Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Millionmice. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article
• Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 11:32, 14 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How can you read any of my critique as not constructive? One of the complaints that are being brought up by the editors is the inflation of RG scores (by questions and answers), but they never attempt to define what the RG score actually is. They also reference a blogger and a non-peer reviewed paper. Although the RG scoring system has its flaws like other indices, I (and millions of other researchers) think it could serve as an additional useful measure of scientific contribution in the future. A second opinion by the anonymous editors of Wikipedia is that ResearchGate automatically adds papers to the member's profile, but this never happens unless the user accepts authorship. A third point that is brought up is that unsolicited emails are being sent to co-authors, but there is a opt-out box in our profiles. Basically, we decide on our own if this happens or not. Lastly, the editors complain that there is a risk of unintentional copyright infringement although the users themselves are the ones that upload the actual papers. So, on the whole, the critique seems out of line as of April 29th 2014. Hopefully, it will change to reflect a more balanced view soon.Sjuttiosjuochfjorton (talk) 17:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the warm welcome to Wikipedia, it's much appreciated. TomRWells (talk) 20:47, 7 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the assistance. Links should all be fixed now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cactusjackbangbang (talk • contribs) 14:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.— Cirt (talk) 17:39, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]