User talk:T.O. Rainy Day

Welcome
Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on, or ask your question on this page and then place  before the question. Again, welcome! Juthani1   tcs 22:34, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Tutorial
 * How to edit a page
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Alzheimer's disease
Thank you for your efforts. Unfortunately, because the refs don't meet WP:MEDRS, I had to revert your edit. Please don't take it personally. That article is a particularly prominent one, being a WP:Featured article of WikiProject_Medicine/Assessment. returns it as the first result. We are, accordingly, very careful about what goes in it, even more so than for most medical articles. There are "promising" new developments announced almost every week, but very few of them amount to much over time, so we agreed to draw the line at completing phase III clinical trials. Earlier stage research results can be captured in less sensitive articles. Note that much of what you suggest has already been discussed on talk:Alzheimer's disease, but is now archived. If after reviewing the archives, you still think we've missed something, please raise it first at talk. Many fine editors have watchlisted it, so you should get a reply fairly quickly. Thanks, LeadSongDog come howl  18:33, 6 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, some of the refs which were there before my edit don’t meet WP:MEDRS either, and at least one which i added does. Doing a revert is like driving a nail with a sledgehammer; you should have simply deleted the refs you think don’t meet the standards.  I spent a good deal of time reading the references listed, and saw that the article, as written, was biased and inaccurate.  So i edited it to make it more balanced and accurate.  I also edited for clarity as some of the paragraphs were run-on.  Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn’t display diff’s well when you split and existing paragraph into two or more new paragraphs, so all that may not have been as obvious as it should be.  I would ask that you reconsider your revert, restore my edits, and merely expunge any refs you think don’t think meet standards (or better yet, take the time to find similar refs which do).  --  Rainy Day (talk) 06:00, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't see that any of those papers are review articles. If I missed one, please feel free to say which. Earlier versions of the article were plagued with WP:UNDUE attention to such sources until they were removed in the process of bringing the article to FA status. Doing a revert is a normal part of the WP:BRD cycle, nothing personal. You'll get used to it. As always, feel free to discuss on the article's talk page. LeadSongDog come howl  09:02, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


 * I’m not taking it personally; i simply don’t have time to waste in a revert squabble. I took the time to read the existing references, and make thoughtful edits.  You come along and do a revert on the pretense all of my references were flawed (which they weren’t).  If you didn’t like my references, then fine, you could have simply deleted the references which you thought insufficient.  Instead you reverted everything, including all my edits for balance and accuracy.  Perhaps your revert was simply rash, or perhaps you have another agenda.  I really don’t care.  I donated my time and made my contribution to improve the article.  But i am not about to invest more time in this article if i can expect similar results.  That would simply be a foolish waste of time and energy.


 * To be clear, you only made this single edit at 20:20 on 5 July 2009. It was not broken down into smaller edits that I could have addressed individually. Going through it again line by line I still can see nothing usable excepting perhaps your comments on Gray et al. and on Boothby et al. The rest was based on the unusable references. Please do not be discouraged, I can tell you are trying to improve the article, which is my only "agenda". Let's just be a little more careful how we proceed.LeadSongDog come howl  13:42, 14 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, i’ll try again. This time breaking it down to a series of smaller edits, over a course of days, and omitting the addition of any new refs which don’t have a doi or pmid number.  Edit #1 will be to break down rambling multi-topic paragraphs to a single topic, so that future diff’s will more accurately show what has actually been changed in the text.  Since that is a minor edit with no substantive changes to the text, i will add Edit #2 immediately, which will restore my comments on Gray et al. and on Boothby et al. -- Rainy Day (talk) 17:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you, that's a much more constructive approach. LeadSongDog come howl  20:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Check your edit (after my Edit #2); your added reference is messed up and displays an error. Personally, i don’t like studies of other studies because they aren’t advancing our scientific understanding with new data; they are simply regurgitating previous studies.  And they are inherently subjective.  For example, this study also included studies of non-AD dementias.  Their conclusions don’t necessarily apply to AD.  And there’s no way to know whether their conclusions represent corroborating evidence for another study, or whether they are simply regurgitating it. -- Rainy Day (talk) 08:22, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've fixed the missing ref name. If you wish to change the way we prioritize references, that should be discussed on Wikipedia talk:MEDRS, though I disagree with your intent. Note that WP:MEDRS is considerably more stringent than WP:RS for good reasons, treating these meta-analyses as preferred references, representing published experts' sober reconsideration of results without the intrinsic bias that primary papers have towards finding significance (even if it isn't there) in order to get published.LeadSongDog  come howl  13:32, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Notification: changes to "Mark my edits as minor by default" preference
Hello there. This is an automated message to tell you about the gradual phasing out of the preference entitled "Mark all edits minor by default", which you currently have (or very recently had) enabled.

On 13 March 2011, this preference was hidden from the user preferences screen as part of efforts to prevent its accidental misuse (consensus discussion). This had the effect of locking users in to their existing preference, which, in your case, was. To complete the process, your preference will automatically be changed to  in the next few days. This does not require any intervention on your part and you will still be able to manually mark your edits as being 'minor'. The only thing that's changed is that you will no longer have them marked as minor by default.

For established users such as yourself there is a workaround available involving custom JavaScript. If you are familiar with the contents of WP:MINOR, and believe that it is still beneficial to the encyclopedia to have all your edits marked as such by default, then this discussion will give you the details you need to continue with this functionality indefinitely. If you have any problems, feel free to drop me a note.

Thank you for your understanding and happy editing :) Editing on behalf of User:Jarry1250, LivingBot (talk) 22:04, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:43, 23 November 2015 (UTC)