This user is busy in real life and may not respond swiftly to queries.

Feel free to chat with me through Jabber/XMPP at exercisephys@blah.im (OTR preferred).

I want Wikipedia to be a place where people can find an up-to-date scientific consensus on a topic without having to dig through and interpret journal articles.

I recognize the lack of editors here, and I'm therefore a big believer in modularization and a big opponent of redundancy. We have enough trouble getting things right once and keeping one instance of a topic up-to-date. The last thing we need is to maintain it in three different places, with three different contexts. In short, sections with "main article" links often shouldn't be sections at all.

My suggestions, as a copy-editor and revisionist

• Place your citations as close to the relevant information as is reasonably possible.
• Cite the study itself, not a news article summarizing the study (unless the news article has unique information, in which case you should cite both).
• Use the PMID and DOI citation templates. They make the page a lot easier to read, make sources easier to find quickly, and save you a ton of time.
• Do not just yank a cited statement/sentence/paragraph that seems dubious to you or disagrees with your experience. Do research and come to an informed conclusion before touching it. If you feel that you're very justified but don't have the time to look further into it, use the ((dubious)) template or a similar one.
• Recognize that things are generally done for reasons, and that experienced contributors generally know what they're doing. If you're about to revert or remove something that has been added or approved by a long-time member, take a moment to consider why they did it. Do research as well, if necessary.
• Don't demand that every statement be cited. If something is a strong medical consensus, you can just say it.
• Don't demand absolute statements. Describe the nature and limitations of the evidence. An encyclopedia can contain a little of that. It's very valuable information and readers get shielded from it unnecessarily.

Pages I've created

• Freiberg disease
• Isoxaben

Barnstars etc.

A barnstar for you!

	The Editor's Barnstar
	For your work on the methylphenidate page, thank you. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 14:34, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Thank you for the range of changes you made to opioid, especially where you added good references to the content you clarified. Blue Rasberry (talk) 16:37, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I owe u an apology for blowing up on you during the recent toxicity issue - sorry. I had initially thought you were re-adding one of the Berman-authored papers on sub. amph's. The review you added was actually useful for citing the production of ROS/autoxidation; it's no longer a synth. :)

On an unrelated note, the cardiotoxicity section of that paper makes me facepalm at the author.

Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 02:49, 16 March 2014 (UTC)