User talk:Tmbirkhead

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Tmbirkhead, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 click here to ask for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 03:49, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 9 May[edit]

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

On the TLR4 page, your edit caused a duplicate page number error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:35, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: question on your userpage[edit]

Regarding how to communicate with other users, you edit talk pages the same way you would any other page. If you are starting a new discussion you can use the "new section" tab at the top of the page, if you are replying tosomeone else you simply click the "edit" button a the top of the section. As far emailing within Wikipedia, you do that by going to the user in questions user or talk page and use the "email this user" function in the sidebar on the left hand side of the page.

Links to further information:

Hope that helps, the teahouse is also a good place to go with any questions you may have, there are lots of very friendly, knowledgeable people who handle questions there. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Re: your concise reply[edit]

One of the main reasons I haven't read through the entire "user guide" articles (the How-to-use-wikipedia articles) is because they are far from concise, and every article betrays a need to delve into every intricacy (most of which is common sense).

Your reply on how to use the talk page and email was fantastic. Thank you!

Tmbirkhead (talk) 21:15, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Glad I could help. By the way, indenting by using spaces or tabs produces the effect you see in your last comment. Wikipedia uses colons to indent, with the number of colons increasing the size of the indent like so:

One colon

two

three

You get the idea. sometimes a conversation goes on for a while and ends up

Way over here from all the indenting

and you can use the {{outdent}} template to bring it back over here. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

for

the

step-by-step

instructions

I'll try to learn a few new things each week/month

Tmbirkhead (talk) 02:58, 12 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the thanks[edit]

The episode on glycerol was an opportunity for you to blow your stack. Thanks for keeping it civil. Tough to do that. Looking forward to respectfully arguing with you again. --Smokefoot (talk) 03:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:13, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email), I have no idea what this is in reference to. I have added a reference on most of my contributions. There have been two exceptions that I can recall. First, there was one instance, recently, when I felt important information was missing from a page, but I was also pressing for time. So, I made the edit without seeking a substantiating reference. I felt very confident in the material, and I felt that having the material missing was a larger issue than having it present without a citation. I know that this occassionally happens and "citation needed" is added to the material. I'm not sure what process generates the "citation needed" message (if it's by user edit or wiki robot). One other time I added information without citation because I could not figure out how to cite my recent lectures at the school of medicine and my own unpublished work in the Med Pharm/Phys lab. If you have suggestions, for these two issues, I am open to whatever. I agree that having citation is better than not having them. If I made a citation from an unreputable source then I'm not completely aware of it. Also, I only make contributions when, in the midst of my research, i notice that I obtained very important information from a non-wiki source and I felt that wikipedia could be made better by adding it. Thanks Tmbirkhead (talk) 19:42, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The recommendation was probably because you used primary sources for some of your edits rather than literature reviews or systematic reviews which are much preferred. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

This book appears[1] to be self published[2]

Not really a good source. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:23, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'll let cardiologist, Dr. Jason Ryan know that I shouldn't trust his work. Thanks for letting me know.

I'd argue that highly respected board review books are very good sources. This is true primarily because they are great at teaching, and they are certain to teach all of the most relavent information. But moreover, important information should be present. If I see something in board prep material and decide to investigate it deeper (curiosity), and see that a huge corpus is missing, I'm going to add it (public service, you're welcome) and cite the source in front of me. If The author is trustworthy, it's better than nothing. If an author is untrustworthy, AND I see information not on Wikipedia, I'm skeptical enough to think that it's false, in which case I won't add it.

Video[edit]

With respect to videos we tend to add them to Wikimedia Commons. If you are involved with creating the video discussion should occur before it is added. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:30, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]