Jump to content

User talk:Eecharlie

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

Hello, Eecharlie, 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 Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Also, just a little note about your edits to Zinc: do try to be careful when replacing references, especially named references (<ref name="...">...</ref>), because other parts of the article may be referring to the same reference by name. When removing the instance of the reference tag that contains the citation body, the citation body should be moved to another tag bearing the same name (<ref name="..."/>); otherwise all other references to that citation in the article will generate an error message in the References list. Don't worry about Zinc, though---I've already fixed the error. Just be careful next time. :-) —Tetracube (talk) 19:15, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'm probably lucky I didn't overlook anything else and cause more damage. Thanks for the how-to links, I should have spent an extra minute looking for them myself before I dove in. eecharlie 21:02, 2 June 2010 (UTC)


{{helpme}} Is there recommended wiki editing software, in particular that assists with reference management? Having to drop reference info in-line is a little cumbersome, and what if I want to compare two related articles to see if i.e. one has references that the other should but doesn't? Thanks!

(This is a test of the emergency broadcast system for me, I have not asked for help before.)

Also, how come when I sign stuff it's just my username but everyone else's sig seems to include a link to their page & their talk page? Is that a setting or something automatic that happens when I actually have relevant content on my page? eecharlie 21:53, 7 June 2010 (UTC)


As far as I know, there is no specialized software for dealing with this. If your references happen to be journal papers that have a DOI, though, much of this pain can be alleviated by using Template:Cite doi. For example, if a journal paper has the DOI 10.1063/1.1698976, then it can be inserted into the article as: <ref>{{cite doi|10.1063/1.1698976}}</ref>. Once you save/preview this, it will have links to either have a bot fill out the citation for you (the easiest method) or to fill it out yourself.
To sign your name with links to your userpage and talk page, type four tildes in a row, like this: ~~~~.—Tetracube (talk) 21:55, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You could always click on MY PREFERENCES ... GADGETS ... and there's a handy cite tool that you can build into your editing window ... other than that, look at WP:CITE and follow things around to see if there are easier ways for you (talk→ BWilkins ←track) 22:20, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Zinc and colds -- Jan 2014

[edit]

Dear Eecharlie, Thank you very much for pointing out the wrong name in the axis. I found that I could replace the figure and so I simply replaced the old with the corrected version. I do not know how many read such a page... Now I know that at least one has read...

"...George Eby's lozenges ... like something more people should know about."

I fully agree

I wrote a page about zinc and the common cold in Oct 2013 but it was vandalized soon after it became public. Given the memory of wikipedia, my version is available here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Zinc_and_the_common_cold&oldid=578590771

I did not have time to fight with the vandals, but I thought that I may get back to that page when they leave the page so that I replace it by parts...

You mentioned the Cochrane review on zinc and the common cold. That has a lot of problems and so do other reviews on zinc and colds. You can take a look at the texts of "problems" at my home page

http://www.mv.helsinki.fi/home/hemila/Zinc.htm

"I would encourage you to follow requests by other wikipedia editors to respect the editing standards and processes..."

Does that mean that you encouraged me to correct the figure, or was there something additional?

Thanks for pointing the error Hhemila (talk) 20:35, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]


Your new comments:

"they are people trying to maintain the editorial policies of Wikipedia." "if you read about the editorial policies and follow them, so that other editors do not feel a need to edit or delete your content." Of course, I am familiar with the Wikipedia editorial policies. In the talk page of the zinc and the common cold page, I pointed out that the revisions of the page violated two basic editorial principles. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zinc_and_the_common_cold The two editors who messed my version did not point out any problems in my criticism. They simply do not follow the principles.

"you have cited those studies as well as your own, and stated as fact that your publication is correct while the others are false. I don't think you are allowed to do that, regardless of how plainly obvious the truth may be. Wikipedia is not based on arriving at the truth, it is based on representing all points of view in a fair way" Presenting "all points" implies the wikipedia neutrality principle. In my version I cited the other reviews and my criticism. In such presentation the reader can see that there are differences in opinion. If the reader is more interested, he or she can take a look at the controversy when both parties are properly cited. The two editors removed my criticism and therefore a reader cannot see that there are controversies. Such presentation is not neutral.

".. respectful of suggestions from other Wikipedia editors." The version which I initially submitted was read by several editors and I had no problems in following their advice. But there are different types of editors.

"writing an essay rather than editing a page" I cannot see any point in that. I did write an essay and in my view it was vandalized, but in your view the revised version is better. Furthermore, Wikipedia does not publish several pages on a same topic. Hhemila (talk) 09:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC) [reply]

This blocked user is asking that his block be reviewed on the Unblock Ticket Request System:

Eecharlie (block log • active blocks • global blocks • autoblocks • contribs • deleted contribs • abuse filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

UTRS appeal #21072 was submitted on Apr 02, 2018 01:21:33. This review is now closed.


--UTRSBot (talk) 01:21, 2 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Eecharlie&oldid=1077335971"