User talk:LeadSongDog/Archives/2010/June

cite pmid
Based on your comment on my talk page I replaced the templates with the standard cite journal, but didn't find any discussion on the relevant template talk pages. Is there a discussion happening somewhere? I don't know much about these templates and am interested in any discussion that might be occurring. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/complex 17:51, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Admin
Hello, I was wondering if you are interested in becoming an administrator? I mentioned your name during a conversation on wikiMED and thought that I would check with you in person.-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:11, 4 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the thought, but no. I'd rather work on articles than on editors. LeadSongDog come howl!  02:26, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No problem. You are very welcome. :)-- Literature geek |  T@1k?  22:41, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : LI (May 2010)
The May 2010 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 21:22, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Alzheimer's disease
Hi! I saw you removed the text about copper levels in Alzheimer's disease. Your edit summary said it needed reliable sources. But as far as I can see, two of the sources were from peer-reviewed journals. The text was also careful, stating that one factor suggesting to cause this. So I'm quite confused by your removal of this text. Could you explain it to me? Lova Falk    talk   18:23, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, they were from peer-reviewed journals, but they were not Review articles. See WP:MEDRS. There has been long controversy around a series of suspicions about metals and AD, the most publicised being a suspicion about aluminum that was not borne out over time. We are very cautious about inserting such material in this featured article, which has a very high profile and wide readership. That said, there are some very recent reviews available about Cu(II) and Zn(II) binding to Abeta that may prove to be worth including. What remains unclear is the question of causality. Does the bound state promote oxidative stress damage or the reverse. This particular research area seems to be heating up, so I would anticipate further papers publishing soon, and we have WP:NODEADLINE. Any further discussion should move to the article talkpage where others will see it. Cheers. LeadSongDog come howl!  18:39, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you! I asked on your talk page because I just wondered more generally how you were reasoning, to get more understanding of which kind of references are acceptable and which are not. And reading your answer, I suspect we have thousands and thousands of references that do not match the standard you describe here.  Lova Falk     talk   19:14, 7 June 2010 (UTC)
 * As a general principle WP tries to follow the most reliable current references available on a subject. In science, and particularly in medicine, the heirarchy of source qualities is easily understood. It is common for low-quality articles (stub class or start class particularly) to rely on lesser quality sources, but a WP:Featured article should reflect our best work. The FA review process catches most if not all such weak sources. Have a browse of Category:FA-Class medicine articles for other examples.

Abortion
You were former involved in a discussion in Talk:Abortion so, if you're still interested about the outcome of that discussion, I ask you to express your opinion in Talk:Abortion--Nutriveg (talk) 04:34, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

"The mushroom page"
Sorry, I will provide descriptions for you for future edits. Have you seen "Know your mushrooms"? I saw it last night after getting it from netflix it was pretty good. Jatlas (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I haven't caught it yet, though I did edit the article ;-) The issue wasn't the summaries, so much as the little m in the history that says the edit was insignificant. This is usually used for typos or reverting outright vandalism. Any edit that changes content meaning or references shouldn't be marked that way. Cheers, LeadSongDog  come howl!  19:15, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer
Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Karanacs (talk) 17:14, 15 June 2010 (UTC)