User talk:Huhiop

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine WikiProject!


Welcome to Wikipedia from WikiProject Medicine (also known as WPMED). We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:


 * Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
 * Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically require recent secondary sources to support information; their application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
 * The Wikipedia community includes a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, revert, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss them on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:20, 22 May 2020 (UTC)

Copying licensed material requires attribution
Hi. I see in a recent addition to Chronic venous insufficiency you included material from a webpage that is available under a compatible Creative Commons Licence. That's okay, but you have to give attribution so that our readers are made aware that you copied the prose rather than wrote it yourself. I've added the attribution for this particular instance. Please make sure that you follow this licensing requirement when copying from compatibly-licensed material in the future. — Diannaa (talk) 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The same problem at Multifocal atrial tachycardia. I have added the legally required attrubition.— Diannaa (talk) 20:23, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

August 2020
Hello, I'm Doug Weller. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Frontiers Media, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Hi Huhiop! I noticed that you recently marked an edit as minor that may not have been. "Minor edit" has a very specific definition on Wikipedia – it refers only to superficial edits that could never be the subject of a dispute, such as typo corrections or reverting obvious vandalism. Any edit that changes the meaning of an article is not a minor edit, even if it only concerns a single word. Please see Help:Minor edit for more information. Thank you. Doug Weller talk 14:39, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Please do not remove content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did with this edit to Methysergide, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. Materialscientist (talk) 09:36, 26 August 2020 (UTC)

September 2020
Hello, I'm Usernamekiran (AWB). I noticed that in this edit to Tooth decay, 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. Thank you. — usernamekiran (talk)  22:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically
I saw your edits at Endometriosis, and I'm glad someone is trying to improve that article. I noticed your edit summary, e.g., here. Technically, neither WP:MEDRS nor any other rule requires that only peer-reviewed sources be used. Textbooks and professional reference works are good sources for most Biomedical information that aren't peer-reviewed.

If you'd like to meet some other editors who are interested in medicine-related articles, please join us at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Our new WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Month is Tonsillitis, and your help would be appreciated there, too. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

"Following"

 * 1) User talk:Huhiop It is "following conservative surgery for endometriosis" not "when" at Diff -- Memdmarti (talk) 17:22, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 2) But my purpose was not to quible over "following" or "when," it was to see if you know this "User talk" page exists so I can ask you questions. -- Memdmarti (talk) 17:55, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 3) The previous (#2) was not meant to imply that "following" or "when" are not temporarily important. Timing is important! The hormonal (E/P) pills should be delayed for a few days, weeks, or months (the delay is not well established) after surgery to avoid the increased risk of thrombophelebitis and pulmonay emboli associated with hormonal (E/P) pills and surgery. From “Yes, Your Birth Control Could Make You More Likely to Have a Blood Clot” at clevelandclinic.org, “Long-distance travel and surgery present additional short-term risk for blood clots.” -- Memdmarti (talk) 18:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Memdmarti Thanks for the edit and interest in wikipedia.Huhiop (talk) 18:26, 15 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thank you, User:Huhiop / Huhiop! I am busy for the next few days but will be back with questions regarding some of your edits at Diff One of them is one section above at User_talk:Huhiop.
 * Consider addding something basic at User:Huhiop like "My [notes/comment/communications/other] are at User talk:Huhiop " My page at User:Memdmarti started that way. One of these days, I may do something like User:Spyder212 or User:Usernamekiran. It is your page to use per User pages. Thank you, Dan -- Memdmarti (talk) 18:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

WP:Preserve
Keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind when removing stuff. If it's easy to replace with a better source, then do that. That is...unless the material shouldn't be there per the WP:Undue policy or some other rule. Here, for example, you replaced a source instead of removing everything. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:52, 16 November 2020 (UTC) Tweaked post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:00, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

No need to ping me if you reply. I can check back. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:54, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  19:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi User:Sphilbrick im sorry but I copy pasted from statpearls, the administrator Diana and others said here and there that it was ok for this source as the copyright policy was ok for wikipedia.Huhiop (talk) 20:03, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , can you point me to that advice? The site clearly states "all rights reserved". Perhaps that site has embedded an article that itself has an acceptable license but I'm not seeing the license. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:05, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure :) if you go here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK532959/ you will find the following: "Copyright © 2020, StatPearls Publishing LLC. This book is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, duplication, adaptation, distribution, and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, a link is provided to the Creative Commons license, and any changes made are indicated."
 * , Looking further I did track down this site which does appear to be license acceptably. That's rather rude of StatPearls, to put a copyright notice at the bottom of the page and not identified that almost all of the page is license differently. This is likely to happen again, if they persist in misleading notices. S Philbrick  (Talk)  20:10, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

November 2020
Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize pages by deliberately introducing incorrect information, as you did at Common cold, you may be blocked from editing. ''Please don't insert nonsense such as garlic having antiviral properties. Adhere to WP:MEDRS sources for your editing.'' Zefr (talk) 17:10, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Please read references before judging, saying garlic has antiviral properties is not nonsense and is taken directly from the MEDRS source.Huhiop (talk) 17:29, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No reliable source says that and it is ridiculous to suggest it. Read MEDRS and WP:WHYMEDRS for background about choosing high-quality sources and editing medical content. You are being disruptive across several articles by careless use of English prose and using weak sources; WP:DE. Zefr (talk) 17:34, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you now saying that the following source is not reliable : https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25386977/ ?Huhiop (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course. The article plainly states: "There is insufficient clinical trial evidence regarding the effects of garlic in preventing or treating the common cold." There is no confirmatory reliable evidence anywhere in the literature. Please stop. Zefr (talk) 17:41, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by 'Of course'? Are you confirming that a Cochrane review is not reliable ? Also about what I said you can read page 3 of the review the following: "Garlic is  alleged  to  have  antimicrobial,  antifungal  and  antiviralproperties   (Ankri   1999;      Ruddock   2005;      Weber   1992)."Huhiop (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Huhiop (talk) 17:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Also saying that "it is ridiculous to suggest it" is in itself ridiculous are you a garlic expert ?

I am, and I agree that it is ridiculous to suggest that garlic has antiviral properties. Citing 15-23 year old references that it is alleged to have antiviral properties, from the Cochrane review that concluded that no benefit demonstrated for preventing the common cold, was a bridge too far. David notMD (talk) 18:07, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Because now, age of a paper is the pledge of truth ? Huhiop (talk) 18:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Exactly the rationale for MEDRS. David notMD (talk) 18:24, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

You may be blocked from editing without further warning the next time you change genres in pages without discussion or sources, as you did at Common cold. ''You are edit warring without consensus among other editors on the talk page, WP:CON. Warning: WP:3RR.'' Zefr (talk) 18:31, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What do you mean by changing 'genres'?Huhiop (talk) 18:37, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are changing the literary genre of the common cold article by trying to include the vitamin D discussion under alternative medicine. It is used in that way as a dietary supplement. Take a break from editing that article and vitamin C - as you are edit warring and have exceeded WP:3RR. If you want to make a change to the article, get consensus among other editors on the talk page, WP:CON. Zefr (talk) 18:45, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I do not understand, what is the relation between Vitamin D being a dietary supplement and not being under alternative medicine ? As I and wikipedia articles about alternative medicine understand the concept of alternative medicine, it is something it could be anything even a dietary supplement that is not proved to work for the following diseaseHuhiop (talk) 18:49, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There's no reliable evidence that vitamin D is prescribed by alternative medicine practitioners. It is universally common in the public as a dietary supplement and is used in various high-quality clinical research, topics well-discussed in the vitamin D article. Zefr (talk) 19:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am still not convinced by the argument that an alternative medicine is all what is prescribed by medicine practitioners as it is not the definition used by Wikipedia. In all cases, I will discuss this on the talk page of 'Common cold'. Are you ok with me taking this small discussion and putting it in the talk page of 'Common cold' to see if we can get a consensus on this edit ? thanksHuhiop (talk) 19:28, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Best to state specifically on the common cold talk page what you believe is fact supported by a reliable source. Zefr (talk) 20:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Recent edit reversion
In this edit here, I reverted some information that appears to be a violation of our copyright policy.

I provided a brief summary of the problem in the edit summary, which should be visible just below my name. You can also click on the "view history" tab in the article to see the recent history of the article. This should be an edit with my name, and a parenthetical comment explaining why your edit was reverted. If that information is not sufficient to explain the situation, please ask.

I do occasionally make mistakes. We get hundreds of reports of potential copyright violations every week, and sometimes there are false positives, for a variety of reasons. (Perhaps the material was moved from another Wikipedia article, or the material was properly licensed but the license information was not obvious, or the material is in the public domain but I didn't realize it was public domain, and there can be other situations generating a report to our Copy Patrol tool that turn out not to be actual copyright violations.) If you think my edit was mistaken, please politely let me know and I will investigate. S Philbrick (Talk)  01:01, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Sphilbrick the administrator Diana and YOU said (as well as others) here (see your post 'Recent edit reversion' before this one) and there that it was ok for this source as the copyright policy was good for wikipedia. ThanksHuhiop (talk) 11:32, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , Sorry about that but this is likely to happen again as that site has been incredibly rude convention claiming it has all rights reserved, while using acceptably licensed material. Could you just add a note to your edit summary that explains that the source material is Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, and that will be assigned to copyright issue reviewers to look closely, or check with you if they don't see it. S Philbrick  (Talk)  14:17, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * User:Sphilbrick The references actually contain that information ie : "CC-BY icon.svg Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License."Huhiop (talk) 15:20, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

Multiple accounts
 You have been blocked indefinitely from editing for abusing multiple accounts. Note that multiple accounts are allowed, but not for illegitimate reasons, and any contributions made while evading blocks or bans may be reverted or deleted. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Jezebel's Ponyo bons mots 19:28, 7 January 2021 (UTC)