User talk:DuBose

A welcome from Sango123
Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:


 * If you haven't already, drop by the New user log and tell others a bit about yourself.
 * Always sign your posts on talk pages! That way, others will know who left which comments.
 * The Five Pillars of Wikipedia
 * Simplified Ruleset
 * How to edit a page
 * Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
 * Picture tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Naming conventions
 * Manual of Style
 * Wikipedia Glossary
 * If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also the Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango  123   (talk)  20:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

Inline links
Thanks for your medical ultrasound contributions. Could you please avoid using inline links like this: http://www.google.com. This clutters the page; additionally, the links in their present form lack a description. The correct form according to the manual of style would be Google where the second term (after the space) is the description. Better still, footnotes can be constructed, but I'll leave that to you. JFW | T@lk  08:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you are a person with obvious academic credentials: Shouldn't you consider better references than those you put into Medical_ultrasonography? A reference to a page that is only a reference to further pages is a hardly a reference. --Ekko 09:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Terminology
You seem to be changing every use of "ultrasonography" with "sonography". I wish you'd discussed this on the relevant talk pages first. I think the correct term is "ultrasonography" if the test is called "an ultrasound". I've changed it back for now. Please provide some support for your changes. JFW | T@lk  14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


 * If you think the article medical ultrasonography should be called sonography instead, please do not create a duplicate page but suggest a move on the former page. JFW | T@lk  14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Your recent edit

 * (referring to this)

removed a stub tag from an article. It is a short article, which can definitely be expanded further, and so qualifies as a a stub. Please don't remove the tag again. Thanks, xC | ☎  21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions
Thanks for picking up the ball on editing the ARDMS article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards after its revival from deletion ! I made an initial effort to "NPOV"-ize the language, since I was one of the ones who recommended the article be kept. I realize you have much more knowledge of subject than I do. One improvement I wanted to make was to add some references from the professional journal JDSM (I googled refs to ARDMS and found their website http://www.sdms.org/jdms/ . I assume that you or one of your colleagues has access to their articles, which I don't.  These references would near guarantee the article would pass WP:V (3rd party, reliable). Another thing to notice is that the language is copied near-verbatim from the ARDMS website.  This practically guarantees that the prose will read like an advertisement, besides raising copyright issues.  This is the reason the article was picked up for deletion due to the WP:OSTRICH syndrome.  Therefore, it needs to be rewritten (as I started doing).  Additonally, the tags at the top that I placed were to help prevent premature deletion, and get attention to the article so that it can be improved.  I'm puzzled as to why you deleted them. It seems to me they would help you get this article up to standard (and avoid yet another nomination for deletion by an WP:OSTRICH). Again, thanks for pitching in to Wikipedia ! Congenially, Plvekamp (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Unspecified source/license for Image:Head-3D.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Head-3D.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like PD-self (to release all rights), (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:
 * Image use policy
 * Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Media copyright questions. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot (Talk • Contribs • Owner) 23:26, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Edits on heart page
Hello DuBose - some of the differences in your recent edits on the heart page would be helpful improvements. But I would like to say that some of us have been working quite hard to make a readable and comprehensive article for some time now. A lot of this work has been trying to trim the article which was overly long - then you (who have not been involved for some years) suddenly make blanket changes reintroducing material and bulking out the content more. It makes it very hard to edit collaboratively with such 'blanket' edits and makes for a lot of work in trying to sift through the changes. As I said some of your points would be very welcome but not all of them - and in order to find consensus and carry on improving the article can I suggest that you put forward a few edits at a time and see if they are generally accepted. An edit made needs to have some sort of explanation. Thank you --Iztwoz (talk) 11:09, 21 September 2015 (UTC)