User talk:Steve M/Archives/2020/August

March 2018
Hello, I'm Shellwood. I wanted to let you know that I reverted one of your recent contributions —specifically this edit to Wikipedia:Patent nonsense— because it did not appear constructive. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you have any questions, you can ask for assistance at the Help Desk. Thanks. Shellwood (talk) 16:47, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Welcome
Welcome to Wikipedia! We have compiled some guidance for new healthcare editors:
 * 1) Please keep the mission of Wikipedia in mind. We provide the public with accepted knowledge, working in a community.
 * 2) We do that by finding high quality secondary sources and summarizing what they say, giving WP:WEIGHT as they do.  Please do not try to build content by synthesizing content based on primary sources.  (For the difference between primary and secondary sources, see WP:MEDDEF.)
 * 3) Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS). High-quality sources include review articles (which are not the same as peer-reviewed), position statements from nationally and internationally recognized bodies (like CDC, WHO, FDA), and major medical textbooks. Lower-quality sources are typically removed. Please beware of predatory publishers – check the publishers of articles (especially open source articles) at Beall's list.
 * 4) The ordering of sections typically follows the instructions at WP:MEDMOS. The section above the table of contents is called the WP:LEAD. It summarizes the body. Do not add anything to the lead that is not in the body. Style is covered in MEDMOS as well; we avoid the word "patient" for example.
 * 5) More generally see WP:MEDHOW
 * 6) Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
 * 7) We use very few capital letters and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
 * 8) Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities.
 * 9) Do not use URLs from your university library's internal net: the rest of the world cannot see them.
 * 10) Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article.
 * 11) Please format citations consistently within an article and be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books; see WP:MEDHOW for how to format citations.
 * 12) Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
 * 13) Talk to us! Wikipedia works by collaboration at articles and user talkpages.

Once again, welcome, and thank you for joining us! Please share these guidelines with other new editors.

– the WikiProject Medicine team Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Can you explain
... what this uncommented revert meant? Thanks, – Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)
 * It was an accident and I need more help for wikipedia tools since im new.
 * Ah, okay, no problem then, thanks for clarifying. Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:54, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibrothorax
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Fibrothorax you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of ChessMaster7734 -- ChessMaster7734 (talk) 00:21, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
 * ChessMaster7734, you can't review your own GA nomination. I don't think you meant to, but by opening the review page, you're preventing anyone else from doing a review. Please be patient; there is a long backlog at GAN, and it may take some months before a reviewer comes along, or they could select your article much sooner than that. I'm going to arrange to have the review page deleted, so it's possible for a valid reviewer to select it.
 * I'd like to recommend that you read through the Good Article nomination instructions if you haven't already, and also the GA criteria: the article you nominated will need to meet all of the GA criteria, and it looks a little thin to do that.

Hi Chessmaster. I've had a look at your GA nomination for Fibrothorax and tidied up a lot of the wording. It will need a bit more content to meet GA status including a section on 'Epidemiology' and a section on the history of the condition. The references could use some expansion too - in general using review articles in peer-reviewed journals (try looking on PubMed and finding free to access reviews). I would recommend looking at MEDMOS (the Wikipedia manual of style for medicine-related articles) for ideas about how to bring this up to scratch. Good luck! PeaBrainC (talk) 16:46, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Madness Combat (cartoon series)


A tag has been placed on Madness Combat (cartoon series), requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G11 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the page seems to be unambiguous advertising which only promotes a company, group, product, service, person, or point of view and would need to be fundamentally rewritten in order to become encyclopedic. Please read the guidelines on spam and FAQ/Organizations for more information.

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 deleted 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. MT KASHTALK Contribs 20:49, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Shruti Rane


A tag has been placed on Shruti Rane requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a band or musician that does not credibly 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. Please read more about what is generally accepted as notable.

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 deleted 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. ★ Gooseflesh12 ★ ( talk ) 15:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibrothorax
The article Fibrothorax you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fibrothorax for things which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Originalmess -- Originalmess (talk) 08:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibrothorax
The article Fibrothorax you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Fibrothorax for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Originalmess -- Originalmess (talk) 05:02, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Hemothorax
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Hemothorax you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. PeaBrainC (talk) 13:35, 5 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, I haven't heard much of a response from you to the comments on the GA review page. There's quite a bit to be done if you're serious about getting Hemothorax to GA level but if you use the review articles that have been suggested as a starting point then it should be possible. If I haven't heard anything by next week then I'm going to close the nomination.  Hope to hear from you.  PeaBrainC (talk) 22:40, 15 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi Steve, well done for your work so far improving the article, it's looking better. I've done a more detailed review which can be found on the GA review page of most of the sections now but have Management still to do. Is the GA review page specifically on your watchlist? Changes made to the review page don't necessarily get flagged up as a change to the talk page even though it's transcribed there. PeaBrainC (talk) 12:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Steve - PeaBrainC asked me to sit in as second reviewer. I've left a few comments and may have a few more, but generally feel the article is close to GA. David notMD (talk) 04:38, 28 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Last of my comments to resolve: Thoracostomy subsection: With the Wallen ref now removed, there is no support for the sentence "Manual manipulation of chest tubes (also referred to as milking, stripping, or tapping) is commonly performed to maintain an open tube, but no conclusive evidence has demonstrated that this improves chest tube drainage." as that is not covered in the remaining Patrini ref. David notMD (talk) 10:08, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

GA nomination of Systemic lupus erythematosus
Steve Mulch Civic (Pro), I have removed your GA nomination of Systemic lupus erythematosus, since you didn't follow the process laid out on the GA nomination instructions page.

Specifically, while anyone may make a nomination, editors who have not been significant contributors to the article should consult with those who are significant contributors prior to making the nomination, to be sure the article is at a level where it meets the GA criteria or is close enough that a modest amount of work will bring the article to the point that it meets that criteria. As far as I can determine, you have not been a significant contributor, so a pre-nomination consultation needs to take place.

Posting your desire to nominate it to be a GA to the article's talk page and allowing the standard seven days for responses and discussion is your next step if you wish to pursue this nomination. You should also be prepared to work to address any issues with the article that come up during the GA review once it begins. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I have just done the same with your nomination of Melanoma; with two edits to the article, you cannot be considered a significant editor. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * And the same with Diaphragmatic rupture. You can always do the consultation I mentioned above if you wish to pursue these nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Person not patient
Please follow this per the WP:MEDMOS Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 23:21, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Have adjusted a little more here Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 21:36, 16 February 2019 (UTC)

Fibrothorax FAC
Hi, I've removed your nomination of Fibrothorax at FAC for the moment. You need to initiate the nomination properly before re-adding to the page. To initiate the nomination, either go to the Fibrothorax talk page and click on the red text at the top ("Please feel free to initiate the nomination"). Alternatively, you can click here to start it.

Before you do that, however, you are advised to read the opening text at WP:FAC (the part starting "Before nominating an article...") and consider going through GAN or WP:PEER REVIEW before going to FAC. Cheers - SchroCat (talk) 13:31, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Edit summaries
As you edit existing articles, please add appropriate descriptions as Edit summaries. Especially in times when there are many consecutive edits, this will help in identify when a particular edit was made. Thank you. David notMD (talk) 17:53, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
 * You do other editors a disservice by not describing the changes you are making with appropriate Edit summaries. David notMD (talk) 00:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Ok sorry Steve Mulch Civic 00:35, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Help:Edit summary explains reasons better than I. Especially when one editor is doing a cluster of edits (as I have often done in bringing articles to readiness for Good Article Nomination), other editors can look at the Edit summaries to see if there was a content change in part of the article that interests them. David notMD (talk) 00:37, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Epidural hematoma...
... also has referencing problems. See my note at Talk:Epidural hematoma. And in my opinion the list of Notable cases adds nothing to the article. David notMD (talk) 02:45, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

GARD
Is written by the US government and is thus Public Domain. Thus it is not plagiarism. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

DYK for Hemothorax
valereee (talk) 00:01, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Epidural hematoma
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Epidural hematoma you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 04:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Good article nominations
I am concerned about your large amount of GA nominations. I have just failed epidural haematoma for concerns to which there was only a short reply and note that you have a number of outstanding nominations, including to Ehlers–Danlos syndromes, to which I can only see one edit. has raised similar concerns above. I think it's great that you're involved in editing but having so many nominations (especially those to which you are not going to reply or weren't involved in editing) wastes the limited time of reviewers, time that could be given fairly to others.

I'd encourage you to stop nominating any further articles until your backlog is cleared, and only nominate articles which you are familiar because of close attention. Happy future editing! Cheers --Tom (LT) (talk) 07:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Epidural hematoma
The article Epidural hematoma you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Epidural hematoma for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Tom (LT) -- Tom (LT) (talk) 07:42, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ehlers–Danlos syndromes
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Ehlers–Danlos syndromes you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 15:21, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ehlers–Danlos syndromes
The article Ehlers–Danlos syndromes you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromes for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 01:01, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Ehlers–Danlos syndromes
The article Ehlers–Danlos syndromes you nominated as a good article has failed ; see Talk:Ehlers–Danlos syndromes for reasons why the nomination failed. If or when these points have been taken care of, you may apply for a new nomination of the article. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Canada Hky -- Canada Hky (talk) 15:21, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chylothorax
Hi there, I'm pleased to inform you that I've begun reviewing the article Chylothorax you nominated for GA-status according to the criteria. This process may take up to 7 days. Feel free to contact me with any questions or comments you might have during this period. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 03:21, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chylothorax
The article Chylothorax you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Chylothorax for issues which need to be addressed. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 23:20, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Chylothorax
The article Chylothorax you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Chylothorax for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 14:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibrothorax
The article Fibrothorax you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. The article is close to meeting the good article criteria, but there are some changes or clarifications needing to be addressed. If these are fixed within 7 days, the article will pass; otherwise it may fail. See Talk:Fibrothorax/GA3 for things which need to be addressed. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 22:12, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS
Per the above we generally use person rather than patient. Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 01:20, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Fibrothorax
The article Fibrothorax you nominated as a good article has passed ; see Talk:Fibrothorax for comments about the article. Well done! If the article has not already been on the main page as an "In the news" or "Did you know" item, you can nominate it to appear in Did you know. Message delivered by Legobot, on behalf of Bryanrutherford0 -- Bryanrutherford0 (talk) 19:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ref
Does not provide anything

"The mortality rate is around 92%. "

Best Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:35, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Minor edit checkbox/flag?
Hi! You flagged your recent edit to the Internet troll article as minor; the edit is great (and does add to the article), but really doesn't meet the "Minor" edit criteria (more info here: WP:MINOR). Personally, I avoid using the Minor flag unless I'm absolutely sure the label fits (correcting a typo, undoing obvious vandalism, etc.).

Thanks! &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 17:20, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Coronavirus disease 2019
Please don't edit-war, especially on a page subject to general sanctions.

I've just had to revert this again. It is simply not accurate to state: The figure is wrong; there is no such metric as "death rate"; and you should be aware that 100% of deaths are severe. You have confused multiple figures.
 * "It has an estimated death rate of 18.4% in cases in people over 80, and with around 70% of cases being severe."

The source you cited states: I assume that you understand the difference between "killed" and "likely to be hospitalised"?
 * "estimates of the proportion of infected individuals likely to be hospitalised increased with age up to a maximum of 18·4% (11·0–37·6) in those aged 80 years or older."

The actual CFR estimate in the source was this:
 * "we obtained a best estimate of the case fatality ratio in China of 1·38% (1·23–1·53), with substantially higher ratios in older age groups (0·32% [0·27–0·38] in those aged <60 years vs 6·4% [5·7–7·2] in those aged ≥60 years), up to 13·4% (11·2–15·9) in those aged 80 years or older."

If you want to add something from that source, at least get the figures right, please. --RexxS (talk) 16:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)

Further complaints: You did not take anything to discussion. There is no sign of you adding anything to Talk:Coronavirus disease 2019.
 * 1) Learn to sign your posts.
 * 2) You claim "I took it to discussion and only reverted it once".

Read WP:BRD. You made a Bold edit; I Reverted it as incorrect information. The next step is for you to start Discussing it at the article talk page, not for you to go and re-insert the incorrect content again. If I don't see some indication that you comprehend how you inserted false information into the article twice, and an intention to do better in future, I'm going to be asking if he feels you need to be removed from the COVID-19 area to protect our articles. --RexxS (talk) 18:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)