I wonder why in Greece experts contend in the games and non-experts award the prizes.
— Anacharsis of Scythia (c. 590 BCE)
Hello, I am Zad68, but please feel free to call me Zach. I am a volunteer Wikipedia editor just like you are (or could be!). I am particularly interested in medical topics, and I am an active member of Wikipedia's Medicine Wikiproject. I also like to edit or review articles in the natural sciences, and occasionally attend to the odd biography, especially if the person relates to an article I am working on.
I think the good article review process is one of the most important initiatives on Wikipedia. I have messed around with developing a bot using the account ZadBot, and plan to develop a bot to provide tools to automate the more tedious parts of doing reviews of WP:MED-scope articles in particular.
If you have any questions about things like sourcing for medical articles, the GA process, or just getting started with Wikipedia, please drop me a note on my User Talk page and I'll try to help!
Quick reference for some of my common edit summary abbreviations
The best defense against bad content is good content. In fact it's probably the only defense.
The Wikipedia Catch-22: You'll do your best content work on articles for subjects you know little about and don't particularly care about. But then, of course, you won't be particularly motivated to work on such articles.
Any edit that adds biomedical information and explicitly points out it's based on a "scientific study published in peer-reviewed journal" probably needs to be reverted per WP:MEDRS.
You don't have to respect the subject of the article you're working on, but you do have to respect the sources.
This is why I find In popular culture sections problematic.
This is just one reason why we should almost never be citing primary sources for scientific information.
I found this essay and the accompanying slide show to be very influential in the choices I make of articles I'd like to do significant development work on. Wikipedia has a lot of articles, but overall the most important articles (as determined by the number of views) do not get as much development attention as they deserve. At over 12 years old, en.WP has over 4 million articles; just about all the articles that are on what might be considered core encyclopedic topics have already been started, but most are still not yet at GA quality. Editors should be motivated to work on the articles for these core topics, and I hope efforts like the Million Award will be effective in doing so.
The Cochrane Library is a very well-respected publisher and repository of high-quality secondary sources of medical evidence. Wikipedia has partnered with them to provide free access to the full texts of their articles, and as of September 2013[update] is still handing out free accounts to editors active in developing WP:MEDICINE-content—see WP:COCHRANE to apply for your own free account! I got an account and to make sure Wikipedia benefits from it, I am trying to do a Cochrane a day: whatever other content work I might be doing, each weekday I will pull a Cochrane article and update something with it. An article will benefit, I'll learn something new, and maybe I'll get ideas for future content work. Should be fun!
Many thanks for getting involved with medical articles. Your efforts are really appreciated. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your talk page please reply on mine) 17:32, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
The Teamwork Barnstar
Thanks for the work at circumcision. I'm impressed by both the well-written style and your calm approach on the talk page of such a controversial article. Thank you. Pass a Methodtalk 13:36, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The Random Acts of Kindness Barnstar
Thank you for this Hopefully I will remember it. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:24, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
For continued and consistent review and enhancement of some of our more contentious articles, and always striving to ensure compliance with Wikipedia policy and guidelines, thank you! -- Avi (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
For your tireless efforts combined with discretion - uncommon and appreciated. Scray (talk) 04:02, 19 April 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diplomacy
I'm really impressed by how you've been handling recent discussions about circumcision on your talk page and at the article, often with folks who have arrived here with a lot of assumptions and a lack of awareness about our policies. You've been exceedingly lucid, patient, approachable, and helpful in untangling these situations and I can't see how even the most hardened advocates would think you were anything but a fair dealer and a smart hand. Nice to watch from afar, as this is an area I definitely won't wade into any time soon. Cheers :) Ocaasit | c 02:15, 8 June 2013 (UTC)
The Civility Barnstar
I've seen evidence of your efforts to defuse in multiple areas and really appreciate your professionalism. Scray (talk) 12:36, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
This place can be a circus - thanks for your efforts to keep things orderly. I know it's hard for many reasons - I'll try not to be one of them. Scray (talk) 03:43, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
The Barnstar of Diligence
For all of your excellent work reviewing the ADHD article where your input was A star. :-)MrADHD | T@1k? 23:13, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
The Million Award
For your contributions to bring Circumcision (estimated annual readership: 2,111,000) to Good Article status, I hereby present you the Million Award. Congratulations on this rare accomplishment, and thanks for all you do for Wikipedia's readers! -- Khazar2 (talk) 01:33, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
The Medic Barnstar
For your work here on medical articles, including low back pain, which I just promoted to GA. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 09:31, 15 September 2013 (UTC)