User talk:Jonram27

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:04, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Ventricular escape beat
Dear Dr. Mahinda,

I apologise for the inconsiderateness of the person who reverted your edits to the article Ventricular escape beat. Thank you for trying to improve it.

Because Wikipedia gets many visitors and is constantly edited, we generally don't create empty sections like ==Treatment== before they have content. Similarly, discussion about the article (like your message "WE ARE CURRENTLY EDITING THIS PAGE") your name does not belong in the article itself: rather, you should put comments on the talk page, and only put your signature on talk pages. I've replaced your warning with a template designed for this purpose (Underconstruction).

Welcome to Wikipedia, I hope you like it and decide to stay and improve the article. Let me know if you need any help.

--Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 18:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi again,


 * I've made some further changes. You might have noticed from other articles that we don't use an ==Introduction== paragraph, we just start with an introduction that summarises the whole article and then go into further detail.


 * I've left you a message here: Talk:Ventricular escape beat, I'd like to discuss the definition you used.


 * thanks again for your work, well done. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 13:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Dear Alex, Alice and Jonathan,


 * I understand that my meddling might interfere with your project/assignment. I was already wondering why you were so stalely ignoring my suggested improvements! However, I don't think it is realistic for any project to assume that other people are not going to edit a Wikipedia article. Is there no way that your project can take into account my concerns, and that you might incorporate my suggestions into your project? I'd sure like some more information about this project...


 * Anyways, I think it would still be technically possible to highlight what you have added to the article and what I have added by simply comparing revisions. I'm always happy to help out fellow students but if it involves that I have to leave incorrect definitions on the article and simply revert my contributions for the sake of your project, I don't think Wikipedia benefits. Can we reach no compromise? Some beginner mistakes like overlinking (repeatedly wikilinking the same word) are difficult to leave in place.


 * Regarding the image, I have two concerns: (1) the (c) copyright notice is a bit ridiculous since you have released the image in the public domain, and watermarking your name into it is generally discouraged. I suggest you upload a new version of the image without the copyright logo and your names. I hope you understand what public domain really implies. (2) the black X-axis of the image makes the red ECG-baseline difficult to see, perhaps it could be left out altogether?


 * --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:14, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * PS: please take not of the three revert rule: if someone reverts someone else more than three times, they could be blocked. Another reason to compromise!


 * One solution would be for you to edit the article in a personal sandbox: for example, copy your work into User:Jonram27/Ventricular escape beat. You can use this page for your project, nobody else will edit it. At the end of the project, you can merge your version into the real article (merging being different from replacing; when you merge, you take into account the work of others). --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)


 * More suggested solutions are being proposed here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine. --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 15:52, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

I will support Steven in his comments. One is not allowed to claim ownership of any article. Wikipedia is a collaborative project. Welcome and hope you three enjoy it here.-- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:39, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Dermatology
Are any of you interested in dermatology? kilbad (talk) 15:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)