User talk:Pulmonological

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

67.59.28.19

Hello — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.59.28.19 (talk) 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. | pulmonological talk • contribs 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Hello, Pulmonological and Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking if shown; this will automatically produce your username and the date. Also, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field with your edits. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Crusio (talk) 07:34, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

National Asthma Education Certification Board

Thanks ever so much for writing National Asthma Education Certification Board :). New articles and new information needs references, however; do you have any you could add in? Let me know if you need any help on my talkpage and I'll be happy to answer any questions you have or provide assistance. Cheers, Ironholds (talk) 03:31, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of American Respiratory Care Foundation

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on American Respiratory Care Foundation 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 an organization or company, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 03:37, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of American Respiratory Care Foundation

The article American Respiratory Care Foundation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Unremarkable organization. No evidence of notability.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 17:23, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of American Respiratory Care Foundation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Respiratory Care Foundation 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Respiratory Care Foundation 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. Vanadus (talk | contribs) 05:19, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Camp Easy Breathers

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Camp Easy Breathers 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 an organization or company, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, 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. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Sparthorse (talk) 19:51, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Driscoll Children's Hospital Logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Driscoll Children's Hospital Logo.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

File permission problem with File:Driscoll Children's Hospital campus.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Driscoll Children's Hospital campus.jpg. I noticed that while you provided a valid copyright licensing tag, there is no proof that the creator of the file agreed to license it under the given license.

If you created this media entirely yourself but have previously published it elsewhere (especially online), please either

  • make a note permitting reuse under the CC-BY-SA or another acceptable free license (see this list) at the site of the original publication; or
  • Send an email from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en@wikimedia.org, stating your ownership of the material and your intention to publish it under a free license. You can find a sample permission letter here. If you take this step, add {{OTRS pending}} to the file description page to prevent premature deletion.

If you did not create it entirely yourself, please ask the person who created the file to take one of the two steps listed above, or if the owner of the file has already given their permission to you via email, please forward that email to permissions-en@wikimedia.org.

If you believe the media meets the criteria at Wikipedia:Non-free content, use a tag such as {{non-free fair use in|article name}} or one of the other tags listed at Wikipedia:File copyright tags#Fair use, and add a rationale justifying the file's use on the article or articles where it is included. See Wikipedia:File copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have provided evidence that their copyright owners have agreed to license their works under the tags you supplied, too. You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log. Files lacking evidence of permission may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. You may wish to read the Wikipedia's image use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 21:46, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

October 2011

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent edit removed a file deletion tag from File:Driscoll Children's Hospital campus.jpg. When removing deletion tags, please be sure to either resolve the problem that the template refers to, or give a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. If this was a mistake, don't worry, as your removal of this template has been reverted. 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. Eeekster (talk) 23:49, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:The Inhalation Therapy Association logo.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:The Inhalation Therapy Association logo.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 23:50, 26 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of Famous people in healthcare

The article Famous people in healthcare has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

List appears to be completely WP:OR. Only reference mentions one of the subjects of the list being notable.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. OlYeller21Talktome 22:05, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi, this message is to let you know about disambiguation links you've recently created. A link to a disambiguation page is almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

Maury Regional Medical Center (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
was linked to HCA

Any suggestions for improving this automated tool are welcome. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:17, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Some baklava for you!

Well done for Occupy Nashville! Greenmaven (talk) 01:56, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Respiratory Care (journal)

Hi, I'm wondering about the section entitled "original research" that you added to this article. Are these the only two original research papers ever to be published in this journal? If so, that would be weird enough to be explained. If not, why were these two selected? Any specific reasons? --Guillaume233 (talk) 08:44, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

lol, no they aren't the only - I was wondering if it was worth listing all of the research they've done or of that might turn into a too-extensive list for a main article so I only posted two for now. What do you think? Pulmonological (talk) 12:59, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you should either post none, or use an objective criterion (such as the three most cited articles). Otherwise this kind of lists becomes a bit capricious. I would take out the "year subheaders" and re-title the section ("most-cited articles" or "notable articles"). --Guillaume233 (talk) 13:39, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea, thanks! Pulmonological (talk) 00:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Bronchiolitis, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page Lancet (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. For more information, see the FAQ or drop a line at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 13:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome

Good to have a pulmonologist join us. If you have any questions drop me a note.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. In Continuous positive airway pressure, you recently added a link to the disambiguation page RH (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Per WP:MEDRS we typically use review articles or major textbooks rather than popular science sites.

Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:13, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I use a website? Also, thanks for the link to the WP:MEDRS :-) Pulmonological (talk) 08:18, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
These three here http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/scientists-make-major-cystic-fibrosis-breakthrough-468625.html http://www.independent.ie/health/we-have-the-highest-rate-of-cystic-fibrosis-in-the-world-84572.html http://www.rte.ie/tv/theafternoonshow/2010/0408/cysticfibrosis899.html are not really medically appropriate. If you can find better refs post them on the talk page and I will be happy to add it back for you.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:27, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I was reverting the deleting of the ireland incident. I posted about my mistake on the talk page Pulmonological (talk) 08:31, 22 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Fosfomycin/tobramycin for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Fosfomycin/tobramycin 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 Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fosfomycin/tobramycin 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. —SW— spout 17:49, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Review articles

This is not a review article http://www.academicradiology.org/article/S1076-6332(05)00398-3/abstract If you are using pubmed you can click on the tab to the right and it will limit your search to reviews. This is especially important for a featured article. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:17, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have move the content here

Simple pneumothorax

Simple pneumothraces are when the pleural pressure in the hemithorax remains sub-atmospheric and is slightly more positive than the pleural pressure in the contralateral-hemithorax. A simple pnemothorax is typically not dangerous unless in a person receiving mechanical ventilation or has diminished respiratory reserve.

Open pneumothorax

Open pneumothoraces occur when there is trauma to the chest wall causing a point of entry into the thorax. This is called a “sucking wound” or “sucking chest-wound” because of its sucking effect through the thorax during inspiration. During expiration the air exists the pleural space through the point of entry.

Pneumothorax ex vacuo

Pneumothorax ex vacuo is an uncommon type of pneumothorax that forms near an atelectatic lung segment or lobe.[1]

Bilateral post-operative pneumothorax

Also called “buffalo chest”

Single sentence section are also frowned upon at FAC.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:19, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. This article is currently going through WP:FAC. Everything added needs to be based on a review article, major textbook or international position paper per WP:MEDRS. I think everything except the history section fits this currently. The lead does not need to be supported by refs as it is supported by the body of the text. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Respiratory Care

Category:Respiratory Care, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Guillaume2303 (talk) 02:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited NBRC-SDS, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages MD and DO (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:00, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Mandatory minute ventilation, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Volume control (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:08, 10 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Dräger Evita Infinity V500

A tag has been placed on Dräger Evita Infinity V500, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia for multiple reasons. Please see the page to see the reasons. If the page has since been deleted, you can ask me the reasons by leaving a message on my user talk page.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Braniff747SP (talk) 00:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Mechanical ventilation in neonates

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Mechanical ventilation in neonates requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section G12 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be a clear copyright infringement. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material, and as a consequence, your addition will most likely be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. This part is crucial: say it in your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously and persistent violators will be blocked from editing.

If the external website belongs to you, and you want to allow Wikipedia to use the text — which means allowing other people to modify it — then you must verify that externally by one of the processes explained at Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials. If you are not the owner of the external website but have permission from that owner, see Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. You might want to look at Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for more details, or ask a question here.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:38, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Good call, I thought the text was original but clearly it was a blatant copyright infringement. I will work on the article in my sandbox :-) | pulmonological talk • contribs 13:37, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you

The Modest Barnstar
You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this month! 66.87.0.115 (talk) 20:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Non-free rationale for File:Tennesseestateuniversityseal.png

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Tennesseestateuniversityseal.png. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request

Hi Pulmonological. Please keep watching the pages Phlebotomist and Phlebotomy. An anonymous user undid your merging action and added spam links. Trijnsteltalk 14:15, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Trijnstel:
I added this to my watchlist. Thanks for the heads up! | pulmonological talk • contribs 17:34, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pneumothorax

Hi, you reverted my addition about amphoric breath sound. I'd hate to sound like I'm clinging to this particular relatevely insignificant point, but WHY? I had added a source this time. thank you for your obviously very precious time. Delage Clément (talk) 10:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Delage Clément! I reverted the edit because the source wasn't high enough quality for the pneumothorax article. As a wikiproject medicine collaboration of the month for the past 4 months the pneumothorax article is going to be difficult to edit without having a substantially significant reference (a specific review article within the last few years). I hope this doesn't discourage you, we need all the help we can get. | pulmonological talk • contribs 19:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on National League for Nursing Accreditation Commission 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 person, organization (band, club, company, etc.) or web content, but 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. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that the page was nominated in error, contest the nomination by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion" in the speedy deletion tag. Doing so will take you to the talk page where you can explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but 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 yourself, but do not hesitate to add information that is consistent with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Mtking (edits) 03:17, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but you removed a speedy deletion tag from a page you have created yourself. If you believe the page should not be deleted, you may contest the deletion by clicking on the button that says: Click here to contest this speedy deletion and appears inside the speedy deletion notice. This will allow you to make your case on the page's talk page. Administrators will consider your reasoning before deciding what to do with the page. Thank you. Removing Tags due to conflict with another editor is not productive. If you feel your rationale was correct, have someone uninvolved delete them. And yes I thin the nomination of your NAC page was uncalled for as well. Newmanoconnor (talk) 18:56, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you referencing? Also why does this notification also include discussion on a separate and probably unrelated topic? I say probably unrelated because this doesn't reference any articles so I can't know for sure. | pulmonological talk • contribs 19:47, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary Title

Dear Pulmonological, I really do not think saying Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine is an unnecessary title when this is commonly what they are called, frankly, they are called this more often than osteopathic physicians in the real world. It makes perfect sense in the way that individuals who have earned the Doctor of Medicine (M.D.) degree are often called Medical Doctors. I realize that my firsthand knowledge and experience with Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine is only anecdotal evidence but I assure you that many places including academic literature, the American Osteopathic Association, and other encyclopedia entries use the title Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine interchangeably with osteopathic physician. The title I used also draws a starker contrast to the term "osteopath" which, as the article discusses, is frequently a source of confusion for many people trying to distinguish Doctors of Osteopathic Medicine from non-U.S. osteopaths. I hope this clarifies why I put that title there. If you still do not agree with this edit, I strongly encourage you to have a discussion with me before reverting my edit since this a courteous thing to do on wikipedia. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Gas exchange

Hi Pulmonological, Could you take a look at Gas exchange, It has been edited a large number of times since your last visit, and the combination of vandalism and well meaning but poorly applied reversion and a few other edits of variable quality have degraded the text somewhat. I have tried to restore some but find I cant work out what it should be, as I am not expert in the field. Peter (Southwood) (talk): 07:23, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that in your cleanup you have deleted the portal link to Underwater diving, the Diving medicine, physiology and physics navbox, and the category underwater diving as well as some text on gas exchange relating to hyperbaric exposure. Gas exchange is within the scope of diving physiology and medicine, possibly one of the most important aspects, and I see no reason why those items should be deleted. Perhaps you could explain? Cheers, Peter (Southwood) (talk): 16:37, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. Yobol (talk) 17:36, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the dispute is yours to attempt to resolve. Thanks. | pulmonological talk • contribs 17:44, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

June 2013

Information icon Hello, I'm Surfer43. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Modes of mechanical ventilation because it did not appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Surfer43 (talk) 17:46, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguation link notification for June 12

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Poractant alfa, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Respiratory distress syndrome (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:12, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Questionable reference - Scope of Practice

In your [1] edit of Scope of Practice - Definition you used a reference "Defining Nurse Practitioner Scope of Practice: Expanding Primary Care Services", The Internet Journal of Advanced Nursing Practice, 1(20), 1997. (ISSN 1523-6064), contained in the previous version that (1) has a broken link, and (2) when the reference is chased down, e.g., at [2], does not contain or refer to any of the material in this section that is allegedly based upon this reference.

Was this intentional or an error? Thanks, g_a_adams (talk) 20:01, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of File:Constitution of the State of Tennessee.pdf

A tag has been placed on File:Constitution of the State of Tennessee.pdf requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section F10 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a file that is not an image, sound file or video clip (e.g. a Word document or PDF file) that has no encyclopedic use.

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. Stefan2 (talk) 12:37, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed deletion of List of asthma camps in the United States

The article List of asthma camps in the United States has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Asthma camp is a notable subject. The individual camps, not so much (they are all redlinks for a reason).

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

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

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} 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. Fram (talk) 09:51, 30 October 2015 (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) 16:46, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Red World Contest

Hi. We're into the last five days of the Women in Red World Contest. There's a new bonus prize of $200 worth of books of your choice to win for creating the most new women biographies between 0:00 on the 26th and 23:59 on 30th November. If you've been contributing to the contest, thank you for your support, we've produced over 2000 articles. If you haven't contributed yet, we would appreciate you taking the time to add entries to our articles achievements list by the end of the month. Thank you, and if participating, good luck with the finale!

Orphaned non-free image File:Tennesseestateuniversityseal.png

⚠
⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Tennesseestateuniversityseal.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:50, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  1. ^ Ponrartana S, Laberge JM, Kerlan RK, Wilson MW, Gordon RL (2005). "Management of patients with "ex vacuo" pneumothorax after thoracentesis". Acad Radiol. 12 (8): 980–6. doi:10.1016/j.acra.2005.04.013. PMID 16087092.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/User_talk:Pulmonological"