User talk:SGW999

Welcome!

Hello, SGW999, 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Bisel[edit]

Just adding Harry Bisel to oncology is not the way of advertising the fact that this article now exists. You might want to add Category:Oncologists, which will place him in the right category, and perhaps mention his name in the American Society of Clinical Oncology article.

Would you also be able to add a couple of references to his biography? Obituaries are quite useful, and indeed were the best source of information when I wrote Gordon Zubrod. JFW | T@lk 01:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, JDF, and thank you for the welcome!

I hope to add more information as time permits. I have a list of his publications (55+) and will list a selection. I have access to Dr. Bisel's papers - he has kept everything and his papers are very complete! SGW999 03:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sara C. Bisel and verifiable sources[edit]

Hello and thanks for helping Wikipedia to grow. Could you provide [[WP:|verifiable sources]] for this? Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 12:57, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Steve. Not sure how we cite her papers-- those are primary sources. They're useful, but too much reliance on them would make the article "original research", which is not good. Please see WP:NOR. We would probably put Her Name. Personal papers. Name, title, etc. Date written. The others look good as secondary sources. (Wikipedia is a tertiary source, so it uses primarily secondary sources.) For citing, if the sources apply generally through the article, you can create a ==Works cited== section and organize them there. If each reference points to a particular line or section, you can put the information between <ref> </ref> tags and then put {{reflist}} in a reference section at the bottom. The mediawiki softwate will automatically list the references with numbered footnotes in the text. Or you can mix and match. Follow the manual of style link in the welcome for more general information. Hope that helps. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 17:51, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

With conflict of interest articles you just have to maintain a neutral point of view and seek advice from disinterested editors to help eliminate any bias (which you've done). From what I saw before, the article looked well-balanced. Don't be discouraged. Writers write about what they know, and sometimes that means writing about what we care about. But this is a Wiki-- a collaborative project with a community of writers to help improve its articles. Take any feedback as in the spirit of helpfulness and use what is useful. Hope this helps. Will take a look at it when I'm more sensible. (Too early in the morning to think.) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 13:23, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am the editor who placed the {{coi}} notice on the Sara Bisel page. Please see my comments at User_talk:Dlohcierekim#Sara_Bisel. (And do not be discouraged.) —Ian Spackman 14:52, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removing links[edit]

Thanks for your note. I can't think of any reason to remove those. I think they strengthen the article, notability, verifiability.70.126.47.211 16:45, 18 October 2007 (UTC) Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ooo, that would be a good reason. Thanks for your academic integrity.17:20, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

coi tag[edit]

Don't be discouraged. As more editors look at the thing and edit it, the coi tag will come off on its own. Cheers, :) Dlohcierekim 16:49, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]