User talk:Braidcutter

Welcome!

Hello, Braidcutter, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Tim Vickers (talk) 00:54, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on edits[edit]

A good guideline is to comment only on the edits and text, making comments about editors is ill-advised as it personalizes the discussion. See this policy for more detail. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, will do. Wow this is the rules lawyering site I've heard so much about. I like. Braidcutter (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look, this isn't helping anybody. Just provide good sources (there are lots on this topic) and summarise them accurately. If you get people's backs up this will just get more difficult and the article will suffer as a result. Discuss the text, not other editors. Tim Vickers (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How was the last comment not inline? Am I suppose to use the indefinite article "the" edit, as appose to "your"? Wow. Alright will do.Braidcutter (talk) 01:57, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a paraphase, hence the lack of quotes. Secondly I thought we where not suppose to use primary sources, like ones you've suggested. Braidcutter (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Those articles are reviews, so secondary sources. Primary sources in this context are papers that report novel data, such as PMID 16079072. There is an extensive discussion of what we're aiming at here. The article currently doesn't even come close to meeting this standard, particularly in its inappropriate use of media reports in preference to statements from expert bodies and the peer-reviewed literature and the "equal time" given to the minority view about the supposed danger posed by thimerosal. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]