User talk:Raydagget

Welcome
G'day Raydagget, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; they have helped improve Wikipedia and made it more informative. I hope you enjoy using Wikipedia and decide to make additional contributions.

As a contributor to Australian articles, you may like to connect with other Australian Wikipedians through the Australian Wikipedians' notice board and take a look at the activities in WikiProject Australia and associated sub-projects. Wikimedia Australia your local chapter organises editor training workshops, meetups and other events. If you would like to know more, email [mailto:help@wikimedia.org.au?subject=Help+me+please!&body=Please+tell+us+your+Wikipedia+username+and+the+article+you+are+trying+to+change+and+what+the+problem+is help@wikimedia.org.au].

If you are living in Australia and want to subscribe to location-based notices, you can add location userboxes to your userpage.

Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ~ ; this will automatically produce your name and the date.

If you have any questions, please see Where to ask a question, try the Help desk, or ask me on my talk page. Or you can just type   on this page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions.

Some other resources to help new Wikipedians include:


 * How to edit a page
 * Editing tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Article titles
 * Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Thank you for signing up! Longhair\talk 05:32, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

incidence of autism
Hi, thanks for adding the 2016 estimate to the article on epidemiology of autism. I have edited to include both your newer estimate and the original 2012 estimate because the 2012 reference is also used elsewhere in the article (so its removal created an error in the references; as a clue, if a reference is named, i.e. includes ref name=something, then it is possible that it's been cited elsewhere in the same article). Also I felt that while your 2016 review ought to be more accurate, being more up-to-date, neither it nor the 2012 is completely up to date, and the difference between their conclusions might reflect the underlying uncertainty of the result, or difference of methodology, rather than being a straightforward case of newest estimate is best. I hope this is okay? Best wishes, Elemimele (talk) 13:47, 20 August 2021 (UTC)