Reciprocater

Hello Reciprocater! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC) Getting Started Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting Help Frequently Asked Questions Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability The Community Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Miscellaneous Useful templates • Categories • Stubs User pages • Talk pages Tools • User scripts

Reciprocater, you are invited to the Teahouse!

Hi Reciprocater! Thanks for contributing to Wikipedia. Be our guest at the Teahouse! The Teahouse is a friendly space where new editors can ask questions about contributing to Wikipedia and get help from experienced editors like Missvain (talk). Visit the Teahouse We hope to see you there! Delivered by HostBot on behalf of the Teahouse hosts 16:09, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• HostBotThank you for the kind greetings! ^__^ --Reciprocater (talk) 19:12, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited TSMC, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page DFM (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:39, 14 March 2020 (UTC)

References

Just follow the steps 1, 2 and 3 as shown and fill in the details

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. 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.

1. While editing any article or a wikipage, on the top of the edit window you will see a toolbar which has a button "Cite" click on it
2. Then click on "Automatic" or "Manual"
3. For Manual: Choose the most appropriate template and fill in the details, then click "Insert"
4. For Automatic: Paste the URL or PMID/PMC and click "Generate" and if the article is available on PubMed Central, Citoid will populate a citation which can be inserted by clicking "Insert"

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) 02:39, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Doc James: Thank you for your correction on my edits of montelukast. I agree that In medicine, primary sources include clinical trials, which test new treatments. while WP:MEDPRI also imprinted on my mind that If conclusions are worth mentioning (such as large randomized clinical trials with surprising results), they should be described appropriately as from a single study.; I think my edit did mention and attribute randomized trials saying As for combining desloratadine, greater efficacy of symptom control has been documented in several randomized trials.

What should I do to make it better next time? Thank you so much! --Reciprocater (talk) 05:15, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This was 10 people. https://erj.ersjournals.com/content/33/6/1302 Please use review articles going forwards (note that this is different than simple peer reviewed) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:20, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the note that reminds me that "review articles" comprise literature review and systematic review different from peer review. Yeah, I think I gonna use review articles only since I haven't had a good knowledge about how large a randomized clinical trials should be for respective speciaty's study. --Reciprocater (talk) 05:33, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Identifying literature review, systematic review and peer review.

@Doc James: Hi, could you help me identify if the following source is a literature review or simply a peer reviewed primary source? Thank you.

• Keidar S, Kaplan M, Gamliel-Lazarovich A (February 2007). "ACE2 of the heart: From angiotensin I to angiotensin (1-7)". Cardiovascular Research. 73 (3): 463–9. doi:10.1016/j.cardiores.2006.09.006. PMID 17049503.

--Reciprocater (talk) 13:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Headbomb: Is your script able to differentiate between literature review and a peer reviewed primary source? Thanks. --Reciprocater (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nope. And I really don't see how a script even could. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:57, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you.--Reciprocater (talk) 15:02, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Hello Reciprocater. You asked for advice in finding systematic reviews on PubMed. Here is the link, offering two methods, or a third is to simply enter 'review' as a search word separated by a space with other search terms of interest. Example: this search was for ['systematic review ace II']. 1) Assure the publication is indexed by Medline by clicking on the journal title and checking that it is indexed, such as this example (BMC MG is). Your next step is to assess date and journal quality. 2) See WP:MEDDATE to select a review from within the last 5 years. 3) Check WP:CITEWATCH to eliminate a journal if potentially predatory or if it comes from the alternative medicine literature. 4) Check the impact factor with a Google search of the journal title and 'impact factor' as a search term, example here where the impact factor is above 1.0 (which is low, but adequate, for medical sources). The higher number for impact factor, the better. See here. Fyi: The review you chose above in Cardiovascular Research looks ok, except that it is 13 years out of date. Good luck! --Zefr (talk) 15:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Zefr: Thank you so much!! Now I know that's how it is! --Reciprocater (talk) 16:04, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

A note about WP:CITEWATCH, it only reports what is currently cited on Wikipedia (well, technically, what is cited as of the last WP:DUMP, which can be seen at the bottom of the WP:CITEWATCH page). WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP has a longer list of problematic citations. The easiest workflow for checking if a journal is nonsense is to check against https://beallslist.net/ (both the publisher and journal, by name and by url domain), and the other lists at WP:CITEWATCH/SETUP#Sources. I try to put as many as possible of those in my script, but it doesn't cover everything. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

@Headbomb: I appreciate your informative reminder! --Reciprocater (talk) 16:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Go here https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=17049503 click on publication type. It says "review". That means it is a review article not just peer reviewed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

• ​ Thank you! I was somewhat confused. Reciprocater (talk) 16:29, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Backup from User talk:Zefr： Human coronavirus NL63

Human coronavirus NL63: The infecting virus is an enveloped, positive-sense, single-stranded RNA virus which enters its host cell by the ACE2 receptor. I saw ACE2 receptor had been redirected to Angiotensin_II_receptor. Is it a correct redirection? Regards, --Reciprocater (talk) 13:57, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Reciprocater - I think you have it right here, but I am not an expert on this topic. A good place to get broad expert feedback on such a question is WT:MED. --Zefr (talk) 14:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you!--Reciprocater (talk) 14:16, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

I have sent you a note about a page you started

Hello, Reciprocater

Thank you for creating New Taiwanese Dollar.

User:Sam-2727, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

Thanks for creating this redirect! In the future, I'd recommend you use WP:ARCHER to categorize redirects.

To reply, leave a comment here and prepend it with {{Re|Sam-2727}}. And, don't forget to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Sam-2727 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

• @Sam-2727: Thank you for the knowledge you've imparted! It looks novel to me! I will try! --Reciprocater (Talk) 17:39, 27 March 2020 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 30

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Silent chest, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Agitation (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 14:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Signature

Here is a variant of your sig that is hopefully less distracting:

--[[User Talk:Reciprocater|<span style="color:#014225;font-family:Comic Sans MS;background:#e8f8e0;border:1px solid #a0a040;padding-left:2px;padding-right:2px;box-shadow:1px 2px 3px #acf3ac">Reciprocater (Talk)</span>]]

This shows the appearances of the two versions side by side:

Original:   --Reciprocater (Talk)         Variant:   --Reciprocater (Talk)

 --Lambiam 16:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Oh! Thank you so much!! This is gorgeous! I like it! :D --Reciprocater (Talk) 17:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

Hello, I'm Woerich. I noticed that you recently removed content from Mainland China without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an accurate edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the removed content has been restored. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Woerich (talk) 18:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

• Oh! I had. Probably because there was a time lags. I politely invite you to check again. Thank you so much! --Reciprocater (Talk) 18:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Your slash-and-burn approach to sourcing is wholly unacceptable and a form of WP:TE. Nowhere in WP:SOURCE is there a requirement for the subject of a source cited in a Wikipedia article to be strictly about the article topic in question. And, yes, contrary to your dictat, a Legislative Council of Hong Kong document is absolutely a reliable primary source documenting usage of the term within that territory. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo:: WP:Primary source goes to WP:OR. Stop WP:GAME!--Reciprocater (Talk) 04:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

I should have said "documenting official usage", though you will dispense with the facetious WP:GAME accusation immediately, per WP:NPA. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 04:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

WP:GAME:Gaming the system may include:Wikilawyering, pettifogging, and otherwise using the letter of policy to violate the broader principles of the policy. which appears to match your behavior that redirected WP:primary source to WP:RS. But since you've taken a step back saying "should have", I think I am not going to say Game. Wiped! Reciprocater (Talk) 04:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine opened

You recently offered a statement in a request for arbitration. The Arbitration Committee has accepted that request for arbitration and an arbitration case has been opened at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine. Evidence that you wish the arbitrators to consider should be added to the evidence subpage, at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Evidence. Please add your evidence by April 21, 2020, which is when the evidence phase closes. You can also contribute to the case workshop subpage, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Medicine/Workshop. For a guide to the arbitration process, see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Guide to arbitration. For the Arbitration Committee, Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 20:54, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

Greater China

Please don't revert my good faith edit, just leave the job to the native editors please. The original infobox was perfect, Da/Tai can mean great or big in Chinese. In this context, 大中华 (da zhonghua) is the perfect translation. Just insert Tai makes no sense at all, it is just pure spam by Google Translate. I am native Chinese speaker, I know the subtle difference in a Chinese phrase.

Thank you for your cooperation. 2001:8003:9008:1301:780A:CF5:F4B:EC87 (talk) 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification. But Wikipedia relies on WP:RS to work. Just because claiming yourself is a native Chinese Speaker is insufficient. --Reciprocater (Talk)

Your thread has been archived

Hi Reciprocater! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Staffs in house for guiding newbies?, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days. You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread. The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)

April 2020

You are suspected of sock puppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the guide to responding to investigations, then, if you wish to do so, respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/It's gonna be awesome. Thank you. Lord Sjones23 (talk - contributions) 06:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

Hello, for the blocking admin Iridescent, 1. May I know if this block is made after running CU tools? 2. Do you think I encountered Wikipedia:POV_railroad#False_narratives? 3. Per Admin's expectation, may I know if you've ever assumed me good faith? 4. Is this block made in your effort to cool down the content dispute involving me and others? 5. What did you mean by "show over"? 6. How is this review obvious? 7. Wikipedia:The_duck_test ::a. consider that "User:Example" is engaged in a heated dispute with someone else, and gets blocked because of it. Immediately after, a "User:Example2" registers on Wikipedia and continues the dispute right away, saying the same things and in the same tone.  ::b. If consensus appears to be approaching one direction, aside from a handful of accounts that are using the same bad arguments  ::c. The duck test may also apply to copyright violations.. May I know which of the three contexts is linked to this block? Thank you for your patience and review. --Reciprocater (Talk) 10:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Decline reason:

I'm satisfied that the accounts appear to the same editor and the block is a good one. If they're, not, you'll be vindicated by a checkuser. Number 57 12:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Since you insist on wasting our time further, WP:ANI#Request for block review. If you have any statement you want to make, post it here and someone will copy it across if appropriate. ‑ Iridescent 12:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

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

---

Request reason:

I politely asked the blocking admins about my confusions. I sincerely hope the admin could answer my questions. I am not wasting anyone's time. I am just following Wikipedia:Appealing a block from the blocking admins' messages.

Decline reason:

Checkuser-confirmed sock, talk page access revoked. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.