User talk:Lise-lyse

A belated welcome!


Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Lise-lyse. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * Contributing to Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Editor's index to Wikipedia

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Questions, or place helpme on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! Barbara (WVS) ✐   ✉  16:40, 8 November 2017 (UTC)

HIV disease
Can you provide a citation for your statement about "HIV disease"? Thanks.  Blue Rasberry  (talk)  15:49, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

This edit summary was unnecessary confrontational. The edit you made that time was excellent (and consistent with the one I made immediately before) whereas your earlier edits were incorrect (and cited a 9-year-old book that is less than authoritative on this topic), hence their reversion. I felt it best to put my edit in the first section on stages and await consensus before editing the lede; you were bold and that's fine (though I still have reservations about the citation as a representative of current consensus). It's great to work together - reversion is not an insult, it's just editing, so don't take it personally. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 21:10, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I suspect this may refer to recent events on HIV/AIDS. I am sorry you feel that way and frankly find it puzzling - didn't I in fact "fix" your good faith edit by including it (in corrected form) immediately after reverting the incorrect language? What was it that you wanted to go differently, specifically? I think it's great you're here - we're working on the same goals - but posting negative messages where they can't easily be discussed won't enhance understanding. &mdash; soupvector (talk) 21:20, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Malignant hypothermia


A tag has been placed on Malignant hypothermia requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about something invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone they know personally, and it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator.  Vanjagenije  (talk)  17:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of ASCRS


The article ASCRS has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern:
 * two items on the page, American Society of Colon and Rectal Surgeons is just barely mentioned on the page in an external link colorectal surgery, American Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgery is not mentioned at all on eye surgery. no need for this page as it does not actually disambiguate anything.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ~ GB fan 23:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Nomination of ASCRS for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article ASCRS is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/ASCRS until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. ~ GB fan 10:33, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

Elsevier
I reverted part of your edit. First, your edit summary was dishonest. Second, you added unsourced puffery to the lede. I could assume good faith and think you did that by accident but you should know that you must disclose conflicts of interest if you're editing on a partisan basis. Finally, I have very little patience for this sort of thing. Be advised that I am fine alienating editors if I think they're up to no good. Prove me wrong. Chris Troutman ( talk ) 00:05, 1 July 2017 (UTC)


 * The edit was begun to fix the run-on syntax (which the edit summary explained), and then while I was there I also continued to fix the opening to state general info, all of which is well known. I'm guessing the words "sizable fraction" are what struck you as "puffery"? Very well, a different phrase to state the same fact could be added. Be my guest, and be advised that I am fine with not really giving a crap. The idea that I was "up to no good" is quite strange. Good-bye. Lise-lyse (talk) 20:12, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

October 2017
Hello, I'm GrapefruitSculpin. I noticed that you made a change to an article, Benzathine phenoxymethylpenicillin, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so! If you need guidance on referencing, please see the referencing for beginners tutorial, or if you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. ''Remember that when adding content about health, please only use high-quality reliable sources as references. We typically use review articles, major textbooks and position statements of national or international organizations (There are several kinds of sources that discuss health: here is how the community classifies them and uses them). WP:MEDHOW walks you through editing step by step. A list of resources to help edit health content can be found here. The edit box has a built-in citation tool to easily format references based on the PMID or ISBN. We also provide style advice about the structure and content of medicine-related encyclopedia articles. The welcome page is another good place to learn about editing the encyclopedia. If you have any questions, please feel free to drop me a note.'' GS ⋙ ☎ 04:29, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

 * Thank you! Lise-lyse (talk) 02:18, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:OR, improper citations, and opinions in edit
This edit is inappropriately cited and seems to include your personal opinions, original research, and conclusions. Please refer to WP:OR as well as WP:RS. —DIYeditor (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2022 (UTC)