User talk:Uploadvirus: Difference between revisions

I have "cleaned up" this page by removing a BUNCH of entries, with the goal of conciseness. However, I do want to THANKS VERY MUCH to the following folks who have welcomed me, who were kind enough to spend their valuable time giving me tips and guidance on how to do things easier and more "by the book", or who have peer-reviewed and/or edited my contributions:

• Doc James
• Immunize
• Tryptofish
• RexSS
• Boing! said Zebedee
• Dr. PDCook
• Chzz
• Circéus
• Tyrol5
• Ruhrfisch ><>°°
• SPhilbrickT
• Kudpung
• My Core Competency is Competency

A few days ago I was on some doctor's Talk Page and noticed a pathology-related message that this doctor had posted to the Talk Page of a user called "MRWick". On a hunch, I texted "MRWick". Turns out I was correct - the guy was the LEGENDARY pathologist Dr. Mark R. Wick, who would undoubtedly be placed in my personal list of the "TOP 10 BADA$$E$ IN CANCER PATHOLOGY". Following here (below) is the (verbatim) reply I got from him:

Dear Cliff,

I appreciate your recognition, but I'm just a guy trying to do a job like anyone else! Please feel free to contact me regarding any Wikipedia projects to which you think I might contribute, or "just because"! ... (redacted his email address) ... Best, Mark W.

As requested, I've had a look at Combined small cell lung carcinoma and made some minor copyedits, none of which were crucial. You've produced a fine article and I hope you'll continue to contribute to Wikipedia for a long time. Most of the detail edits were to place references immediately after punctuation – this is not compulsory, but it is better to maintain a consistent style. Now that you've got the hang of writing for Wikipedia, you should have a look at the linked guidelines I gave in my edit summaries; they will help you fine-tune your style to the conventions here.

Two jobs remain:

1. Once you have named a reference, you can make subsequent cites to the same ref simply by using <ref name="xxx" />, without writing out them out in full - see WP:REFNAME;
2. Best practice is to use a citation template, such as {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}}. This allows us to produce COinS metadata, which is of use for external users to collect bibliographic data from our articles. It also provides a fairly consistent format for citations (not that this is a problem with your cites).

I've replaced the first two references with citation templates as examples for you, and also replaced a few of the duplicate references with the short-form named reference, so that you can see how it works. Updating 'bald' refs to citation templates is a time-consuming job and not strictly necessary, so I wouldn't worry if you don't have time (although it is a good exercise in wikipedia referencing). The job of replacing duplicate named refs with the short-form needs to be done. If you can find a little time, I'd recommend having a go at it. I'll keep this page and the article page on my watchlist for some time, so I can help out if you run into problems. You can reply here if you want to, as I'll see that as well. --RexxS (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

		The Exceptional Newcomer Award
		For having the courage and ability to create new articles like Combined small cell lung carcinoma --RexxS (talk) 03:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your kind comments on my talk page, Cliff. I forgot to mention that we have a manual of style for medicine called WP:MOSMED. It's a lot to read, but if you are creating articles, the part entitled Sections is very useful as an guideline for organisation and naming of your article sections. Hope that helps. --RexxS (talk) 03:39, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings and thank you for your contributions. I just wanted to draw your attention to a couple of tools that might help with referencing the articles you are writing. You can place these citation templates between the <ref> and </ref> tags and fill in the information. You can also use this wizard, which takes an url, ISBN or pubmed ID, and fills the template in for your. I also like to use Reftools. Happy editing! PDCook (talk) 18:50, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings again. I noticed the external link on this article doesn't seem to work. Any ideas? Wrong URL? Outdated page? Regards, PDCook (talk) 00:55, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Same issue with the external link in the Pleural fibroma article. Regards, PDCook (talk) 03:07, 14 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is the tool: http://diberri.dyndns.org/cgi-bin/templatefiller/index.cgi?ddb=&type=pubmed_id The rating was just what the page I cut and pasted it from was ranked as. I fixed it... Sorry for the confusion.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:56, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

At this time I happen to have the WikiProject Medicine page on my watchlist (You'll notice there is a section from me higher on the page), and I was intrigued enough by the article title that I wanted to have a look at it. Circéus (talk) 15:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just received your message on my discussion page and would like to welcome you to Wikipedia! Your contributions and articles are greatly appreciated. I will browse through your articles as time allows and render an opinion for you where necessary. I do have general interests in pulmonary medicine, however, I don't mind reading about pulmonary malignancies. Again, welcome to Wikipedia! If you have any questions, just ask or post them at the WikiMed discussion page. All the best Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:19, 21 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome - I commented on two articles and mav also left some comments on the one article's PR. Keep up the good work, Ruhrfisch _><>°^° 13:26, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I will go over the 2 submissions you cited and make whatever changes I think are appropriate... and, by the way, I work for a living just like everyone else... you can call me Mark!

Best, MRW --Mrwick1 (talk) 01:10, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed content from Treatment of Rare Lung Cancers. When removing text, please specify a reason in the edit summary and discuss edits that are likely to be controversial on the article's talk page. If this was a mistake, don't worry; the text has been restored, as you can see from the page history. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia, and if you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. FinalRapture - † ☪ 17:51, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Giant cell carcinoma of the lung, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.redorbit.com/news/health/1480009/pulmonary_sarcomatous_tumors. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and 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) 17:29, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Giant cell carcinoma of the lung. 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 - Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma. 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 Bronchioloalveolar carcinoma - 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 {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag - if no such tag exists then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hangon tag is unnecessary), 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. Shashwat986 (talk) 17:31, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know they're not the same, but you seem to have copied the whole Classification section from the page. The rest of the page consists of just two lines. If you have enough details to make a good article, I recommend you add a {{{hangon}}} tag and fast. All the best making another wonderful article. Shashwat986 (talk) 17:35, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• With all due respect, I wrote that classification section myself and have used it on several articles. In fact, I was the one that did that work on the bronchioloalveolar carcinoma page. As an aside, giant cell carcinoma and bronchioloalveolar carcinoma are related in no way, shape, or form - aside from the fact that they are lung carcinomas, and are part of the same lung carcinoma classification system. Are you sure the other page didnt copy it from ME? Thanks.

Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 17:42, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks for correcting grammar issues. A few notes on Wikipedia formatting. We try hard not to use the word patient or physician as what we write is neither specifically for health care providers nor patients. Also only the first word in a heading is capitalized. We have large number of guildlines if you find yourself bored some time :-) WP:MEDMOS is one that than links to others. Once again thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

BTW welcome to Wikipedia.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First welcome to Wikipedia. I’ve only glanced around, but it appears you are contributing considerably.

I spend a fair amount of time at the WP:FEED desk, where frankly, most of the request are in serious need of basic help. However, a recent request is in a very different category – it looks fine structurally, but needs the review of an expert.

The request is here, while the actual draft is User:ScienceRulz2012/Crizotinib

I’m always nervous about a technical article written by a single author, so at a minimum, I’d like someone else with relevant expertise to glance over it and make sure it is reasoanble unbiased.

You seem to be the best qualified. Is this something you can review? If not, can you suggest someone else?

(I note that one of the other reviewers has commented that future notability may be an issue. I don’t consider that a major problem in light of fairly substantial factual coverage – the future notability issue is more an issue when people are citing rumors about future fils or books. While this drug will be or not be approved in the future, I think there is sufficent coverage of the trail phase, although your thoughts would be welcome.SPhilbrickT 01:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a reviewer. Happy editing! --Kudpung (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia. ---My Core Competency is Competency (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I guess all we can do now is fix all these problems... Sigh... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:21, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Have given you rollback rights to help you return the articles to normal.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:30, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine! I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities: Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources Join in editing our collaboration of the month (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease) Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess Have a look at some related WikiProjects Have a look at the collaboration dashboard Have a look at the Trusted Sources recommended by Wikiproject medicine Have a look at the most powerful citing tool Diberri's tool If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or please feel free to ask for help on my talk page. Again, welcome!. Happy editing, JFW | T@lk 12:49, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Medicine, tasks you can do: To-do list for Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2016-12-23 Tools — Article alerts — Recent changes — Tasks — Requests — Popular articles —Assessment criteria {{}} — Templates more... There is also a tool to find all our sub pages here — only for the truly curious

Hi there VIRUS, VASCO (217.129.65.5 IP) from Portugal here,

I really cannot defend myself any further, expect by saying this: i have an undiagnosed bipolar disorder, which makes it even harder to control myself in edit summaries. I know that most of the WP users are here to make useful contributions, but some are not.

Why do people continue to: 1 - engage in vandalism; 2 - remove pieces of content in articles without one word in summary (this is not figurative speech, i mean ZERO words in summary), very hard to play by the book, especially with my condition.

However, you (as well as another user/admin concerned) do what you think is best, i will try to engage in better behaviour from now on (have always, but it's been very difficult man). Keep up the good work, attentively - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 02:11, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Back from the dead Cliff...My suspension is over, i have returned, will try to amend my ways even harder this time.

I noticed, from your messages to the other people involved in my situation, User:Gfoley4 and User:Chzz, that you were greatly offended by some of the contents in my message to the former (the stuff in parenthesis). Why on earth? There, i was merely venting my frustration on being (rightfully) blocked, which did not allow for my fight against vandalism (can't do much blocked, can i?). I have had people come to my page and call me every name in the book, just for reporting their vandalic ways, one "chap" was on my case for almost one year, reverting my daily edits and so...I was in no way offensive to Foley.

That said (and i have also messaged Foley and Chzz with this note - and by the way, i believe you 100% when you say Chzz is a very nice person, but did not receive one word in feedback from him regarding this situation after i messaged him, unlike you and Foley), sorry for any incovenience and keep up the good work - --Vasco Amaral (talk) 03:27, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the Chzz thing I still have no idea what happend but, the little shit slapped me around a bit fo it :P. The picture I ran across on commons during a featured picture poll. I painted a very similar one years ago and asked the user who had in the poll if I could use it for my page. It's a beautiful picture. the file name is File:2009-01-21 Eibsee.JPG[1]
Mlpearc powwow 04:10, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely NO PROB! Nice to yak with you. Stay in touch.Cliff L. Knickerbocker, MS (talk) 04:12, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]