User talk:Vogon77

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hello, "Vogon77" and welcome to Wikipedia. A few tips for you:

  • Remember to write in complete sentences.
  • If you're interested in writing definitions rather than (or in addition to) encyclopedia articles, check out our sister project, Wiktionary.

-- Infrogmation 03:12, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that several of your new articles are quite brief. Please add {{stub}} to short articles so that others can identify and contribute to articles that need fleshing out. --KSlayer 06:02, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)


Hi. Same message from me. PLEASE do not write such brief articles without adding the stub notice. In fact, this site discourages such substubs. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any further questions. - Lucky 6.9 01:16, 7 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikipedia. PLEASE review Wikipedia:Manual of Style. RickK 07:49, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)


Hey Vogon77! Thanks for ongoing help on the medicine articles. Would you be interested to join the other Wikidoctors at WikiProject "Clinical medicine"? Here we exchange ideas and policy.

Concerning the categories: most medical articles do not fall under Category:Medicine, which would then become very very large. Instead, categories like Category:Neurology are children of the Medicine category. As long as a condition is part of the child category, it will not need to go in Category:Medicine.

(Also please note that the Pediatrics category is called Category:Paediatrics for some unknown reason...) Thanks and see you around. JFW | T@lk 14:02, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The medical categories are at present a bit messy. I have been creating the medical specialisms as subcats of medicine, but other people seem to like categorisation by pathophysiology (e.g. Lupus under autoimmune diseases). In fact, both are valid systems. Please have a look at the Category:Medicine and its subcategories. There is still a lot of work to be done... JFW | T@lk 12:01, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "textbook classification". Is this the classification by organ system, pathophysiology or etiology? At the moment, most articles are classified by organ system or medical specialty, and many also have a pathophysiological category (e.g. autoimmune diseases). JFW | T@lk 10:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Empty pages[edit]

Don't create empty pages. They will be speedy deleted. RickK 08:02, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Please add the details before creating the articles. There have already been other users adding speedy deletion headers to your articles. RickK 08:06, Oct 28, 2004 (UTC)

Headings[edit]

Hi Vogon77, my compliments on your recent work (Epiglottitis had not been written yet!). I would recommend against putting empty sections in articles, presuming that someone else will write them. If anything, you can also use HTML comment codes < !-- and -- > with the spaces removed. JFW | T@lk 13:04, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing[edit]

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 2000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2
I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:
{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. -- Ram-Man (comment| talk)

Grammar![edit]

Vogon77, my compliments on your dedicated work. You have patiently worked on a large number of subjects that nobody has yet managed to cover on Wikipedia.

Please do invest more time in making grammatically correct sentences. In Cushing ulcer, you inserted: "Also seen in the proximal duodenum and distal esophagus". While factually correct, the sentence lacks a subject (what is seen?) Other editors eventually tidy up these things, but it would be nicer if the article was linguistically tenable from the start. As I've told you before: my English has improved markedly from working on Wikipedia (it is not actually my first language).

Otherwise: keep up the good work! JFW | T@lk 16:19, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Redirects[edit]

Redirects use the following format:

#REDIRECT [[Other article]]

Brianjd 09:38, 2004 Dec 19 (UTC)

Content[edit]

Hi! Just a friendly note to let you know that an article that isn't much more than a single sentence that's obvious to the person doing the research is likely to be speedy deleted. The article you just did on that Indian actress is a good example. Three or four sentences would be a lot more useful and would guarantee that the article is kept in order that you might expand it later. Take care. - Lucky 6.9 23:15, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Manual of style[edit]

Hi Vogon77, thanks for doing all that endocrine work! Could you please adhere to the manual of style when making edits? This saves others the bother of having to improve the formatting of articles after you've edited them.

For example, articles start with an introduction, which is a few lines long and has no header. The headers themselves are on level 2 (==Header==) and are not capitalised apart from the first letter and proper names. Also, some additions could be a bit more prosaic, such as the note about the use of C-peptide in identifying abuse of hypoglycemics.

Thank you for your attention. JFW | T@lk 08:48, 24 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

please refrain from repeated comments on manual of style. eventually things will be corrected vogon77 03:50, 26 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I beg do differ. Indeed things will be corrected... by other editors who have to tidy up after you! If English is not your first language, it would be immensely helpful if you updated your knowledge of grammar and spelling. In the long term, articles look fairly clumsy if they have unedited loose bits of information that are presented without framework.

If you are uncertain how to phrase a certain point, there is always the talk page of an article where you can make suggestions.

Again, the knowledge you have added is extremely useful, but please spare your fellow editors the bother of having to format your work adequately. I'm also not sure if you did right to delete the comments by Lucky 6.9[1]. JFW | T@lk 05:38, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

well, i guess thats the end of it all. goodbye. I quit. vogon77 06:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That would be a shame. JFW | T@lk 07:08, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Reasons to leave:

  1. excessive deleting of new articles by Lucky 6.9
  2. too much monitoring of what and how i add. RELAX.
  3. i believe that i have left articles in better shape than i found them. I do accept that some of my formatting was not upto the mark. Though that judgement has been too stringent at times. wikipedia is not a beautification program, its to make a alternative repository of information. I would not be too much bothered about formatting than adding information. and i dont think there are format problems in every thing i have done, and i have followed tham to a large extent as well vogon77
Please tell me which articles were deleted. You can ask him whether they actually met the criteria for speedy deletion. They can be undeleted if they were deleted without ground.
Thankfully people monitor what other people add. Otherwise all vandalism from less bona fide users would also go unnoticed.
I think presentation is important, especially where it does not take a lot of effort to write a grammatically correct sentence. You have indeed written several very good entries, which is one of the reasons why I'm trying to convince you to stay. I can talk to Lucky6.9 if you want. JFW | T@lk 09:50, 27 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Sciatica question[edit]

Vogon77, since you commented on the Talk:Sciatica page, maybe you can answer a question about types of Sciatica or the types of grade I degenerative spondylolisthesis that causes Sciatica. Several places I have read of patients that can make the sciatic pain go away by bending forward (spine in flexion). But others experience more pain in flexion and can make the pain go away by bending backward. Do these different conditions have names? Greensburger 14:24, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Survey request[edit]

Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.

Thank You, Sam4bc (talk) 01:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unreferenced BLPs[edit]

Hello Vogon77! Thank you for your contributions. I am a bot alerting you that 2 of the articles that you created are tagged as Unreferenced Biographies of Living Persons. The biographies of living persons policy requires that all personal or potentially controversial information be sourced. In addition, to ensure verifiability, all biographies should be based on reliable sources. If you were to bring these articles up to standards, it would greatly help us with the current 942 article backlog. Once the articles are adequately referenced, please remove the {{unreferencedBLP}} tag. Here is the list:

  1. Nana Patekar - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL
  2. Suhasini Mulay - Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thanks!--DASHBot (talk) 05:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article Pankaj Mullick has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no third party sources to indicate WP:N has been met leaving a 2 year unreferenced resume of a living person

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. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Active Banana (bananaphone 16:40, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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) 22:15, 30 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I have sent you a note about a page you started[edit]

Hello, Vogon77

Thank you for creating Satiety.

User:Ovinus, while examining this page as a part of our page curation process, had the following comments:

The concept and biological nature of satiety is sufficiently different, and has enough dedicated medical literature, that I agree it warrants a separate article from hunger (physiology).

To reply, leave a comment here and begin it with {{Re|Ovinus}}. Please remember to sign your reply with ~~~~ .

(Message delivered via the Page Curation tool, on behalf of the reviewer.)

Ovinus (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of TransMolecular for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article TransMolecular 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/TransMolecular until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

DirtyHarry991 (talk) 06:18, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]