User talk:Jukaredaa

Link to the Sandbox containing the draft for our group Sandbox link

Nice work![edit]

		The WikiCookie
		You've learned how to use basic wikicode in your sandbox. You can always return there to experiment more.

Posted automatically via sandbox guided tour. Jukaredaa (talk) 05:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Jukaredaa, you are invited to the Teahouse![edit]

Hi Jukaredaa! 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 peers and experienced editors. I hope to see you there! Doctree (I'm a Teahouse host)

Visit the Teahouse

This message was delivered automatically by your robot friend, HostBot (talk) 16:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome![edit]

Hello, Jukaredaa, and welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages 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, please see our help pages, and if you can't find what you are looking for there, please feel free to leave me a message or place {{Help me}} on this page and someone will drop by to help.

I work with the Wiki Education Foundation, and help support students who are editing as part of a class assignment. If there's anything I can do to help with your assignment (or, for that matter, any other aspect of Wikipedia) please feel free to drop me a note. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Medical articles[edit]

When editing articles related about medical-related topics, please bear in mind is that the standards for citations for these is higher than the general standard for sources in Wikipedia articles. Focus more on review articles and less on the latest discoveries. Findings like these are very difficult for a non-expert to put in the proper context without synthesizing a whole body of research literature. While we encourage the use of secondary and tertiary sources in general, this is especially important in medical-related topics. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

praise and small suggestion[edit]

Good edits on the endrin page!

One thing though : if you could be so kind, can you toss in a small edit summary when you edit? an edit summary would facilitate working through my watch list a lot. It's a simple form of paying respect to others... --Wuerzele (talk) 06:14, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much for your help Wuerzele! I will make you to add the edit summary on the talk page! --Jukaredaa (talk) 13:23, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

i dont understand what you mean (I will make you to add- a Freudian slip?) but i guess its ok.

thanks for adding the details of the rodenticide study. this non-target application research from 1983 ( >30 years!!) is a great example of what really happens in the field. this type of research, looking at almost an ecosystem, is still done, but becoming rarer in my view.--Wuerzele (talk) 06:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oops I mean to say "I will make sure to add" Wuerzele. And yes! I thought the study was very interesting and helpful since it includes a real-life data. As before, thanks always.--Jukaredaa (talk) 15:14, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reference errors on 29 March[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 Endrin 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) 00:24, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie's Peer Review for EDD[edit]

Overall: Great job! This article was really informative and well-written. I thought that it was organized nicely and the page, as a whole, flowed really well. Additionally, everything was properly cited and links appeared to be working.

Opening: Good introduction, introduced the subsequent sections nicely.

History: I thought this section was well-written and organized!

Production: Maybe could be explained in simpler terms for those who do not have a strong chemistry background, but for the most part, it is nicely done!

Use: Great section! It would be interesting to see if there were any other studies that produced similar findings regarding endrin's toxicity.

Health effects: Really interesting and nicely organized. I like how you included a specific example about its health effects on humans.

Environmental behavior: Dieldrin seems out of place when mentioned. Maybe explain its relationship to endrin. Other than that, nice job on this section.

Regulation: Maybe explain the Stockholm Convention on POPs in more detail in this section rather than just in the history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tiernesteph (talk • contribs) 19:55, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]