User talk:Immunize/Archive 1

Speckled mountain.
i created a new page,speckled mountain,about speckled mountain,a 2,906 foot mountain in western maine.however,within minutes of creation the user razimantv was attempting to edit the page.however,as i was editing the page at the same time,there was an edit conflict,and i do not no what razimantv was trying to do to the page,though i suspect he may have thought it was not notable enough for wikipedia.i feel strongly that it IS notable enough for wikipedia because it is in the caribou speckled wilderness,and is a popular dayhike.anyone agree or disagree?Immunize (talk) 16:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Autism and vaccination
While I appreciate the effort you're going to, in order to improve the encyclopedia, please bear in mind that many Wikipedia articles already have well-sourced material on the subject of vaccines and autism. For example, to Causes of autism had the edit summary "added some more information on the alleged autism-vaccine link" but most of that material is already in the article, and what material isn't already present would need to have a reliable source before it can be added. To help improve the article I suggest discussing the issue further in Talk:Causes of autism. Eubulides (talk) 22:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I understand your point of view that there was already similar information to what i added yesterday,however,i added that information to the section MMR controversy.In that section,while the results of studies that had indicated no link between the MMR and autism were included,nothing that explicitly said that the conclusion of the scientific community was that the MMR and autism were unrelated had been included,and i added that information.Immunize (talk) 16:18, 10 January 2010 (UTC)


 * You on my talk page, which I assume is about this thread. Most of the material you added was to Vaccines, not to MMR vaccine, and this new material was redundant and unsourced. The point that a link has been rejected could better be handled by moving MMR vaccine and Mercury so that they're subsections of Vaccines, so I'll do that. Eubulides (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Are you User:Hikethewhites ?
I'm curious because you're both new, have a similar writing style, and edit the same types of articles. It's generally discouraged to have two accounts on Wikipedia unless you declare both of them on your userpage or have a particular need to keep on private (such as editing controversial articles). -- Soap Talk/Contributions 22:49, 9 January 2010 (UTC) I am User hikethewhites.i blanked my user and talk pages because i was concerned that someone else may have used my account.(i created my account at a public use computer, briefly left without logging out,and when i returned,found that someone had changed my user page.I will not ever log into Wikipedia as hikethewhites again Immunize (talk) 22:56, 9 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for clearing that up. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 23:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, but when you add content (particularly if you change facts and figures), as you have to the article Brain metastases, please cite a reliable source for the content you're adding or changing. This helps maintain our policy of verifiability. Take a look at Citing sources for information about how to cite sources and the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. PDCook (talk) 14:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Manual of Style
I fixed a lot of grammar/capitalization/punctuation errors in the Brain metastases article. You might consider reviewing WP:MOS. Regards, PDCook (talk) 15:51, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Userboxes
Hey, I just deleted the userboxes on the top of your talk page. If people wanted to see them, they can look at your talk page.

Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! I'm surprised nobody has officially "welcomed" you with a template!

(I read somewhere a comment about how you disagree with the connection between gluten and autism. I am a self-advocate on the autistic spectrum, and I agree.) --I dream of horses @  00:47, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I have commented on wikipedia about how I disagree with the theory that autism and gluten are somehow related,and that I do not feel that it is at all useful to restrict gluten from an autistic persons diet,as there has never been any scientific evidence supporting this treatment.Immunize (talk) 16:38, 13 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason why you reinserted the temp? I don't see any new messages for me, and it says right there that I can remove it at any time (which is just explicitly stating the user talk page rule of "If they removed it, they read it").
 * My preemptive apologies if you DID leave a new message and I just haven't found it yet. --I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a message on my talk page. @  00:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

The new message for you is above where you posted your reply.Regards.Immunize (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Types of lymphoma
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Types of lymphoma. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Lymphoma. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Lymphoma - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  IShadowed  ✰  00:49, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Message for you
PDCook (talk) 01:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

More unsourced additions
These additions    that you made were unreferenced. It is inappropriate to add information without citing sources. Also please be sure to proofread your additions, especially in terms of punctuation and capitalization. Perhaps you should take a break from editing articles and read up on citing sources and the manual of style as I've indicated. PDCook (talk) 04:32, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, reduces edit conflicts, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. Thank you. PDCook (talk) 16:29, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

Again with the unreferenced articles
Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Be aware that many people read WP to get medical information (they shouldn't), so it it VITAL that every medical article is properly referenced. Please stop adding unreferenced material. PDCook (talk) 15:03, 14 January 2010 (UTC) the information came from emedicine neurology.Most of my medical information that I add to wikipedia is obtained from emedicine,as I feel that is the most relible source of medical information on the web.i have tried to cite the reference by adding the ref tag followed by but if failed.Immunize (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Go here to find the citation templates, in particular, the Template:Cite web template. Copy and paste it into the article between the tags and fill in the information. This is all explained in the WP:Citing sources article, which I highly recommend you read. Also, if you are going to leave messages on my talk page, please leave new ones at the bottom or indent with a : into an existing thread. Don't leave them at the top. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 15:25, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Help with dermatology-related content
I am looking for more help at the dermatology task force, particularly with our Bolognia push!? Perhaps you would you be able to help us? I could send you the login information for the Bolognia push if you are interested? ---kilbad (talk) 21:15, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

I do know some about cutaneous diseases,so I might be of some use to you.However,i am still quite a novice on wikipedia,so I am concerned I might not be experienced enough.However,I will consider.Regards.Immunize (talk) 23:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, if you enable your e-mail, I could send you the Bolognia login information. ---kilbad (talk) 00:11, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not feel safe giving away my email on wikipedia.Is there any other way I could learn of the password?Immunize (talk) 00:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The email address you supply on wikipedia is not visible to other editors as long as you don't tick the third box in that section of your preferences (E-mail options). Alternatively, if you still feel insecure, you can easily make a 'throw-away' email account with Google Mail, for example. When a editor sends an email via wikipedia, it is done by filling in a form – the server creates the actual email and uses the address you specified, so the editor never sees your email address. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 17:40, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

So,is giving out my email the only way to get the password for this dermatology project? Immunize (talk) 20:35, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Just make a Google Mail account and abandon it afterwards if you feel security may be an issue. As I said, nobody sees the email you supply to wikipedia anyway. --RexxS (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, any new thoughts on enabling e-mail? I would love to get you this login information, and your help improving the WP:DERM:MA project. ---kilbad (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages
Please review Help:Moving a page. I had to re-move Metastatic breast cancer, because you improperly capitialized it. Be sure you're checking for double redirects too. PDCook (talk) 16:14, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Your move of the Buzz haircut article has created multiple double redirects. Please read and understand the Help:Moving a page article before you move anymore pages. PDCook (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I moved Buzz haircut back to Buzz cut to avoid the double redirects. "Buzz cut" is a common term anyways, so it's not an unreasonable title. Please understand that moving pages has major consequences. PDCook (talk) 16:21, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize. Immunize (talk) 15:48, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
You should review WP:CSD before you tag any articles for speedy deletion as you did here. Speedy deletion has very specific criteria. If you do not believe an article is notable, WP:Proposed deletion or WP:AfD are more appropriate avenues. PDCook (talk) 16:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize.I thought that lack of notability was grounds for speedy deletion.Immunize (talk) 20:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

perhaps i should stop editing wikipedia,at least for a time,until i can improve my editing skills.Do you think this is agood idea?Immunize (talk) 20:45, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. There's nothing you can do that can't be undone, and the way to improve your editing skills is by practice and taking advice. As long as you're willing to accept constructive criticism, and learn accordingly, there's no reason not to edit wikipedia. --RexxS (talk) 21:03, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay,i suppose.As long as wikipedia even want's my edits.Immunize (talk) 21:08, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I would recommend reading up on guidelines and asking more questions before doing something you're unfamiliar with. You probably bit off more than you could chew when you moved those articles and nominated the one for speedy deletion. It still looks like you're having trouble citing sources, so please get that figured out. PDCook (talk) 21:15, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Your probably right.I only have a week of experience on wikipedia under my belt,and already i am trying to move aticles and nominate one for speedy deletion.Regards.Immunize (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * So, will you consider turning e-mail on? ---kilbad (talk) 18:59, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on references
Hi there, thanks for adding references such as this, where you link to a specific source that deals with the topic of the Wikipedia article. I've tweaked this a bit more to add a title and fix the link (see diff). This is a great improvement of other references you've added such as this which just points to "www.emedicine.net", so a reader clicking on that link will not be taken to an article that verifies the information in the Wikipedia article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Immunize (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, feel free to drop me a note if I can help with anything else. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to format the first four references on Metastatic breast cancer, so you can get an idea of how you might use citation templates to help your referencing. Don't worry too much if it takes a while, because more experienced editors will eventually sort problems. Tim is a very experienced and well-respected editor, so don't be frightened to ask for help if you need it. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Well-respected"? Cool, that and five dollars will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks! :) I use this tool to make my life easier. If you're citing a book just paste in the ISBN number, if you're using a PubMed article just use the PubMed ID number and if you're using a website just paste in the URL. It formats everything for you, saves a lot of time. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things you might find helpful
First, thanks Tim and Rexx for helping. Immunize, I've created a subpage where you can do test edits: User:Immunize/Sandbox. This way, you can try out the templates and edit/refine your contributions. When they're ready, you can copy and paste them into whichever article you're working on. Also, the "show preview" button is very helpful. I use it all the time! PDCook (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC) thank you. I have never been able to find the wikipedia sandbox.This link wikipedia sandbox is not very helpful,and when I was an anon editor i could not access the sandbox at all.Thanks for adding that to my user page.Regards.Immunize (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it helps. Actually, most of the major edits I make and new articles I create started off as a draft in my userspace. If you want me to review a userspace draft of yours before you put it in the articlespace, let me know and I'd be happy to look it over. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

treatment of glioblastoma multiforme's talk page deleted.
the article,treatment of glioblastoma multiforme,which I created,has had it's talk page deleted by .Please explain what your motive behind deleting this talk page was.Immunize (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From his edit summary, I think he thought you wanted this deleted when you blanked the page (removed the oncology tag). I've created it again and assessed the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why,despite your assessment of the article,thisis still at the top of the article treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.Immunize (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've assessed its completeness and level of referencing, however I haven't checked its accuracy. (I'm not an expert in cancer therapy.) I'll ask User:MastCell if he could look it over. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,that will be much appreciated.How soon can this be done? Immunize (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talkpage. I've also copy-edited the article a little and given some suggestions on the article talkpage. It reads quite well, the main way you could improve it further is by adding references to the papers you discuss in the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an confirmation on the deletion - as you blanked the talk page, I took that as an implicit WP:G7 deletion. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Treatment of rheumatic fever
A tag has been placed on Treatment of rheumatic fever requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a        Immunize, we recognize that you are trying to make good contributions, and we do want you to stay. We use those notices (like the one above) just to tell a user that they made a mistake, not to yell at them. I understand that you are relatively new here and that you're probably a bit confused as to what our standards are. I would recommend getting a Wikipedia Adopter (a more experienced user who can help you out). I had a very good experience in the adoption program when I was new, so I strongly suggest you read up on it here. IShadowed ✰  20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This information was copied and pasted from www.emedicine.com.Does this represent a copyright infringement.If it does,the article clearly should be deleted.I personally was unaware that pasting information from a website was a copyright infringement,but if it is,i support your decision to speedily delete the article.Immunize (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information on that site is copyrighted, but not to worry, I'm sure the copy was made in good faith. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize.First i can't cite references and now I violated a copyright-maybe i am just not made out to be a wikipedian.Do you think so? Also,i did copy and paste information onto the article adjuvant cancer therapy from medscape.com yesterday.what should be done about this.I cited medscape as the source of the information and provided a link to the page in question.The sections copied from medscape are neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in cervical cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in gastric and esophageal cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in lung cancer,and neoadjuvant therapy in head and neck cancer.What should i do.Immunize (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should remove the copyrighted material immediately (or a bot or someone might flag it and it might also be nominated for speedy deletion). Then rewrite the sections in your own words when you can, and add them back in. PDCook (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I also copied and pasted some information from medscape.com on bevacizumab in my new article treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.although most of the page is in my own words.All but the bottom paragraph of the bevacizumab section is copied from medscape.I will remove this information as well,and will probably try to rewrite the article in my own words.Immunize (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the best thing to do. PDCook (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should i retire from editing or take a wikibreak because of what has happened?Immunize (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just clean it up and proceed as you were. We all make mistakes after all. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the talkback you left. I agree with PDCook and TimVickers: please consider re-writing the article in your own words, as you sound like someone who works in that field, so your contributions would be most welcome. Please ask me on my talk page if you'd like any help with this, I'd be most happy to give a hand. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Treatment of pancreatic cancer
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Treatment of pancreatic cancer. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - pancreatic cancer. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at pancreatic cancer - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  IShadowed  ✰  20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contested the deletion of treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer by putting this tag underneath the speedy deletion template.However,I am thinking about ending my wikipedia editing for good,as my edits and new pages are deleted,and no one seems to think i make worthwhile contributions to the encyclopedia.Immunize (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Immunize, we recognize that you are trying to make good contributions, and we do want you to stay. We use those notices (like the one above) just to tell a user that they made a mistake, not to yell at them. I understand that you are relatively new here and that you're probably a bit confused as to what our standards are. I would recommend getting a Wikipedia Adopter (a more experienced user who can help you out). I had a very good experience in the adoption program when I was new, so I strongly suggest you read up on it here.  IShadowed  ✰  20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of my message was only to disscuss the what was going to happen to the page treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer,which I have further expanded to include a section on the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer .Immunize (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That page will have to be deleted as you have not put the source you are copying into your own words eg

Medscape "Patients who will most likely benefit from this procedure have a tumor located in the head of the pancreas or the periampullary region."

Your version - "Patients most likely to benefit from the whipple procedure are those with a tumor in the head of the pancreas or in the periampullary region"

Medscape - "In patients with metastatic disease, the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib has led to a significantly higher median survival and 1-year survival than the use of gemcitabine alone."

Your version - "In patients with metastatic disease,the combination of gemzar and tarceva has led to significantly higher median and one year survival than delivered by gemzar alone.".


 * Our copyright policy has been explained to you before, so I'm surprised and disappointed that the same problem has happened again. Just changing a few words in each sentence is not enough. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Please try to space properly after punctuation when editing in mainspace, so that our articles can conform to WP:MOS guidelines. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to go from here?
Although I'm sure you have good intentions, copying webpages and rewording them a little is still a copyright violation. I've deleted the ones with the most obvious problems, and have moved Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme to User:Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. If you still wish to contribute you can rewrite this entirely, so that no recognizable trace of the original remains. This can then be moved back to where it was. I will then un-delete the others and move them into your userspace one at a time. However, if you create one more article by copying from Medscape or Emedicine you will be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I am taking an indefinite wikibreak.I may rewrite portions of treatment of glioblastoma multiforme,but I see know reason to contiue to contribute to wikipedia.Why should I?It seems pointless to continue to contribute to an encyclopedia where all my work is reverted/deleted.I doubt I will ever return,but do not delete my user/talk page just in case.I was completely unaware that simply obtaining information from emedicine or medscape.com was a [[copyright violation.I did not copy and paste this information,i only worded the information similarly to how it was said on emedicine,a much different circumstance than what happended on the page treatment of rheumatic fever.On that page I did copy and paste information from emedicine,which I now know is a copyright violation.Immunize (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

end of my time as a wikipedian
This message is for the users ,,,,and .I am permanatly retiring from wikipedia due to the copyright violation problems and all your complaints about my edits.First,you complained i was not citing my sources (which I now am doing),then you complained about my poor grammer,and now you are complaining i am to putting copyright violations into wikipedia.So,as it is obvious you want me to retire from wikipedia or be given a lifetime ban because I am only creating more work for you to cleanup,I am leaving!Immunize (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not at all what we had intended, and we are sorry to see you go. Feel free to return at any time, but please take our advice in the spirit it was given. Good luck,  IShadowed  ✰  19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Febrile neutropenia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Febrile neutropenia, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Weight loss
Thank you for sourcing the addition you made to weight loss, but it would be helpful if you proofread your additions first. Note that the first items in lists should be capitalized, that a space should be added after every comma and period, and statements like "As stated above..." should be avoided.PDCook (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages again
Again, please be careful about moving pages as your recent page move here created double redirects. PDCook (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, a bot fixed it. That was quick. PDCook (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that my move of 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state did not create double redirects.Immunize (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Links
See Copyrights and also Plagiarism. There is also an essay with several examples at Close paraphrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Should i give up?
It seems that most of my new articles have been deleted as copyright violations,despite the fact that only 1 of the articles in question ever had information copied in pasted onto it.I do not understand,and am feeling very discouraged.Can someone please help?Immunize (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying and pasting is a simple copyright violation, however copying large pieces of text and rephrasing it slightly is also a copyright violation (it's also plagiarism). You need to write in your own words. Do you understand what the problem is here? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move
I think you might have been a little too bold when you moved the Hepatitis B article to Hepatitis B disease. You might consider discussing such moves on the articles' talk pages first. PDCook (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Apologies.I made the decision to move Hepatitis B to Hepatitis B disease to distinguish the page from the page on the hepatitis B virus.Immunize (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we all have different interpretations of what is clear and normal based on our unique backgrounds and experiences, it is usually best to discuss major changes of well-established articles first. PDCook (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PDCook (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One big article
Hi Immunize,

I see that you've created a tiny article called Treatment and prognosis goodpasture's disease. Wikipedia normally wants all treatment and prognosis information in the same article as medical signs, symptoms, diagnosis, risk factors, etc. -- which, in this case, would be Goodpasture's syndrome.

Would you please merge any information and sources out of the new stub and into the main article (assuming that this information isn't already present in the main article), and then redirect the stub? You redirect the stub by replacing the entire contents of the stub with

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass moving
Hello. I noticed you moved many articles about the 2009 pandemic into the name 2009-2010 flu pandemic. Do you have any basis for this? As a convention, Wikipedia prefer the name "2009 flu pandemic", because the flu started by 2009. Not because it continues until 2010, it is valid for becoming on the name 2009-2010, eh? Would you please cite any consensus? (This is a mass moving of articles watched by many users and among heavily read.-- JL 09 q?c 14:09, 30 January 2010 (UTC) I felt that,given that the pandemic is continuing into 2010,it was most appropriate to rename these articles to be consisitent with date.Please feel free to post any feedback or questions on my talk page.Immunize (talk) 14:22, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is true that that is still a continuing disease. Another user recently moved many of the articles regarding the continents last weeks ago, also with the same name and same reason. A closing admin on Talk:2009 flu pandemic in Europe (you may look at it) said that it must be moved back to its old name because the disease only started in 2010. For me, it is redundant to call if 2009-2010. If it goes until, say, 2014, another rename every year? Also, naming 2009-2010 shows redundancy, Wikipedia articles about diseases aren't named like that. Look for the Spanish flu for example. I noticed many notifications about you.. about page moving.. Again these are well-established articles, and you must seek everybody's opinion (consensus, for example) when moving this article. Is there any consensus or agreement?-- JL 09 q?c 14:30, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I have not disscussed the matter on the talk pages of the articles that I moved,as I thought it was to minor an edit to require discussion.Immunize (talk) 14:32, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are well-established articles. Since there is no discussion, I will revert all of them back. Next time, try to seek agreements when mass moving. If they are valid to be named as such, they must be moved by early this year. But the convention goes, and since there is no consensus, the moves are invalid.-- JL 09 q?c 14:36, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize.Perhaps I am just a poor editor.Immunize (talk) 14:39, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on references
Hi there, thanks for adding references such as this, where you link to a specific source that deals with the topic of the Wikipedia article. I've tweaked this a bit more to add a title and fix the link (see diff). This is a great improvement of other references you've added such as this which just points to "www.emedicine.net", so a reader clicking on that link will not be taken to an article that verifies the information in the Wikipedia article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Immunize (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, feel free to drop me a note if I can help with anything else. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to format the first four references on Metastatic breast cancer, so you can get an idea of how you might use citation templates to help your referencing. Don't worry too much if it takes a while, because more experienced editors will eventually sort problems. Tim is a very experienced and well-respected editor, so don't be frightened to ask for help if you need it. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Well-respected"? Cool, that and five dollars will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks! :) I use this tool to make my life easier. If you're citing a book just paste in the ISBN number, if you're using a PubMed article just use the PubMed ID number and if you're using a website just paste in the URL. It formats everything for you, saves a lot of time. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things you might find helpful
First, thanks Tim and Rexx for helping. Immunize, I've created a subpage where you can do test edits: User:Immunize/Sandbox. This way, you can try out the templates and edit/refine your contributions. When they're ready, you can copy and paste them into whichever article you're working on. Also, the "show preview" button is very helpful. I use it all the time! PDCook (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC) thank you. I have never been able to find the wikipedia sandbox.This link wikipedia sandbox is not very helpful,and when I was an anon editor i could not access the sandbox at all.Thanks for adding that to my user page.Regards.Immunize (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it helps. Actually, most of the major edits I make and new articles I create started off as a draft in my userspace. If you want me to review a userspace draft of yours before you put it in the articlespace, let me know and I'd be happy to look it over. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

treatment of glioblastoma multiforme's talk page deleted.
the article,treatment of glioblastoma multiforme,which I created,has had it's talk page deleted by .Please explain what your motive behind deleting this talk page was.Immunize (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From his edit summary, I think he thought you wanted this deleted when you blanked the page (removed the oncology tag). I've created it again and assessed the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why,despite your assessment of the article,thisis still at the top of the article treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.Immunize (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've assessed its completeness and level of referencing, however I haven't checked its accuracy. (I'm not an expert in cancer therapy.) I'll ask User:MastCell if he could look it over. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,that will be much appreciated.How soon can this be done? Immunize (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talkpage. I've also copy-edited the article a little and given some suggestions on the article talkpage. It reads quite well, the main way you could improve it further is by adding references to the papers you discuss in the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an confirmation on the deletion - as you blanked the talk page, I took that as an implicit WP:G7 deletion. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Treatment of rheumatic fever
A tag has been placed on Treatment of rheumatic fever requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a        Immunize, we recognize that you are trying to make good contributions, and we do want you to stay. We use those notices (like the one above) just to tell a user that they made a mistake, not to yell at them. I understand that you are relatively new here and that you're probably a bit confused as to what our standards are. I would recommend getting a Wikipedia Adopter (a more experienced user who can help you out). I had a very good experience in the adoption program when I was new, so I strongly suggest you read up on it here. IShadowed ✰  20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This information was copied and pasted from www.emedicine.com.Does this represent a copyright infringement.If it does,the article clearly should be deleted.I personally was unaware that pasting information from a website was a copyright infringement,but if it is,i support your decision to speedily delete the article.Immunize (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information on that site is copyrighted, but not to worry, I'm sure the copy was made in good faith. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize.First i can't cite references and now I violated a copyright-maybe i am just not made out to be a wikipedian.Do you think so? Also,i did copy and paste information onto the article adjuvant cancer therapy from medscape.com yesterday.what should be done about this.I cited medscape as the source of the information and provided a link to the page in question.The sections copied from medscape are neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in cervical cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in gastric and esophageal cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in lung cancer,and neoadjuvant therapy in head and neck cancer.What should i do.Immunize (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should remove the copyrighted material immediately (or a bot or someone might flag it and it might also be nominated for speedy deletion). Then rewrite the sections in your own words when you can, and add them back in. PDCook (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I also copied and pasted some information from medscape.com on bevacizumab in my new article treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.although most of the page is in my own words.All but the bottom paragraph of the bevacizumab section is copied from medscape.I will remove this information as well,and will probably try to rewrite the article in my own words.Immunize (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the best thing to do. PDCook (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should i retire from editing or take a wikibreak because of what has happened?Immunize (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just clean it up and proceed as you were. We all make mistakes after all. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the talkback you left. I agree with PDCook and TimVickers: please consider re-writing the article in your own words, as you sound like someone who works in that field, so your contributions would be most welcome. Please ask me on my talk page if you'd like any help with this, I'd be most happy to give a hand. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Treatment of pancreatic cancer
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Treatment of pancreatic cancer. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - pancreatic cancer. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at pancreatic cancer - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  IShadowed  ✰  20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contested the deletion of treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer by putting this tag underneath the speedy deletion template.However,I am thinking about ending my wikipedia editing for good,as my edits and new pages are deleted,and no one seems to think i make worthwhile contributions to the encyclopedia.Immunize (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Immunize, we recognize that you are trying to make good contributions, and we do want you to stay. We use those notices (like the one above) just to tell a user that they made a mistake, not to yell at them. I understand that you are relatively new here and that you're probably a bit confused as to what our standards are. I would recommend getting a Wikipedia Adopter (a more experienced user who can help you out). I had a very good experience in the adoption program when I was new, so I strongly suggest you read up on it here.  IShadowed  ✰  20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of my message was only to disscuss the what was going to happen to the page treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer,which I have further expanded to include a section on the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer .Immunize (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That page will have to be deleted as you have not put the source you are copying into your own words eg

Medscape "Patients who will most likely benefit from this procedure have a tumor located in the head of the pancreas or the periampullary region."

Your version - "Patients most likely to benefit from the whipple procedure are those with a tumor in the head of the pancreas or in the periampullary region"

Medscape - "In patients with metastatic disease, the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib has led to a significantly higher median survival and 1-year survival than the use of gemcitabine alone."

Your version - "In patients with metastatic disease,the combination of gemzar and tarceva has led to significantly higher median and one year survival than delivered by gemzar alone.".


 * Our copyright policy has been explained to you before, so I'm surprised and disappointed that the same problem has happened again. Just changing a few words in each sentence is not enough. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Please try to space properly after punctuation when editing in mainspace, so that our articles can conform to WP:MOS guidelines. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to go from here?
Although I'm sure you have good intentions, copying webpages and rewording them a little is still a copyright violation. I've deleted the ones with the most obvious problems, and have moved Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme to User:Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. If you still wish to contribute you can rewrite this entirely, so that no recognizable trace of the original remains. This can then be moved back to where it was. I will then un-delete the others and move them into your userspace one at a time. However, if you create one more article by copying from Medscape or Emedicine you will be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I am taking an indefinite wikibreak.I may rewrite portions of treatment of glioblastoma multiforme,but I see know reason to contiue to contribute to wikipedia.Why should I?It seems pointless to continue to contribute to an encyclopedia where all my work is reverted/deleted.I doubt I will ever return,but do not delete my user/talk page just in case.I was completely unaware that simply obtaining information from emedicine or medscape.com was a [[copyright violation.I did not copy and paste this information,i only worded the information similarly to how it was said on emedicine,a much different circumstance than what happended on the page treatment of rheumatic fever.On that page I did copy and paste information from emedicine,which I now know is a copyright violation.Immunize (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

end of my time as a wikipedian
This message is for the users ,,,,and .I am permanatly retiring from wikipedia due to the copyright violation problems and all your complaints about my edits.First,you complained i was not citing my sources (which I now am doing),then you complained about my poor grammer,and now you are complaining i am to putting copyright violations into wikipedia.So,as it is obvious you want me to retire from wikipedia or be given a lifetime ban because I am only creating more work for you to cleanup,I am leaving!Immunize (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not at all what we had intended, and we are sorry to see you go. Feel free to return at any time, but please take our advice in the spirit it was given. Good luck,  IShadowed  ✰  19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Febrile neutropenia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Febrile neutropenia, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages again
Again, please be careful about moving pages as your recent page move here created double redirects. PDCook (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, a bot fixed it. That was quick. PDCook (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that my move of 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state did not create double redirects.Immunize (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Links
See Copyrights and also Plagiarism. There is also an essay with several examples at Close paraphrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Should i give up?
It seems that most of my new articles have been deleted as copyright violations,despite the fact that only 1 of the articles in question ever had information copied in pasted onto it.I do not understand,and am feeling very discouraged.Can someone please help?Immunize (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying and pasting is a simple copyright violation, however copying large pieces of text and rephrasing it slightly is also a copyright violation (it's also plagiarism). You need to write in your own words. Do you understand what the problem is here? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move
I think you might have been a little too bold when you moved the Hepatitis B article to Hepatitis B disease. You might consider discussing such moves on the articles' talk pages first. PDCook (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Apologies.I made the decision to move Hepatitis B to Hepatitis B disease to distinguish the page from the page on the hepatitis B virus.Immunize (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we all have different interpretations of what is clear and normal based on our unique backgrounds and experiences, it is usually best to discuss major changes of well-established articles first. PDCook (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PDCook (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One big article
Hi Immunize,

I see that you've created a tiny article called Treatment and prognosis goodpasture's disease. Wikipedia normally wants all treatment and prognosis information in the same article as medical signs, symptoms, diagnosis, risk factors, etc. -- which, in this case, would be Goodpasture's syndrome.

Would you please merge any information and sources out of the new stub and into the main article (assuming that this information isn't already present in the main article), and then redirect the stub? You redirect the stub by replacing the entire contents of the stub with

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Feedback on references
Hi there, thanks for adding references such as this, where you link to a specific source that deals with the topic of the Wikipedia article. I've tweaked this a bit more to add a title and fix the link (see diff). This is a great improvement of other references you've added such as this which just points to "www.emedicine.net", so a reader clicking on that link will not be taken to an article that verifies the information in the Wikipedia article. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you.Immunize (talk) 21:47, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No problem, feel free to drop me a note if I can help with anything else. Tim Vickers (talk) 21:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I've done my best to format the first four references on Metastatic breast cancer, so you can get an idea of how you might use citation templates to help your referencing. Don't worry too much if it takes a while, because more experienced editors will eventually sort problems. Tim is a very experienced and well-respected editor, so don't be frightened to ask for help if you need it. --RexxS (talk) 22:22, 15 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "Well-respected"? Cool, that and five dollars will get me a cup of coffee at Starbucks! :) I use this tool to make my life easier. If you're citing a book just paste in the ISBN number, if you're using a PubMed article just use the PubMed ID number and if you're using a website just paste in the URL. It formats everything for you, saves a lot of time. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:32, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

A couple of things you might find helpful
First, thanks Tim and Rexx for helping. Immunize, I've created a subpage where you can do test edits: User:Immunize/Sandbox. This way, you can try out the templates and edit/refine your contributions. When they're ready, you can copy and paste them into whichever article you're working on. Also, the "show preview" button is very helpful. I use it all the time! PDCook (talk) 22:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC) thank you. I have never been able to find the wikipedia sandbox.This link wikipedia sandbox is not very helpful,and when I was an anon editor i could not access the sandbox at all.Thanks for adding that to my user page.Regards.Immunize (talk) 14:15, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I hope it helps. Actually, most of the major edits I make and new articles I create started off as a draft in my userspace. If you want me to review a userspace draft of yours before you put it in the articlespace, let me know and I'd be happy to look it over. Regards, PDCook (talk) 14:41, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

treatment of glioblastoma multiforme's talk page deleted.
the article,treatment of glioblastoma multiforme,which I created,has had it's talk page deleted by .Please explain what your motive behind deleting this talk page was.Immunize (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * From his edit summary, I think he thought you wanted this deleted when you blanked the page (removed the oncology tag). I've created it again and assessed the article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:54, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

I do not understand why,despite your assessment of the article,thisis still at the top of the article treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.Immunize (talk) 18:03, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've assessed its completeness and level of referencing, however I haven't checked its accuracy. (I'm not an expert in cancer therapy.) I'll ask User:MastCell if he could look it over. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:18, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you,that will be much appreciated.How soon can this be done? Immunize (talk) 18:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I've left a note on his talkpage. I've also copy-edited the article a little and given some suggestions on the article talkpage. It reads quite well, the main way you could improve it further is by adding references to the papers you discuss in the text. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just an confirmation on the deletion - as you blanked the talk page, I took that as an implicit WP:G7 deletion. Skier Dude  ( talk ) 03:48, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Treatment of rheumatic fever
A tag has been placed on Treatment of rheumatic fever requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a        Immunize, we recognize that you are trying to make good contributions, and we do want you to stay. We use those notices (like the one above) just to tell a user that they made a mistake, not to yell at them. I understand that you are relatively new here and that you're probably a bit confused as to what our standards are. I would recommend getting a Wikipedia Adopter (a more experienced user who can help you out). I had a very good experience in the adoption program when I was new, so I strongly suggest you read up on it here. IShadowed ✰  20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

[edit] source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. MuffledThud (talk) 19:12, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

This information was copied and pasted from www.emedicine.com.Does this represent a copyright infringement.If it does,the article clearly should be deleted.I personally was unaware that pasting information from a website was a copyright infringement,but if it is,i support your decision to speedily delete the article.Immunize (talk) 19:18, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, the information on that site is copyrighted, but not to worry, I'm sure the copy was made in good faith. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 19:24, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I apologize.First i can't cite references and now I violated a copyright-maybe i am just not made out to be a wikipedian.Do you think so? Also,i did copy and paste information onto the article adjuvant cancer therapy from medscape.com yesterday.what should be done about this.I cited medscape as the source of the information and provided a link to the page in question.The sections copied from medscape are neoadjuvant chemotherapy in rectal cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in cervical cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in gastric and esophageal cancer,neoadjuvant therapy in lung cancer,and neoadjuvant therapy in head and neck cancer.What should i do.Immunize (talk) 19:58, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should remove the copyrighted material immediately (or a bot or someone might flag it and it might also be nominated for speedy deletion). Then rewrite the sections in your own words when you can, and add them back in. PDCook (talk) 20:31, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

I also copied and pasted some information from medscape.com on bevacizumab in my new article treatment of glioblastoma multiforme.although most of the page is in my own words.All but the bottom paragraph of the bevacizumab section is copied from medscape.I will remove this information as well,and will probably try to rewrite the article in my own words.Immunize (talk) 20:37, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be the best thing to do. PDCook (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Should i retire from editing or take a wikibreak because of what has happened?Immunize (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just clean it up and proceed as you were. We all make mistakes after all. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:14, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the talkback you left. I agree with PDCook and TimVickers: please consider re-writing the article in your own words, as you sound like someone who works in that field, so your contributions would be most welcome. Please ask me on my talk page if you'd like any help with this, I'd be most happy to give a hand. Thanks, MuffledThud (talk) 09:06, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Treatment of pancreatic cancer
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Treatment of pancreatic cancer. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - pancreatic cancer. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at pancreatic cancer - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  IShadowed  ✰  20:20, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I have contested the deletion of treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer by putting this tag underneath the speedy deletion template.However,I am thinking about ending my wikipedia editing for good,as my edits and new pages are deleted,and no one seems to think i make worthwhile contributions to the encyclopedia.Immunize (talk) 20:39, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Immunize, we recognize that you are trying to make good contributions, and we do want you to stay. We use those notices (like the one above) just to tell a user that they made a mistake, not to yell at them. I understand that you are relatively new here and that you're probably a bit confused as to what our standards are. I would recommend getting a Wikipedia Adopter (a more experienced user who can help you out). I had a very good experience in the adoption program when I was new, so I strongly suggest you read up on it here.  IShadowed  ✰  20:45, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

The purpose of my message was only to disscuss the what was going to happen to the page treatment and prognosis of pancreatic cancer,which I have further expanded to include a section on the surgical treatment of pancreatic cancer .Immunize (talk) 20:50, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That page will have to be deleted as you have not put the source you are copying into your own words eg

Medscape "Patients who will most likely benefit from this procedure have a tumor located in the head of the pancreas or the periampullary region."

Your version - "Patients most likely to benefit from the whipple procedure are those with a tumor in the head of the pancreas or in the periampullary region"

Medscape - "In patients with metastatic disease, the combination of gemcitabine and erlotinib has led to a significantly higher median survival and 1-year survival than the use of gemcitabine alone."

Your version - "In patients with metastatic disease,the combination of gemzar and tarceva has led to significantly higher median and one year survival than delivered by gemzar alone.".


 * Our copyright policy has been explained to you before, so I'm surprised and disappointed that the same problem has happened again. Just changing a few words in each sentence is not enough. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

WP:MOS
Please try to space properly after punctuation when editing in mainspace, so that our articles can conform to WP:MOS guidelines. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 20:44, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Where to go from here?
Although I'm sure you have good intentions, copying webpages and rewording them a little is still a copyright violation. I've deleted the ones with the most obvious problems, and have moved Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme to User:Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. If you still wish to contribute you can rewrite this entirely, so that no recognizable trace of the original remains. This can then be moved back to where it was. I will then un-delete the others and move them into your userspace one at a time. However, if you create one more article by copying from Medscape or Emedicine you will be blocked from editing. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:29, 22 January 2010 (UTC) I am taking an indefinite wikibreak.I may rewrite portions of treatment of glioblastoma multiforme,but I see know reason to contiue to contribute to wikipedia.Why should I?It seems pointless to continue to contribute to an encyclopedia where all my work is reverted/deleted.I doubt I will ever return,but do not delete my user/talk page just in case.I was completely unaware that simply obtaining information from emedicine or medscape.com was a [[copyright violation.I did not copy and paste this information,i only worded the information similarly to how it was said on emedicine,a much different circumstance than what happended on the page treatment of rheumatic fever.On that page I did copy and paste information from emedicine,which I now know is a copyright violation.Immunize (talk) 14:32, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

end of my time as a wikipedian
This message is for the users ,,,,and .I am permanatly retiring from wikipedia due to the copyright violation problems and all your complaints about my edits.First,you complained i was not citing my sources (which I now am doing),then you complained about my poor grammer,and now you are complaining i am to putting copyright violations into wikipedia.So,as it is obvious you want me to retire from wikipedia or be given a lifetime ban because I am only creating more work for you to cleanup,I am leaving!Immunize (talk) 14:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * This was not at all what we had intended, and we are sorry to see you go. Feel free to return at any time, but please take our advice in the spirit it was given. Good luck,  IShadowed  ✰  19:37, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Febrile neutropenia
An article that you have been involved in editing, Febrile neutropenia, has been proposed for a merge with another article. If you are interested in the merge discussion, please participate by going, and adding your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. Spiral5800 (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Weight loss
Thank you for sourcing the addition you made to weight loss, but it would be helpful if you proofread your additions first. Note that the first items in lists should be capitalized, that a space should be added after every comma and period, and statements like "As stated above..." should be avoided.PDCook (talk) 21:49, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Moving pages again
Again, please be careful about moving pages as your recent page move here created double redirects. PDCook (talk) 21:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
 * No worries, a bot fixed it. That was quick. PDCook (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope that my move of 2009 flu pandemic in the United States by state did not create double redirects.Immunize (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Links
See Copyrights and also Plagiarism. There is also an essay with several examples at Close paraphrasing. Tim Vickers (talk) 00:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Should i give up?
It seems that most of my new articles have been deleted as copyright violations,despite the fact that only 1 of the articles in question ever had information copied in pasted onto it.I do not understand,and am feeling very discouraged.Can someone please help?Immunize (talk) 00:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Copying and pasting is a simple copyright violation, however copying large pieces of text and rephrasing it slightly is also a copyright violation (it's also plagiarism). You need to write in your own words. Do you understand what the problem is here? Tim Vickers (talk) 00:39, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Page move
I think you might have been a little too bold when you moved the Hepatitis B article to Hepatitis B disease. You might consider discussing such moves on the articles' talk pages first. PDCook (talk) 19:04, 28 January 2010 (UTC) Apologies.I made the decision to move Hepatitis B to Hepatitis B disease to distinguish the page from the page on the hepatitis B virus.Immunize (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because we all have different interpretations of what is clear and normal based on our unique backgrounds and experiences, it is usually best to discuss major changes of well-established articles first. PDCook (talk) 19:58, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
PDCook (talk) 17:44, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

One big article
Hi Immunize,

I see that you've created a tiny article called Treatment and prognosis goodpasture's disease. Wikipedia normally wants all treatment and prognosis information in the same article as medical signs, symptoms, diagnosis, risk factors, etc. -- which, in this case, would be Goodpasture's syndrome.

Would you please merge any information and sources out of the new stub and into the main article (assuming that this information isn't already present in the main article), and then redirect the stub? You redirect the stub by replacing the entire contents of the stub with

Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:33, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Mass moving

 * Immunize, I too am worried that you seem to be oblivious to the problems

you are causing. Your ill-thought out page moves, neglecting to adhere to Wikipedia policies including adding unreferenced or poorly referenced content are all damage. I suggest you re-read all your Talk Page above to remind yourself of the problems that you have created. Although I sincerely admire your enthusiasm, I can confirm that if you continue to add unreferenced or incorrectly referenced content and continue to move pages without prior consensus, I will be block you from editing for long enough for you read our policies and reflect on your mistakes. I see you would like to be a Wikipedia administrator in the future. This will never be possible until you gain the trust of the wider community, at the moment you enjoy very little trust. I concur fully with Pdcook you must discuss first, act upon consensus. I will continue to monitor you contributions closely. Graham Colm (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC) I still do not know what went wrong when I moved the list of central nervous system infections page. I attempted to move the page to the pleural form several times, but each time it said "unable to submit form". Can you explain this? Immunize (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Main article template - improper use
May I suggest that that is an improper use of the main article template? Generally, these should be used for heading up small sections of an article for which more detail may be found at their own article, not for categorizing a whole article or grouping it as part of some larger subject. Robert K S (talk) 19:19, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, it would be helpful if you placed spaces after punctuation. Your not doing so is unorthodox and results in unreadable text which requires laborious correction by others.  I want to make clear that your contributions are appreciated and I'm not trying to dissuade you from editing.  You just need to bring your edits a little more in line with typing style conventions. Robert K S (talk) 19:28, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Where did I improperly use the main article template?Immunize (talk) 19:48, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When you placed it at the top of Glioblastoma multiforme and Malignant brain tumor.  And again, it would be very helpful if you started to get in the habit of placing spaces after punctuation.  Even if it's merely a style problem, failing to get in this practice is really going to hinder the acceptance of your edits overall.  At some point it's just going to be easier for editors to revert everything you do rather than take all the time to clean it up, and I don't want to see that happen. Robert K S (talk) 20:31, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Unreferenced addition
Do you have a reference for this addition? Is this described in the citation immediately before your addition? PDCook (talk) 20:13, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Same here and here. Please only add referenced information. PDCook (talk) 20:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

My reference for my edit to mercury poisoning is quack watch.com (which i added as an external link at the bottom of the page).Regards. Immunize (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It should have been properly footnoted, but it looks like someone reverted the addition anyways. If you want your additions to remain, please cite them properly. Furthermore, you might want to check if quackwatch.com is a reliable source and if it meets Wikipedia's external links guidelines. PDCook (talk) 16:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Septic neutropenia
Just letting you know that I've undone your move of febrile neutropenia to a non-current title. It's either "neutropenic sepsis" (as current in the UK) or "febrile neutropenia". I have elaborated further on Talk:Neutropenia. I think that merge debate is ill-informed, but please let me know your views. JFW | T@lk  11:38, 31 January 2010 (UTC) I also strongly oppose a merge.Febrile neutropenia is a very different situation than neutropenia alone,with a totally different clinical picture.Most neutropenic patients do not meet systemic inflammatory response syndrome,while the combination of fever and neutropenia automatically does meet SIRS criteria.Also,more than 50% of febrile patients with neutropenia ultimetly are confirmed to have an infectious process occurring,often baceteremia. Immunize (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Your help desk request
I've replied at your Help Desk post. Hope it helps. Regards  Tide  rolls  19:07, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you may find this page useful: Citation templates. Regards  Tide  rolls  19:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I've changed some items on your list to make them good inter-wiki links. As I am no expert, you may want to make sure the links are correct. Regards  Tide  rolls  19:22, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Non Hodgkin lymphoma
I see that undid my edit to the page Non Hodgkin's lymphoma,which consisted of removing all of the content from the page and replacing it with a redirect to lymphoma.You say that there is no consensus on the matter,but several years ago,there was most certainly at least some agreement that this article needed to be downgraded to a redirect page.Also,in the future,please leave me a message on my talk page when you revert a major edit i mske.Regards. Immunize (talk) 19:31, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * It was entirely inappropriate for you to redirect that page. There clearly was no consensus for a redirect on the talk page. Why did you ask for my advice if you didn't wish to follow it? PDCook (talk) 19:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Would it be more appropriate to edit the Non-Hodgkin lymphoma article to reflect the more recent definition? With reliable references too. regards  Teapot  george Talk  22:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

should I just leave Wikipedia.Forever?
With all of these complaints about my editing,I increasingly consider permanently leaving Wikipedia. I am a normally patient person,but these complaints about my editing is trying my patience. Immunize (talk) 23:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the articles Treatment of pancreatic cancer and Treatment of lung cancer
When deleted the pages Treatment of lung cancer and Treatment of pancreatic cancer, he stated he would move them into my userspace, however I see no sign of this happening. Please clarify this. Immunize (talk) 15:08, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There seems to be debate whether or not these articles should be stand-alone or should be grouped in with the main article on the disease, as discussed earlier on your talk page. Other editors should weigh in on this issue. PDCook (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'll move these into your userpage one at a time once you have finished with User:Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme. Have you now rewritten this article into your own words, so that no trace of the original source remains? Tim Vickers (talk) 16:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I am fairly busy with writing articles such as Dayhike and List of causes of fever, but I will probably get around to rewriting User:Immunize/Treatment of glioblastoma multiforme soon. Immunize (talk) 15:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you're too busy with other articles to deal with that one, I don't think loading you up with more things that need rewritten is the way to go. Drop me a note when you have finished and I'll check over the rewritten glioblastoma multiforme rewrite and then move it into article space if it is OK, replacing it in userspace by the next one along. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:07, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Seek consensus before moving pages
Your moving of the Coeliac disease article here has been reverted by another editor. I strongly urge you to seek consensus before moving anymore pages. PDCook (talk) 03:33, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Please use the Talk Pages
Hi Immunize, I have reverted your addition to Virus. The incorporation of a list of a few diseases was not helpful. Examples of diseases are already given along with names and descriptions of the viruses that cause them. I might be wrong, but you seem to be reluctant to use the Talk Pages that accompany every article. It is customary to discuss major changes or additions on these pages before making any edits. I see from the above that you might be making yourself a little unpopular here because you don't do this. May I offer some advice? I think you could gain the respect of the community by working on just one or two stubs and bringing them to GA level. In doing so I think you would discover much about how Wikipedia works. I know this sounds a little patronising, but many editors spend months or years working on their contributions and ill thought out moves and additions - albeit well-intentioned - can be very annoying. Best wishes. Graham Colm Talk 21:10, 5 February 2010 (UTC) I am not reluctant to use talk pages, just look here. Immunize (talk) 21:16, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of viral diseases
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of viral diseases. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Virus disease. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Virus disease - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Graham Colm Talk 22:13, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion
Hello,, I recently noticed that you deleted the pages viral pharyngitis and treatment and prognosis of goodpasture's disease. I am just wondering what your reasoning was behind deleting these pages? Please clarify. Immunize (talk) 17:15, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Hi Immunize, I deleted "Treatment and prognosis of goodpasture's disease" as routine housekeeping. It was a redirect with no pages linking to it. Viral pharyngitis was immediately restored by me, as this was a mistake (the Wikipedia software is behaving oddly today) sorry about that. Graham Colm (talk) 17:25, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, I saw that you reverted my edit to the page Molluscum contagiosum, which consisted of adding content in that stated that the virus was closely related to smallpox. Although I understand your line of thinking when you reverted that edit, it is true that the virus is closely related to smallpox (it is in the poxvirus family), and I never stated in that article that the clinical presentation was similar to smallpox, as it is most certainly not (there are no systemic symptoms in molluscum, whereas in smallpox there are severe symptoms, and molluscum is not life threatening, whereas smallpox kills up to 30% of it's victims). Immunize (talk) 17:37, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, I know a bit about these viruses. They are both classified as members of the Poxviridae but belong to distinct genera. They are not "closely related"; they have distinct morphologies and genomes. Molluscum contagiosum is a common infection and to say it is closely related to smallpox virus is dangerously misleading. Wikipedia has to be especially careful with the accuracy of medical articles and this is why we insist on citations. I notice that your addition to the SARs article is still uncited. Graham Colm (talk) 17:55, 6 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time to add the references to the SARs article. Unfortunately, they did not support the preceding statements. I have replaced them with academic reviews. Please ensure that all citations are accurate, as I said above, the standards for medical articles are high and sources will be checked. Graham Colm (talk) 19:31, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Paralytic poliomyelitis
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a search with the contents of Paralytic poliomyelitis, and it appears to be very similar to another Wikipedia page: Poliomyelitis. It is possible that you have accidentally duplicated contents, or made an error while creating the page&mdash; you might want to look at the pages and see if that is the case. If you are intentionally trying to rename an article, please see Help:Moving a page for instructions on how to do this without copying and pasting. If you are trying to move or copy content from one article to a different one, please see Copying within Wikipedia and be sure you have acknowledged the duplication of material in an edit summary to preserve attribution history.

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 23:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Meningitis (disambiguation)
I have nominated Meningitis (disambiguation), an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Meningitis (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk  08:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Leukemia (disambiguation) and Lymphoma (disambiguation)
I have nominated Leukemia (disambiguation) and Lymphoma (disambiguation) for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Meningitis (disambiguation). Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JamesBWatson (talk) 09:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Addition to Enterovirus
Do you have a source for this addition you made to the Enterovirus article? I see you referenced an emedicine article below it in the Treatment section, but there is clearly more information in your addition than is present in that reference. Also, please be mindful of redlinks. PDCook (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

List of infections of the central nervous system
I'm not sure what you were trying to do with the List of infections of the central nervous system article, but again you are moving pages and causing a mess for others to clean up. I'm not sure if you have read and understand Help:Moving a page, as I've suggested before. I think it would be best if you stopped moving pages until you do understand how to move pages and the implications that the moves can have. You are also still not referencing all of your additions. It's not like these are articles about a river in Kansas or a hill in Maine; they are medical articles and it is vital that you understand WP:V, WP:MEDRS and other Wikipedia policies and guidelines before you make bold edits. I think the time for calling these issues "newbie mistakes" has past. Now you need to start following policy or sanctions will surely be implemented. I think the bottom line here is discuss first, act upon consensus. Regards, PDCook (talk) 19:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC) When you refer to sanctions, what sactions are you referring to? A block from editing? Immunize (talk) 20:03, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, blocking and banning are methods that administrators can utilize to prevent damage/dustruction to the encyclopedia. It is up to them to decide what they want to do. PDCook (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I have never damaged the encyclopedia, nor would I ever want to. Is blocking sometimes used even for users who have never intentionally vandalized the encyclopedia? Immunize (talk) 20:16, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Blocking is used to prevent damage to the encyclopedia, whether it be vandalism or poor editing. While I agree that your actions have all been done in good faith and do not constitute vandalism, I do feel that some of them have in fact damaged the encyclopedia. For example, when you added copyrighted material, didn't reference your sources properly, or moved pages without/against consensus. Everyone makes mistakes, but not learning from those mistakes is problematic. PDCook (talk) 20:24, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Immunize, I too am worried that you seem to be oblivious to the problems

you are causing. Your ill-thought out page moves, neglecting to adhere to Wikipedia policies including adding unreferenced or poorly referenced content are all damage. I suggest you re-read all your Talk Page above to remind yourself of the problems that you have created. Although I sincerely admire your enthusiasm, I can confirm that if you continue to add unreferenced or incorrectly referenced content and continue to move pages without prior consensus, I will be block you from editing for long enough for you read our policies and reflect on your mistakes. I see you would like to be a Wikipedia administrator in the future. This will never be possible until you gain the trust of the wider community, at the moment you enjoy very little trust. I concur fully with Pdcook you must discuss first, act upon consensus. I will continue to monitor you contributions closely. Graham Colm (talk) 20:37, 10 February 2010 (UTC) I still do not know what went wrong when I moved the list of central nervous system infections page. I attempted to move the page to the pleural form several times, but each time it said "unable to submit form". Can you explain this? Immunize (talk) 22:29, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Your contributed article, Symptoms of influenza
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Symptoms of influenza. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as yourself. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding  to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the page does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that they userfy the page or have a copy emailed to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions.  ttonyb (talk) 17:20, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Response re:talkpage changes
Without the multiple  s, your text "hello..." displayed immediately after your user boxes, and the table of contents was pushed all the way to the right, where it can't be seen easily. This is under IE8. You want to revert them, that's your privilege, but you'd be making your talk page much harder to read by doing so, at least to anyone looking at it with the world's most used browser. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:23, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining. I have no intention of reverting your changes, now that I am aware of there benefit. Thank you. Immunize (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, I've just looked at the page under Firefox, Safari and Google Chrome, and my changes don't make it any better for those browsers. The real problem is the user boxes. In my experience, most editors keep their user boxes on their user page, not on the talk page as well, so you might want to consider removing them from here.  Just a suggestion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:31, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of fatal diseases
I have nominated List of fatal diseases, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of fatal diseases. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Jhbuk (talk) 21:13, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

See also sections
I recommend reviewing Guide_to_layout, as you seem to be making inappropriate additions to see also sections. Some of your additions have been reverted. PDCook (talk) 22:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC) Please list the articles where I made inappropriate additions to a see also section. Immunize (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Meningitis for starters. And your adding "see also Death" to the fatal diseases article has become a subject of ridicule. Immunize can you not see how you are damaging the project? Graham Colm (talk) 21:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize, I probably should just stop adding see also sections. I hope that my addition of a see also section to the page Hashimoto's thyroiditis remained within guidelines. Immunize (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, they are not. Please do not add to a "see also" subjects already linked in the article . This WP:Overlinking, please check you additions to this and other articles. I and others are getting tired of clearing-up after you. Graham Colm (talk) 21:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

So, do you want me to stop contributing? Immunize (talk) 21:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, but I think you need to take a week's break, during which you should read-up on Wikipedia policies. This cavalier editing cannot continue and you have come close to being blocked. Should this ever happen, your ambition to become an administrator will be extremely hard to realise. Graham Colm (talk) 22:04, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Are there some particularly helpful pages on Wikipedia policy that you would recommend? Immunize (talk) 23:26, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Pdcook linked a very useful guideline above. Will you be making content additions? I could point you at useful content guidelines. JFW | T@lk  23:44, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Content additions referring to the addition of content to the article space? Immunize (talk) 23:51, 14 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes. Given your interest in medical subjects I would strongly encourage you to familiarise yourself with WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS. JFW | T@lk  01:38, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting tip for you
Hi Immunize,

When you respond to messages, it's usually best to start your new paragraph with one or more colons, which will put your comment on a new line and indent it a little bit, or to leave a blank line between your words and the previous paragraph.

If you don't do one of these, then the wiki software assumes that you're trying to expand the previous paragraph, rather than to start one of your own. People sometimes accidentally overlook your comments when this happens. It's an unfortunate quirk of the software, but the solution, thankfully, isn't too complicated. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:32, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Block notice
You have been blocked from editing for violating Wikipedia policy. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by replying here on your |talk page by adding the text. You may also email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list instead, or mail unblock-en-l@mail.wikimedia.org. Graham Colm (talk) 16:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Please unblock
I do not plan on making another unblock request, as I was planning on taking a wikibreak for the duration of the block anyway. I did notice that you stated that you feel that I majorly damaged the encyclopedia when I stated in the page on Molluscum Contagiosum that this illness is closley related to smallpox. I regret that edit, but my intenition was to explain to readers that the virus that causes Molluscum Contagiosum is related smallpox (both the causitive virus of smallpox, variola major, and virus that causes Molluscum Contagiosum are both in the poxviridae family; I never ment to imply that the clinical manifestations of the disease were similar). I will treat the block as a wikibreak Immunize (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC) I


 * Immunize, I would prefer you to take a full break from editing and I planned not to engage in any further debate during the duration of the block. But, you have made an argument that really gets to the heart of the problem. It's all about finding, using and citing reliable sources.  You did not cite a source to support the statement that these viruses were "closely related". Don't try to find one because they are not "closely related". I guess that you read somewhere, probably on Wikipedia,  that the two viruses in question are both in the poxvirus family. Yes they are, the Poxviridae as I told you.  But what you added was guesswork. You thought that because they are  "in the same family" they must be "closely related" and that is what you wrote. But, they are not related, or rather nobody knows if they are or are not,  this is because the classification of viruses is totally artificial. It is just for the convenience of virologists (like me) and does not have any basis what so ever to phylogeny or evolution.  When virologists use the word "family"  they only mean in the very narrow context of viral phylogenetics.  This is why your referencing, or lack of references, was damaging. We must use and cite reliable sources that support fully  and expand on  every nuance of any edit that might be contested. With medical articles this is especially important and this is why we tend to provide a reliable source for every statement.  I am not saying that only experts can edit articles,  but sources must be carefully selected, scrutinised for reliability and cited. Having said this, Wikipedia is fortunate in having experts who edit articles on a broad range of subjects—but they are meticulous in their choice and use of sources.  It is not good enough just to cite another website on the subject of the article—you must find a reliable source for every contestable edit that explicitly supports the addition.Graham Colm (talk) 22:41, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that debate during the block is probably not a good idea, I just realized that my IP address has been blocked from editing by you. I am quite alarmed about this, as I edit from a Library from which multiple people edit from. I am also suprised, because I thought when logged in your IP address could not be seen except in cases of sockpuppetry where a checkuser was contacted. I do feel that I have been "bitten", though I understand my edit's to List of fever causes as well as the smallpox statment were damaging. Best wishes.Immunize (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Your IP address is still hidden, even from administrators, during the block; the MediaWiki software handles the process of placing the hardblock on the named account and the IP address it uses, but does not show the underlying IP address to the blocking administrator.  —  Soap  —  22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

So GrahamColm does not know my IP address? It certainly looks like he does, as it states if one attempts to edit from this address that "editing has been disabled by GrahamColm to prevent disruption from immunize". Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 00:05, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I have accounts on wikinews, meta-wikimedia, wikiquote, wikimedia commons, and the wiktionary. I only began using them yesterday. Is it within wikimedia foundation policy to edit one of there wikis while blocked on another? Immunize (talk) 15:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, editing other wikis is acceptable. The block is specific to the English Wikipedia.  Admins don't have authority outside of the specific wiki that authorized them.
 * The software gives you that automatic notice so that if the underlying IP obviously shouldn't have been blocked, then people know which admin screwed up. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Although I will not make more unblock requests, I feel that the block was quite harsh, given I am a newcomber and have never vandalized the encyclopedia. also felt this way, but I was not unblocked because felt that I was "not ready" to be unblocked. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

A wikibreak was a good idea
Immunize, I agree with Graham Colm's suggestion that a week's break might be a good idea so that you can read up on Wikipedia policies. You said you were going on a wikibreak, but you never really did. Already today you have added unsourced and possible original research to the List of causes of fever article. Clearly you have more learning to do. PDCook (talk) 16:03, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I did decrease the number of edits that I made, but you are correct that I never did take a full wikibreak. I have removed the disputed information in the article List of causes of fever. Regards. Immunize (talk) 16:06, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So from your response am I to assume that you are unwilling to take our advice, and that you will continue to edit before fully understanding Wikipedia's policies? PDCook (talk) 16:10, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I am very willing to take your advice, and plan on taking at least a short wikibreak. Immunize (talk) 16:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Immunise, yet again you have added unsourced content to a medical article. I know this has been reverted, but if it were not for Pdcook's vigilance it would still be there. It seems you have decided not to take that much needed break after all. So I am left with no choice but to block you from editing for one week to allow time for you to read the salient policies. Graham Colm (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I had, just prior to blocking, replaced the semi-wikibreak template with a wikibreak template. I do not feel the block is unjustified, I do need a break from editing so that I can read up on wikipedia policy (I admittedly have never even read the introduction to editing, prior to starting my edits, and did not follow PDcook's advice on reading about moving pages, because I felt I was to busy editing to take the time, though I always intended to do it at some time or another.) Also, I am unaware of which addition you are referring to, unless it is my addition to List of causes of fever. I was suprised to see that the reason for my blocking was addition of unsourced infomormation to medical articles, as most of my additions are sourced. In fact, almost alkl of the diseases in the List of causes of fever article have a reference that certifies that they can cause fever. Regards.Immunize (talk) 21:09, 16 February 2010 (UTC) Also, I was very suprised to find I was unable to edit my userpage, as it says you will usually be able to edit your user and user tak pages. Can you explain this? Immunize (talk) 21:15, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe that only applies to the talk page.  — Soap  —  23:46, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I assume that this block eliminates any possibilty of me ever becoming an admin, as ihave heard (understandably) that a clean block log is needed to become an administrator. I feel that some sort of distinction has to be made between bad-faith vandals and good faith editors who are blocked for poor editing rather than vandalism. Immunize (talk) 21:27, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, there's no such hard-and-fast rule. WP:RFAs proceed according to the opinion of the community at the time of application.  If other editors feel inclined to forgive past mistakes, then they can overlook anything.  After all, we were all new editors, once upon a time, and we should all be able to understand that Wikipedia's rules and systems are not always easy to figure out.
 * However, your current behavior (the pattern of adding unsourced material despite multiple requests to stop) is not the kind of behavior that indicates a firm grasp of Wikipedia's content policies, and that -- if it continues -- would be a serious threat to any RfA. The community wants to give admin capabilities to people that seem to know what they're doing, not to people who misunderstand or willfully disregard fundamental policies.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:31, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello, WhatamIdoing, I noticed your message. While I do not deny that I have added unsourced material into medical articles (I regretably did add some unsourced information into medical articles), most of my additions to medical articles did have a reliable source (if you look at List of causes of abdominal pain, where most, if not all, of the diseases listed have a reference that certifies that they cause abdominal pain]]. However, I have added some unsourced information into medical articles, and understand that it will not be tolerated. However, I think that the block was a bit to harsh, given that I was not given a warning like "if you dont stop now, you will be blocked" prior to the blocking. However, I am less upset about the block given that I was planning a wikibreak just prior to being blocked. Regards. Immunize (talk) 17:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The block was not too harsh, and I fully agree with its implementation. You were given ample warnings that your editing behavior was unacceptable (look how many negative comments are listed on your talk page). I was pretty clear when I said your actions could lead to a block when I posted this comment and this comment, and GrahamColm didn't mince words with this comment. I think rather than having discussions on your talk page, you should be carefully examining the policies we have suggested for you to read. I hope that when this block expires your editing behavior will have changed to be more in line with community standards. PDCook (talk) 17:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

List articles
I've asked about these lists here, but since I see you have already created the article, I'm not sure why you asked my advice. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:10, 23 February 2010 (UTC) I created the article because, while I intended on waiting for your advice, you did not respond for some time. I assume, given that list of causes of fever and list of causes of lymphadenopathy have not been deleted, that these lists are useful, but I wanted to ensure this. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 20:13, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism
Thanks for reverting vandalism, but be careful that you're not reverting a vandalism reversion, as you did here. I see you partially fixed the issue here, but I had to remove some additional vandalism. Remember, you can always undo your own edit if you accidentally make an editing error. PDCook (talk) 00:24, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

How can I prevent this problem before it occurs? Immunize (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just make sure when you click on undo that the undo is associated with the vandal, not someone who is fixing the vandalism. When undoing an edit, also notice that the exact changes between the current version and your text are shown. Always check at this stage that the changes you are making (diffs) are sensible. PDCook (talk) 00:52, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

I think I did click on the undo that was associated with the vandal, but then after reverting one IP's vandalism, it seemed to uncover anothers. But I could be wrong. I am inexperienced reverting vandalism. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:25, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Biting the Newcomer
I noticed the message you recently left to. Please remember: do not bite the newcomers. If you see someone make a common mistake, try to politely point out what they did wrong and how to correct it. gaidheal1 (talk♫contribs) 15:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the definition of "severe vandalism"? Immunize (talk) 15:45, 25 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It could be a nasty personal attack on a Biography page of a living person, or on a user's talk page. Here's a description and list of warnings. Remember to assume good faith, even if the vandalism seems unpleasant, for example using unpleasant language. It is generally a good idea to increase the level of warnings until you reach 4, then if the vandal is still making unconstructive edits, request a block here. Thanks, gaidheal1 (talk♫contribs) 15:57, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He may have been referring to Inappropriate link removed, which was probably made from a computer right near by the one whose talk page he edited.  Though there's no way to tell whether you're dealing with the same person or not when you have a school like that.  —  Soap  —  16:12, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Reply
I replied to your message on my page. Check it out. Creation7689 (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you for letting me know. Immunize (talk) 19:04, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

AIV into a redirect
No, you didn't do that. An IP edit right before you did; see here. Yep, even AIV attracts vandalism! Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:18, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. That edit got me quite worried for a minute. Immunize (talk) 00:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

had to undo some of your edits
Specifically, your attempt to nominate the Department of Fun for deletion. You posted an articles for deletion tag to a non-article page, there was no discussion page created on which to have the discussion, and you added it to WP:MFD spelled wrong and listed under "old business". Basically, you need to start over and proceed more carefully. Alternately, automated tools such as WP:TWINKLE make nominating articles extremely simple, you may want to consider using it. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:08, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, as noted at Wikipedia talk:Department of Fun, there have been numerous previous attempts to delete this that have all resulted in a decision to keep. You may want to consider the wisdom of trying it again. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:12, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I feel very strongly that the department of fun is unencyclopedic and thus does not belong on Wikipedia. In fact, I even feel it could encourage vandalism, by encouraging the idea that "joke edits" are acceptable. As for Twinkle, I am reluctant to try it, but may consider at some point. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 21:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's not an article, it it is not required to be encyclopedic. I'll do the nomination for you, but don't expect this to be easy. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Department of Fun (3rd nomination) is up, but you need to post your reasons for wanting it deleted.Beeblebrox (talk) 21:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Why was I given no time to voice my reasoning behind the nomination? I thought that all Afd entries stayed open for at least seven days. Immunize (talk) 14:16, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I didn't do the close, User:BDuke seemed to feel the conditions of WP:SPEEDYKEEP had been met. You could challenge this at WP:DRV, but again, I wouldn't expect it to be easy. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:13, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

A gentle warning
Immunize, you appear to be doing things on Wikipedia again without first familiarizing yourself with policy/procedures. Remember, this sort of editing behavior is what led to your previous block. PDCook (talk) 21:15, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

User:Hikethewhites page
I will WP:AGF that this was you, but I cannot delete it. The deletion request has to come from the user's (User:Hikethewhites) account.  Ron h jones (Talk) 23:28, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Causes of symptoms
Per this discussion, if you wish to list the causes of a given symptom, please list the most prominent causes (supported by reliable sources) in the given symptom article, and in proper context. Please do not create additional List of causes of... articles. If you feel these articles are still necessary, then you should try to change the consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Thanks, PDCook (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For example, a useful contribution could be to properly reference causes listed in this section: Fatigue_(medical). PDCook (talk) 00:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

I will not create additional list of causes of... articles, though I may (unless you object) continue to expand existing ones. Best wishes. Immunize (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * No, you really shouldn't expand the existing ones either. That will just create more work for others to deal with later. PDCook (talk) 15:28, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Why, will these lists eventually be deleted or merged? I know there was discussion of this as WP:MED. Also, it appears I have been blocked from editing, as I can currently only edit my own talk page, and it states I am using "a zombie computer or open proxy". I have posted a unblock request below. Regards. Immunize (talk) 15:32, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The lists will probably be merged into the parent articles, with only the most common/notable causes being merged. PDCook (talk) 15:43, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Apologies, it was a simple spelling error that caused this misunderstanding. Immunize (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Unblock, please.
Currently, I am attempting to edit from this IP and I feel it should be unblocked, as it is a shared IP address and the block is preventing me and (probably) other innocent users, I feel it should be unblocked. Immunize (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of List of causes of fever
I have nominated List of causes of fever, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/List of causes of fever. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. JFW | T@lk  08:42, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion declined: Stuart Hilborn
Hello Immunize. I am just letting you know that I declined the speedy deletion of Stuart Hilborn, a page you tagged for speedy deletion, because of the following concern: The article makes a credible assertion of importance or significance, sufficient to pass A7. Thank you. Nancy talk  19:57, 4 March 2010 (UTC)