User talk:George G Milford

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

Welcome!

Hello, George G Milford! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. You may benefit from following some of the links below, which will help you get the most out of Wikipedia. If you have any questions you can 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 clicking or by typing four tildes "~~~~"; this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you are already excited about Wikipedia, you might want to consider being "adopted" by a more experienced editor or joining a WikiProject to collaborate with others in creating and improving articles of your interest. Click here for a directory of all the WikiProjects. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field when making edits to pages. Happy editing! I dream of horses If you reply here, please leave me a {{Talkback}} message on my talk page. @ 19:31, 9 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous

Your editing[edit]

Hi George, I've brought your editing of Flammer syndrome and other pages up at the talk page of WikiProject Medicine in this thread. Your thoughts there would be appreciated. Graham87 11:09, 31 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

hi[edit]

noticed your edit history[1] , do you have a relation to the article Josef_Flammer or Flammer_syndrome in any way? (please read Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy deletion nomination of Swiss Academy of Ophthalmology[edit]

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 Swiss Academy of Ophthalmology 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 company, corporation or organization, but it 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 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. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator. XFhumuTalk 20:26, 18 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

WP:COI[edit]

Were do you disclose your relation to the subject you write about? Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

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.
  3. Please use high-quality, recent, secondary sources for medical content (see WP:MEDRS; for the difference between primary and secondary sources, see the WP:MEDDEF section.) 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. We don't use terms like "currently", "recently," "now", or "today". See WP:RELTIME.
  6. More generally see WP:MEDHOW, which gives great tips for editing about health -- for example, it provides a way to format citations quickly and easily
  7. Citation details are important:
    • Be sure to cite the PMID for journal articles and ISBN for books
    • Please include page numbers when referencing a book or long journal article, and please format citations consistently within an article.
    • Do not use URLs from your university library that have "proxy" in them: the rest of the world cannot see them.
    • Reference tags generally go after punctuation, not before; there is no preceding space.
  8. We use very few capital letters (see WP:MOSCAPS) and very little bolding. Only the first word of a heading is usually capitalized.
  9. Common terms are not usually wikilinked; nor are years, dates, or names of countries and major cities. Avoid overlinking!
  10. Never copy and paste from sources; we run detection software on new edits.
  11. 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) 23:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reference formatting[edit]

All of your journal referencing is flawed.

Wrong[1]

Right[2]

The correct format allows a reader to click on the pmid number to be hyperlinked to the article's listing (and abstact) at PubMed, or on the doi unformation to get to the jounal's hyperlink. To auto-create journal refs, go to https://tools.wmflabs.org/citation-template-filling/cgi-bin/index.cgi Once there, enter the PMID number. Copy the result into the ref /ref brackets for the reference. If you intend to cite the same ref at more than one place in the article, lead with <ref name= >, with a ref name after the =. For subsequent uses of the ref, repeat the content within the < >. but with a / before the >. David notMD (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Flammer J, Mozaffarieh M.: What is the present pathogenetic concept of glaucomatous optic neuropathy? Surv Ophthalmol. 2007 Nov;52 Suppl 2:S162-173.
  2. ^ Flammer J, Mozaffarieh M (November 2007). "What is the present pathogenetic concept of glaucomatous optic neuropathy?". Surv Ophthalmol. 52 Suppl 2: S162–73. doi:10.1016/j.survophthal.2007.08.012. PMID 17998042.

Thank you David, that advice is much appreciated ! I have wondered why (on some pages) there is no coherent way of referencing. Now I will use your guideline and example to update the references used by me over time. Best George G Milford (talk) 13:55, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A barnstar for you![edit]

The Original Barnstar
For contributing new articles on Ophthalmology! Keep it up. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much ! I had no idea up to now what a barnstar is - but now that I know I'm really honored ! BestGeorge G Milford (talk) 13:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your teahouse post[edit]

Hello George G Milford, I intended to add a reply to your post addressing the specific questions that you had asked there, but I wanted to make sure first. That led me to raise the issue at one of our more experienced editors's talk pages, and that has elicited further comments to your post, which has moved the discussion slightly somewhere else. So, here I am. The issue seems to be one of controversy, and therefore lacking in clarity that I hoped to give you. The only thing I can say for certain, is that you can and should (not in email) ask the editor that adds such a tag to give specific points about what exactly needs to be done in order to address the concerns and remove the tag. They have an obligation to give that much. It doesn't seem like you can personally remove the tags yourself just because such explanation is not given at the talk page, per current community norms. But you could request that the tag be removed, and others might be moved to act on your request when you point out that the documentation of the tag requires the tagger to explain the issues at the talk page. I think it's a bad idea, and one unlikely to yield anything positive, to report the user in question, which is one question you specifically asked too. But, as only a point of answering, while advising strongly against it, you can report any given user to WP:ANI. You should read the notice on the top of that page carefully and follow the guidance, if you choose to post there. The discussion I started about your post is ongoing at User_talk:Iridescent#A_question_about_Template:COI. A lot of Wikipedia jargons are used, but I think even an editor not intimately familiar with Wikipedia can grasp the salient points, should you choose to take a look. Those tags seem to live in a grey area not governed by some hard and fast rules, and therefore, the consensus on them is likely to be unwritten, and anything that is locally enforced. As such, another sort of a "complaint" could be to seek clarity on the issue. Policy is usually discussed at WP:VPP but it may be better to start a discussion at the talk page of the template if you choose to persue that avenue. The template that generates the tag in question resides at Template:COI, the documentation is on that page, and discussion on it can be had at its talk page, i.e. Template talk:COI. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 15:55, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much Usedtobecool ! Your advice is much appreciated; I did not have that situation before and I am not that active on Wikipedia. Will certainly try to avoid contributions that arouse such a suspicion in the future - and I definitely appreciate all the editors' work and enthusiasm for this valuable institution. Kind regards and best wishedGeorge G Milford (talk) 12:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your thread has been archived[edit]

Teahouse logo

Hi George G Milford! The thread you created at the Wikipedia:Teahouse, Stigmatizing of some of my contributions, has been archived because there was no discussion for a few days (usually at least two days, and sometimes four or more). You can still find the archived discussion here. If you have any additional questions that weren't answered then, please feel free to create a new thread.


The archival was done by Lowercase sigmabot III, and this notification was delivered by Muninnbot, both automated accounts. You can opt out of future notifications by placing {{bots|deny=Muninnbot}} here on your user talk page. Muninnbot (talk) 19:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:George_G_Milford&oldid=1039872043"