User talk:Professor Rizzo Naudi

Welcome!

Hello, Professor Rizzo Naudi, 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 name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome!

You may be interested in joining WikiProject Medicine (and optionally add yourself to the list of participants). Of medicine-related projects, WikiProject Clinical medicine is one of the most active. Colin°^Talk 18:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Malta[edit]

An academic geriatrician no less! I hope you'll be able to contribute to Wikipedia despite your many professional and official duties. Would you consider joining our medical contributor's forum at WP:CLINMED. JFW | T@lk 19:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article already seems to have accounted well for every issue and solution. However, I will check to see if there are any points that can be added or amended. --Professor Rizzo Naudi 12:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I presume you're referring to Parkinson's disease. Your input is highly valued, as a controversial user has claimed that acquainted PD specialists had expressed their reservations to him about the article's content and format. He would not divulge their names, nor was he able to get any of these experts to review the article for us. JFW | T@lk 09:52, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I meant that the article you referred to WP:CLINMED seems to have accounted well for every issue and solution. In contrast, the Parkinson's Disease article is very poor in many respects. It requires considerable rewriting, correction, and reorganisation. --Professor Rizzo Naudi 13:17, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that is indeed your opinion, could you make specific recommendations on Talk:Parkinson's disease? JFW | T@lk 08:04, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3RR[edit]

I noticed your exchange with Davidruben (talk · contribs) on Parkinson's disease. I will not comment on whether the reference in question supports any claims, but as an administrator I should warn you that reverting more than three times a day - whether you are right or wrong - is grounds for blocking under the three revert rule. I would recommend discussing the issue on Talk:Parkinson's disease rather than reverting. I will leave a similar note on Davidruben's talk page. JFW | T@lk 16:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It appears that I'm only on two at present. So that must mean I have one in hand ! It seems that DavidRuben has realised his error about the precise references anyway. --Professor Rizzo Naudi 17:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that I was in "error about the precise references", but will happily agree that the previous incomplete reference had incorrect details. The version of 21:30, 30 October 2006 had as the reference details:

(unknown) (1986). "(unknown)". Comptes rendus academie des sciences 302: 435.

Having spent some time searching the internet for the full details of this journal's volume 302 page 435, I cited a website which gave as the full details:

Pigeon D, Drissi-Daoud R, Large F, Thibault J (1986). "[Copurification of tyrosin hydroxylase of the phéochromocytome of rat with a protein kinase] (French)". Comptes rendus academie des sciences 302 (12): 435-8.

This is the correct title for this page number - it just happens to be the wrong page number in the journal as your final edit finally indicated:

(unknown) (1986). "(unknown)". Comptes rendus academie des sciences 309: 43-47.

Please WP:Assume good faith - It is not my fault if an existing citation is incomplete and has the wrong details. As you clearly have access to this article, could you please insert the missing details for this paper (i.e. author and title). David Ruben ^Talk 18:37, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have often found that research references contain errors, as occurred with this one. Under those circumstances I usually check some possibe variants in the references. Rat physiology must have suggested that something was amiss, although often what is claimed and what is published are so different that something such as rat physiology could be passed off as a treatment of Parkinson's Disease ! I happened to have a copy which is how I knew the correct details. The authors are P.Lemoine, N.Robelin, P.Sebert, J.Mouret. The title is "La L-tyrosine : traitement au long cours de la maladie de Parkinson" (L-tyrosine : A long term treatment of Parkinson's Disease). I don't know how to insert references in to articles. I assume that it is easy to do but I just haven't got around to trying it.

Not all published research is contained in journals. Some research is published in books that contain nothing but individual articles. That is why one of the other references appeared to be only that of a book rather than new research, which is what it was.

--Professor Rizzo Naudi 19:59, 31 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for details, so inserted.

Details on inserting footnotes using <ref> tags is at WP:FOOTNOTES. As to the use of citation templates within the tags, see Wikipedia:Citation templates.

If one can find an abstract of the paper at PubMed, then Diberri's tool at http://diberri.dyndns.org/wikipedia/templates/ can auto-generate the cite journal template markup, which one then copy&paste into an article. David Ruben ^Talk 03:47, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked[edit]

Please email me from your university account to confirm you are not a sockpuppet of General Tojo. If you cannot, you are an impostor. JFW | T@lk 21:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]