User talk:Luis cerni

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome

Hello Luis cerni, and Welcome to Wikipedia!

Welcome to Wikipedia! I hope you enjoy the encyclopedia and want to stay. As a first step, you may wish to read the Introduction.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask me at my talk page – I'm happy to help. Or, you can ask your question at the New contributors' help page.

Here are some more resources to help you as you explore and contribute to the world's largest encyclopedia...

Finding your way around:

Need help?

How you can help:

Additional tips...

Luis cerni, good luck, and have fun. – Attaboy (talk) 13:46, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Wernicke article

I'm having trouble understanding what you were trying to say in your message to me. I undid your edits to the article on Wernicke's encephalopathy because of the long list of articles you added as external links. Please see WP:NOTLINK Cheers! Attaboy (talk) 18:31, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

and for my part I repeated the same. Luis, although I am a Spanish speaker, I am primarily fluent in English. I suspect the duplicate-named articles will be merged and I'll help where I can, but I am just a regular user/editor like you. It will take someone with more knowledge and experience to deal with 3 articles on the same topic. MartinezMD (talk) 02:36, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I undid your changes to the Wernicke's article for the same reason as before. I agree that Wernicke's is a serious condition, but that doesn't change the way an article should be written. Please work within the framework of wikipedia. Cheers! Attaboy (talk) 21:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Please use high quality secondary sources per WP:MEDRS and preferably ones in English.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally linking to your own website is not appropriate as it is not a reliable source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:20, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Suggest thiamine#deficiency

Hi Luis, thanks a lot for your attention. It's great to an interested researcher contributing to these articles, as you definitely have a lot to contribute. From my understanding, these diseases are internationally recognised as different syndromes with a shared pathology. That's why the ICD codes are different. The reason that they're given separate pages is that clinically, they are different signs. For example, there are lots of signs and symptoms of COPD and liver failure but these get separate pages, despite having a linked aetiology.

As you say, there does appear to be some discussion as to whether these syndromes are one in the same, especially due to symptom cross-over. I think that the section on deficiency in article on Thiamine itself (thiamine#deficiency) would be a great place to present the discussion in literature about the shared aetiology. Thiamine deficiency is not only the root cause of many problems, but also a good central point for this to be discussed. Kind Regards, LT90001 (talk) 22:00, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Rollback of Citations

Hi again Luis, I've had to roll back your edits on Wernicke-Korsakoff Syndrome because of the citations. As a quick explanation, citations can be given names. The first time a citation is made, it will look like this: <ref name=SULLIVAN2012>{{cite journal|last=Sullivan|first=Edith V.|coauthors=Fama, Rosemary|title=Wernicke’s Encephalopathy and Korsakoff’s Syndrome Revisited|journal=Neuropsychology Review|year=2012|volume=22|issue=2|pages=69–71|doi=10.1007/s11065-012-9205-2}}</ref>

The first part,

<ref name=SULLIVAN2012>

means that all future citations don't need to write out the whole citation. Instead, any citation later in the article can simply say

<ref name=SULLIVAN2012 /> .

So the citations you changed that seemed a bit strange, were actually automatically generated using the initial data. I've had to rollback a change to get the citations back.

Retaining Past Edits

In response to your earlier comment, the vast majority of your contributions on W-K syndromes have been maintained. You can see that by how many citations there are now! Most of those were ones you suggested. The majority of changes were made to:

  • Change citations to be in a proper Wikipedia style and so that they weren't in-text
  • Change grammar, as many sentences are not immediately understandable to an English speaker.
  • Remove duplicate sentences. For example, comments on treatment were all moved to the treatment section.

References

It is a good idea to reference what you add. Secondary sources are much prefered. Not sure why all the bolding here? [1] We use very little bolding on wiki per the MOS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:21, 27 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You are continueing to add large blocks of primary sources to Wikipedia such as in this edit here [2]. I am not sure why? This is undue weight if it is not covered in a secondary source.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:38, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Removing links

Why did you remove all the links here from the lead [3]? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:45, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can you re add them? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:25, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see you have thanks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:28, 8 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What would be useful

It would be useful to go through the article and remove all the primary sources and replace them if possible with a few secondary sources such as recent review articles or major textbooks. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:53, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello-where are you getting your information on Wernicke's encephalopathy?

please do not delete the warning box that I replaced at the top of the article. The article was incomprehensible today when I first noticed it and there is no way that all of the problems with the article have been solved in one day although quite a bit has been cleaned up since the warning has been replaced.

Are you translating material from some other language? If you could point out where the translation is it that would be helpful in trying to repair the article without deleting the valuable information.

I see that you have been doing a lot of work on the article, but the fact that you would delete the warning header which is obviously needed more than one time, makes me question your methods. 24.0.133.234 (talk) 05:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello and a proposal

Hi, I have an idea that may help your work with the article that you have been working on. No offense, but much of your work did not translate and the entire article is at risk of being deleted if it is not edited correctly. Please see the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Wernicke%27s_encephalopathy#RE:_User:Luis_cerni_edits_to_this_article24.0.133.234 (talk) 06:15, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Estimado Luis: Ediciones a Wernicke

Aunque mi idioma materno es el castellano solo edito en la wikipedia inglesa por ser el impacto al editar en ella mucho mayor que en la de español. Estos días he visto los problemas que están generando tus ediciones sobre el artículo de Wernicke. Quería comentarte que la exigencia en los artículos médicos en cuanto a referencias se refiere es un poco diferente a la wikipedia española y aun más a la literatura científica. Aquí lo prácticamente obligatorio es utilizar como referencias fuentes secundarias (Echa un ojo a WP:MEDRS, donde se explican las diferentes referencias en los que deben basarse los artículos médicos aquí). Con fuentes secundarias básicamente nos referimos a 1-revisiones sobre el tema publicadas en revistas científicas, 2-libros especializados para profesionales.

Por otro lado a partir de tus mensajes entiendo que eres investigador en el tema. Tus conocimientos son bienvenidos, pero debes entender que en wikipedia no importa quien eres sino solo la calidad de lo que aportas, y que una parte muy importante de esta calidad va a venir marcada por las referencias que uses y también a tu nivel de inglés (aunque quizás esto no sea tan importante), y que si no acompañas tus textos de estos dos ingredientes aunque seas el experto mundial numero 1 en un tema tus contribuciones probablemente acaben siendo eliminadas.

En cuanto al primer tema (referencias) mi consejo es que busques revisiones científicas recientes y las uses para referencias tus textos. Si tus conocimientos e investigaciones recientes no están avalados por dichas referencias quizás lo que toque hacer sea esperar un tiempo a incluirlos en wikipedia hasta que se publiquen y acepten.

En cuanto al segundo tema (inglés) mi consejo es que en vez de editar directamente los artículos primero propongas tus textos en la página de discusión, de manera que otros puedan ayudarte a decir lo que realmente quieres decir.

Mi tiempo es limitado, pero también puedes puntualmente contar con mi ayuda, tanto para el tema del idioma como para el tema de que te cuente como funciona la wikipedia inglesa, ya que llevo un tiempo por aquí y creo que se como "hay que moverse".

Atentamente.

PD: por favor, trata siempre de firmar tus adiciones a las páginas de discusión incluyendo cuatro ~ al final.

--Garrondo (talk) 20:25, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ademas de WP:MEDRS and WP:MEDMOS, hay informacion en esta pagina que ayuda en saber como buscar referencias adecuadas por articulos medicos en en.wiki: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Otra cosa que he visto con el articulo es que estas agregando muchas listas, cuando mas util sera texto elaborado e gramaticamente completo. Entiendo que en practica en la vida actual, es acceptable agregar muchas primarias fuentes para llegar a conclusiones, pero aqui en en.wiki exigimos fuentes secundarios para evitar lo que se llama Original research y para consequir due weight. Finalmente, omo explico Garrando, la manera de firmar despues de agregar algo en una conversacion es usando ~~~~ . Saludos, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Favor de leer esta informacion con respeto al firmar tus intervenciones y la necesidad de usar titulos que describen la conversation (Temas de "Hi" tres veces, sin firmas, es dificil de seguir). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 9 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you CANNOT do this

You added "Most cases of WE are missed by clinicians, likely because patients do not present with the classic signs associated with the condition"[4]

The ref says "Most cases of WE are missed by clinicians, likely because patients do not present with the classic signs associated with the condition.". This is plagiarism. You must paraphrase. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:50, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This is a primary source [5] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:42, 20 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Opting in to VisualEditor

As you may know, VisualEditor ("Edit beta") is currently available on the English Wikipedia only for registered editors who choose to enable it. Since you have made 50 or more edits with VisualEditor this year, I want to make sure that you know that you can enable VisualEditor (if you haven't already done so) by going to your preferences and choosing the item, "MediaWiki:Visualeditor-preference-enable". This will give you the option of using VisualEditor on articles and userpages when you want to, and give you the opportunity to spot changes in the interface and suggest improvements. We value your feedback, whether positive or negative, about using VisualEditor, at Wikipedia:VisualEditor/Feedback. Thank you, Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 20:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Please read WP:MEDHOW. It will help you with referencing. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 13:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Luis cerni. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Luis_cerni"