User talk:Ddieudonne

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Ddieudonne. 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
 * Contributing to 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 Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:01, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

November 2017
Hello, I'm Yoshi24517. I noticed that in this edit to Vaginal atresia, you removed content without adequately explaining why. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you described your changes to Wikipedia with an edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, the removed content has been restored. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks. Yoshi24517 Chat  Very Busy  22:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Vaginal atresia
Hi, I have a quick question about your recent addition to Vaginal atresia. I'm having trouble understanding this sentence: "A cloacal malformation often accompanies this disorder, which is the surgical treatment that incorporates several vaginal replacement techniques." It seems to be missing some words, unless I'm misunderstanding "malformation". Can you clarify? Thank you! Jessicapierce (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Greetings
Wow! New editors usually don't make such substantial changes in a mere 34 edits. I did a quick read of the Vaginal atresia article that you wrote and don't see any glaring problems. I hope you don't mind me doing some reviewing and editing of the article. Please don't take any changes personally, and if you don't agree - then simply revert or change it back to what it was before. I don't mind, but be careful because other editors take reverting their changes as offensive. Good job. If I have questions, I'll come back here to your talk page or I will leave a note on the talk page of the article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Distal vaginal atresia misdiagnosed as imperforate hymen: A case managed by transperineal vaginal pull through (distal colpoplasty)". The Egyptian Journal of Radiology and Nuclear Medicine. 46 (4): 1155–1158. 2015-12-01." This is a case study and according to the guidelines for medical articles on Wikipedia, it is a primary source and can't be used to support content. If you need to see these referencing guidelines, click on this link:WP:MEDRS.
 * "Pushkar, Praveen; Rawat, Suresh Kumar; Chowdhary, Sujit Kumar (2015). "Robotic approach to vaginal atresia repair in an adolescent girl". Urology Annals. 7 (3): 396–398. doi:10.4103/0974-7796.152054. ISSN 0974-7796. PMC 4518385 Freely accessible. PMID 26229336." This is also a single case study and a primary source. See the medical referencing guidelines in the previous link.
 * ""Müllerian agenesis". Wikipedia. 2017-11-28", ""Fraser syndrome". Wikipedia. 2017-12-01" and ""Bardet–Biedl syndrome". Wikipedia. 2017-12-05." As weird as this sounds, you can't reference Wikipedia to support content on Wikipedia. It is sort of circular reasoning. Go ahead and re-use references from other Wikipedia articles to support content in the vaginal atresia article, though.
 * "Vaginal Atresia Treatment". News-Medical.net. 2017-08-29. Retrieved 2017-12-13. News sources for medical information are unreliable and tend to focus on case studies and the 'newest' of the 'new' treatments. See WP:MEDRS to find out about how to identify good sources for medical content.
 * "Zhang, Ying; Chen, Yisong; Hua, Keqin (2017-09-01). "Outcomes in patients undergoing robotic reconstructive uterovaginal anastomosis of congenital cervical and vaginal atresia". The International Journal of Medical Robotics and Computer Assisted Surgery. 13 (3): n/a–n/a. doi:10.1002/rcs.1821. ISSN 1478-596X." This is another primary source and not so good for medical content on Wikipedia. It is a study of four patients which is not comprehensive enough to use it as a reference.
 * "Mishra, Vineet; Saini, Suwa Ram; Nanda, Sakshi; Choudhary, Sumesh; Roy, Priyankur; Singh, Tanvir (2016). "Uterine conserving surgery in a case of cervicovaginal agenesis with unicornuate uterus". Journal of Human Reproductive Sciences. 9 (4): 267–270. doi:10.4103/0974-1208.197696. ISSN 0974-1208. PMC 5296833 Freely accessible. PMID 28216917" This is another case study, a primary source and the description of one case is not encyclopedic.

I'll wait a while for you to catch up with this message and leave a reply. You are also welcome to leave a reply on my talk page. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉ and Merry Christmas 23:25, 20 December 2017 (UTC)