User talk:Scray

• New messages at the bottom, please.
• If you leave messages here, please expect a response from me over here.
• If I've left a message on your talkpage, and I'm slow to respond to a reply made there, please let me know by giving me a nudge here.
• If you use the E-MAIL THIS USER feature to contact me and I don't know you, please make sure you indicate your Wikipedia user name in the message otherwise I may not reply.

JFW welcoming me to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Scray, 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
• How to write a great article
• 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 20:53, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PUBMED - re Science Ref Desk question on microbes in throat

Scray,

Before you critise me for commenting on a post of yours, I suggest YOU make sure of YOUR facts.

If you attempt to access PUBMED articles as an ordinary online citizen, starting from the link you provided on Ref Desk, you'll find that while it is sourced from the US National Libray of Medicine, your access to an article is managed by Elsevier Science Direct, and you have to pay for it - $31.50 USD in the case of the James E Graham article on respiratory diagnosis.

Incidentally, if you look at the PUBMED webpage you cited, you'll see that the material is actually copyrighted by Elsevier as well.

Wickwack 124.182.156.152 (talk) 05:21, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

I've got my facts right, and you don't. You said, "As far as I know, PUBMED, which is part of the Elsevier publishing empire, only makes articles available for free if they are judged to be of signifiant historical interest."[1] That is patently false on a few accounts, most importantly that Pubmed is part of NIH/NLM/NCBI (i.e. not Elsevier). Pubmed provides links to a variety of providers of full text, including journal publishers and clearinghouses, one of which is Elsevier. Pubmed also provides links to Pubmed Central (when the paper is available there) - and that database is growing rapidly. The abstract is copyrighted by Elsevier, of course (since they published the paper) - that does not make Pubmed the property of Elsevier. Here's another link to Pubmed: PMID 23652774. If Pubmed is owned, why don't we see them noted anywhere on that page? Also note that paper is available for free from that page. Pubmed is quite comprehensive, hence it's a great place to search. The reader has a variety of options when provided a Pubmed link. Clearly, Pubmed is not (as you claim), "part of the Elsevier publishing empire". -- Scray (talk) 05:47, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

This discussion will not continue here, since it's on Talk:RefDesk now. If you post in this thread again, I'll just move it over there to keep it in one place. -- Scray (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Christian Science

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Christian Science. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 16:27, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Dodge City, Kansas

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Dodge City, Kansas. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 05:15, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Whittemore Peterson Institute ref

Thanks for adding the ref. I didn't have access to either of the other two refs, so I couldn't verify what they said. Seeing the one you added, I was reminded of some details of the case I'd forgotten, plus I was tired and misread the allegations to be closer to the beginning of the process, which was why I said I didn't remember it happening that way. Re-reading it this morning, I see now that that was my misunderstanding. I think it's good to have the extra ref there to directly support the first half of the statement, though, so thanks for adding one so quickly. – RobinHood70 ^talk 16:42, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for your note. My presumption, generally, is that for every reader who speaks up regarding need for a reference, there are 10x more who silently think the same thing - not always a good assumption, but it prompts me to look more closely, so your suggestion was helpful. -- Scray (talk) 17:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ribbon (computing)

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ribbon (computing). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 17:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)

NP

I don't think it (spammer) counts as a personal attack, but I have no problem deleting that part so long as the point is made. μηδείς (talk) 00:07, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

I replied on your Talk page, where this conversation started. -- Scray (talk) 00:22, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

For your list of templates, a multi pmid one

Template:CitePMIDs (The speedy came from me myself after 100+edits. As i came back later, i got the tip on the tag: trick and it worked well) --Ossip Groth (talk) 19:47, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Coeliac disease

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Coeliac disease. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 06:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)

Testing templates in article space

The mirna 196 edit is content-valid, and the microrna template is running well. So it could be restored - without the evaluation-contents-follows link. It was a easy-to-write template with no potential of code trouble. Papers werde indeed parsed to generate sci-valid contents. Sure I evaluated my now-running CitePMIDs template - which has a very simple code but the way to get it running took hours of finding how others caught the solution i copied... --Ossip Groth (talk) 08:06, 10 June 2013 (UTC)