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

April 2010
In a recent edit to the page Oxygen therapy, you changed one or more words from one international variety of English to another. Because Wikipedia has readers from all over the world, our policy is to respect national varieties of English in Wikipedia articles.

For subjects exclusively related to Britain (for example, a famous British person), use British English. For something related to the United States in the same way, use American English. For something related to other English-speaking countries, such as Canada, Australia, or New Zealand, use the appropriate variety of English used there. If it is an international topic, use the same form of English the original author used.

In view of that, please don't change articles from one version of English to the other, even if you don't normally use the version the article is written in. Respect other people's versions of English. They in turn should respect yours. Other general guidelines on how Wikipedia articles are written can be found in the Manual of Style. If you have any queries about all this, you can ask me on my talk page or you can visit the help desk. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 22:36, 18 April 2010 (UTC)

Neuron
Hi -- are you sure about the edits you made? It looks to me like you are distinguishing mitosis from meiosis, whereas to my understanding neurons are amitotic in the sense that they do not divide at all. (This is outside the domain where I'm confident in my knowledge, so I thought I had better check before making changes.) Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:33, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Looie: Thanks for the note. Like you, I thought neurons do not divide at all, but its not my domain of knowledge either. Then I looked up "amitotic" and got the definition that I added, though it seems to be a rarely-used term. Perhaps the original was incorrect and should have been something like "nonmitotic". I will do some more research. Gypsydoctor (talk) 22:25, 1 January 2012 (UTC)

I changed it to "permanently postmitotic" which is the terminology used in the reference that was cited. "Amitotic" means something very different, though you can find it used incorrectly many places. Gypsydoctor (talk) 23:05, 1 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Looks good, thanks. Looie496 (talk) 16:10, 2 January 2012 (UTC)