User talk:Hollerbackgril

holler [http://www.dnsstuff.com/tools/tracert.ch?ip=66.249.65.83 14:13, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

R W-K
Determining peer-revew. I should mention I've run a biology library for 25 years. I don't recognize everything in medicine, but I do know the top journals, and some things I know not to be journals. And I know how to make a reasonable guess. But sometimes I don't know, and when I was learning:

The classic way to do it is with Ulrich's Periodicals Directory, a paid source but available in all college & in large public libraries. It includes even obscure titles, this judges on whether they say they are, which may not mean much, and includes some technically non-peer reviewed material that is known to be reliable and screened by the editors. If you have access to a periodicals article aggregator, like Ebsco, and many public libraries now provide it, it usually says, but it's no help for obscure titles.

Nowadays the practical way for most current titles is to look for the journal name on Google, go to their home page, and see what they say. Look for the page labelled something like "instructions for authors" Google usually indexes the ISSN, so if you have it, put it in--just the 0000-0000 It recognizes that this will be an ISSN.

You seem to be interested in medicine, and it sometimes helps to go to PubMed and search for it and see what it sounds like.

J Am Assoc Gynec & Obstet Gyn certainly are, i didnt check, because I know them. Radiology 1998 may also be peer-reviewed, if it means the journal and not some other publication by that title--I'd have to find the ref in PubMed to see PM does include non-peer reviewed material from professional magazines. ass for guessing, anything that sounds like a chapter in a book is never peer-reviewed, and anything that seems to be a conference proceeding usually isnt. If it sounds like a magazine or an annual publication, it probably isnt. Sem Interven Radiol is a review series. they sometime are, sometimes not.

BTW, A warning sign in the article was it didnt give the vol. & page. That indicates it is being written for a non-professional audience who isn't expected to find the stuff. Scientists list the full reference.

See also: peer-review scientific journal, and science magazine,

but I do want to get this sort of help in somewhere in WP. Where might a good place be that won't provoke WP is NOT ? You seem to have a good deal of experience here, since begineers dont usually get involved with RfD, (although this particular user name may be new). I have email enabled on my page. DGG 23:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

NPA
Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:46, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If you're just going to troll at Obama's talk page, I'll be happy to block you. Knock it off. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Please see Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. Comment on content, not on contributors; personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Note that continued personal attacks may lead to blocks for disruption. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. · j e r s y k o talk · 21:55, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Incivility
Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to our encyclopedia. Take a look at the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing. However, unconstructive edits and comments are considered incivlity and personal attacks. If you continue in this manner you may be blocked from editing without further warning. Please stop, and consider improving rather than damaging the work of others. Thank you. Cbrown1023 22:18, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2007 January 17
I thought your comment here was rather insensitive. Please think about how the things you type might make others feel before hitting the "Save page" button futurebird 05:35, 25 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This isn't about censorship. It's about accuracy. The problem with the image is it is inaccurate and uses some rather suspect methods. You should read the reasons it was listed for deletion.futurebird 13:16, 25 January 2007 (UTC)