User talk:CV9933

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 02:54, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!
Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 17:41, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Magnetic resonance imaging
I am not letting this undo slide without comment because I am so sick of people immediately and mindlessly undoing edits and returning the page to an inferior version, regardless of whether I bother to log in or not. If you really think the signal must be identified as a radio frequency signal that's fine, but then I expect you to at least rewrite the introduction to include an explanation of the acronym "RF"; a simple "(RF)" in the sentence before where radio frequency first pops up would have wholly sufficed. It is not in fact "previously explained", as you claim, because the first mention of the acronym doesn't come until the section after. The very reason I edited the page in the first place is because I stumbled on that acronym while reading the article. I realise me going on your talk page over this is absolute nitpicking but this behaviour is exactly what discourages new or infrequent users from editing and I am so very tired of it.--XV-E-DCI (talk) 16:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I gave you the rationale behind my editorial judgement in my edit summary. The correct place to discuss this is at the article talk page where other editors can give their opinion on your preferred version. Thank you. CV9933 (talk) 20:29, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * My grief is not with which version is used, but with the rationale you gave being just flat-out false (in your edit, the acronym RF is explained later in the text than when it is first introduced, you simply cannot deny this), which I think hardly warrants a debate on the article's talk. I therefore decided to take it to you directly instead. I regret having phrased it so harshly though, I apologise for that, as you probably have guessed it was a straw-breaking-the-camels-back moment. I will stop wasting both our time now.--XV-E-DCI (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The article talk page should be the venue to discuss. I changed your wording back to RF with a wikilink which I think will address your concern. Thank you. CV9933 (talk) 09:27, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Template:Biochemical parameters affected by estrogen therapy
(Moved to WikiProject Medicine talk) CV9933 (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

ArbCom 2020 Elections voter message
Hello, I'm ankougen, I'm not sure if I reply correct in your message by doing this... Please excuse me if I'm doing it wrong. You left me a message about removing the link from my source when I edited the IVF page. I don't understand why you did that. It's the source of a major update in the IVF field and I would appriciate it if you could restore it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankougen (talk • contribs) 18:20, 3 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi Ankougen thank you for your contribution to the IVF article. One reason why I reverted your cohort study edit is because on major topics like this, we prefer to use high quality secondary sources - please see WP:MEDRS, the second reason was that you included a link to your IVF clinic which is considered promotional and not allowed. CV9933 (talk) 19:35, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Note about link removal
Hi, CD9933! I saw a note from you about removing an external link I have allegedly added "because [it] seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia." Just to clarify - I have not added a link, but _corrected_ an existing link. Changed http://www.wheelessonline.com/ortho/ulnar_nerve to https://www.wheelessonline.com/nerves/ulnar-nerve/. You have removed a link that has been a part of that wiki's page (Ulnar Claw) for more than 12 years (see https://web.archive.org/web/20080617132107/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulnar_claw) It seems to me this was done by mistake.

Regards! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.84.174.100 (talk) 22:53, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
 * I would encourage you to read External links and WP:LINKSPAM carefully, and if you still think that none of that is applicable to your external link you can start a discussion at the article talk page. Just because a spam link has been there for years, should not be construed as an endorsement. Regards CV9933 (talk) 09:35, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Consecutive edits
Hello, thanks for dealing with vandalism. However, please make sure you revert *all* the edits by a user, which you didn't quite do at Hemodialysis. Although in this case that edit didn't make much of a difference, in some cases leaving consecutive edits by a vandal can be very much detrimental. Tools like Twinkle and RevWarn make it easier to revert vandalism and warn users. Graham 87 15:30, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Hi Graham thanks for dropping by. I noticed both those edits and remembering that we are obliged to assume good faith, I gave the benefit of the doubt and decided that the first effort was an attempt to correct the grammar and the second edit was an accidental erasure perhaps due to the fact that the editor was using a mobile phone. Hence no vandalism and no warning to the IP user. Before reverting, I double checked the first edit and allowed it to stand because it sounded so much less clumsy to me.  Regards CV9933 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to take part in a survey about medical topics on Wikipedia
Dear fellow editor,

I am Piotr Konieczny, a sociologist of new media at Hanyang University (and User:Piotrus on Wikipedia). I would like to better understand Wikipedia's volunteers who edit medical topics, many associated with the WikiProject Medicine, and known to create some of the highest quality content on Wikipedia. I hope that the lessons I can learn from you that I will present to the academic audience will benefit both the WikiProject Medicine (improving your understanding of yourself and helping to promote it and attract new volunteers) and the wider world of medical volunteering and academia. Open access copy of the resulting research will be made available at WikiProject's Medicine upon the completion of the project.

All questions are optional. The survey is divided into 4 parts: 1 - Brief description of yourself; 2 - Questions about your volunteering; 3 - Questions about WikiProject Medicine and 4 - Questions about Wikipedia's coverage of medical topics.

Please note that by filling out this questionnaire, you consent to participate in this research. The survey is anonymous and all personal details relevant to your experience will be kept private and will not be transferred to any third party.

I appreciate your support of this research and thank you in advance for taking the time to participate and share your experiences! If you have any questions at all, please feel free to contact me at my Wikipedia user page or through my email listed on the survey page (or by Wikipedia email this user function).

The survey is accessible through the LINK HERE.

Piotr Konieczny Associate Professor Hanyang University If you wish to opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself from the mailing list. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

|lay-*= fixes
I just fixed your fixes in LIN28 and SYT1. I chose to use cs1|2 templates instead of the wrapper template and I inserted a new lime ahead of the ' ' so that the ' ' is treated as unordered list markup.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks ttt that seems logical. CV9933 (talk) 13:42, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I like the fact that the wrapper clarifies the term Lay source (my tweak) is there any reason not to go this way? CV9933 (talk) 14:48, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Your call. I don't particularly see the need for it.  I created  specifically for WP:MED because they are particular about what is and is not interpreted as a reliable source in medical articles.  But when I first started fixing the lay-* parameter problem I did, for a while, use  in non-WP:MED articles.  WP:MED don't like that the lay-* parameters are deprecated so I don't fix lay-* parameter errors in any article owned by WP:MED.  Having made that decision, I've stopped using  entirely.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:12, 1 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I understand the arguements for and against deprecating the lay parameter - it is what it is. I think that the wrapper is an elegant solution, so thanks for that and I will continue to use it. CV9933 (talk) 15:28, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Volunteer for Quality Assessment?
Hello @CV9933,

I am looking for a volunteers to quality assess edits carried out by the Wikipedia Collaboration of Dental Schools from 2016-2020. The quality assessment will take approximately 3 hours and results will be used for a journal publication. If you would be willing to lend your time to this, please let me know. Thank you! EditingDentist (talk) 19:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Removal of CGM section from prediabetes
“If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research."A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. If a single source says "A" in one context, and "B" in another, without connecting them, and does not provide an argument of "therefore C", then "therefore C" cannot be used in any article.”

If the problem is the conclusion of the section in the article is incorrectly supported and does not logically follow as per the guidelines, which I reproduced here partially, then amend the section, don’t delete the whole section. Wickster12345 (talk) 17:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Also if you don’t like words that were used (per Wiki policy) then those can be changed, it doesn’t justify the removal of the whole section, the notion of CGM for prediabetics is a well-documented emerging concept academically, even if actual treatment guidelines do not mention them. Wickster12345 (talk) 17:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for working to improve the article because we can always use more editors on health related topics. You are correct that the article talk page is the correct venue to discuss content dispute, but I would urge you to read our source guidlinesWP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS and also take a look at WT:MED (talk page) if you didn't already, where other medical related editors will be happy to help. ~ CV9933 (talk) 18:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now reworked the CGM section of prediabetes, and I respect all Wiki policies and the respective editors. That being said, can you maybe have a look at the reworked section and determine if it addresses your concerns? Wickster12345 (talk) 18:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I appreciate your tenacity in trying to improve this article but you clearly didn't read what I wrote above, for example WP:MEDSAY (part of MEDMOS) informs us to cite sources, don't describe them; so we don't hype the studies and we don't hype the authors, perhaps you can see the first issue that I find problematic? Read our guidelines and policies because our goal is to simply reflect what the best quality secondary sources say. I suspect it is too early to say anything on this subject because the kind of sources we would prefer aren't there yet, so to me, what you contributed seems to me to be leaning towards advocacy. Regards CV9933 (talk) 11:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * all sources I cited are high quality secondary sources. You misinterpret as advocacy, maybe we can have a discussion with other editors. I didn’t “hype” (odd word choice in my opinion) a single study just listed what they explicitly say, in some cases verbatim. I read the policy you mentioned fully. I can rewrite the article again, I despise Wikipedia’s newfound tendency to be so conservative and anti-new findings that are well documented but still perfectly within the confines of all applicable policies Wickster12345 (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Also the section CAN be rewritten in a way that just mentions the info without, as you say “hyping” the sources, why is the first approach among editors sometimes the eliminationist approach as opposed to the improvement approach? I am not pro-CGM use for prediabetics btw, it’s just academic articles increasingly mention it falling short of recommending it; and that deserves to be mentioned. If you feel sources say otherwise, that’s a separate discussion I would think. Wickster12345 (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I will put a note on the article talk page. CV9933 (talk) 18:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:46, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on CRISPR gene editing
Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page CRISPR gene editing, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows: Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:Qwerfjkl/Botpreload&editintro=User:Qwerfjkl/boteditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:Qwerfjkl&preloadtitle=Qwerfjkl%20(bot)%20–%20CV9933&section=new&preloadparams%5b%5d=&preloadparams%5b%5d=1189560267 report it to my operator]. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 16:39, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. ([//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=CRISPR_gene_editing&action=edit&minor=minor&summary=Fixing+reference+error+raised+by+%5B%5BUser%3AQwerfjkl%20(bot)%7CQwerfjkl%20(bot)%5D%5D Fix] | [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Help_desk&action=edit&section=new&preload=User:Qwerfjkl%20(bot)/helpform&preloadtitle=Referencing%20errors%20on%20%5B%5BSpecial%3ADiff%2F1189560267%7CCRISPR%20gene%20editing%5D%5D Ask for help])


 * Note to myself - Maybe the IP edit was missed because the Bot wasn't operational between 13:40 and 14:40 on 11 December 2023? CV9933 (talk) 10:30, 28 December 2023 (UTC)