Hi Maxim Masiutin,
I apologize if this isn't an acceptable form of contact, I am new to Wikipedia. I saw that you were a frequent contributor to the POTS Wikipedia page and you seem to know a lot about it and other medical topics. This may not be of importance but I thought I'd let you know that there was a recent edit on the Dysautonomia Wikipedia page that seems inaccurate. I don't really know how to dispute it or the dispute process and I also wanted to get another opinion from someone else who knows more about this topic. The author of that edit also appears to be relatively new. From what I could tell the sources don't support what is being said. This is the edit:
"In contrast to orthostatic hypotension (OH) in which neurodegenerative diseases might underlie, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) in which psychiatric diseases might underlie responds to psychiatric intervention/ medication, or shows spontaneous remission. [40][41]"
Thank you very much for your time and for all the work you do to maintain the quality and reliability of medical information on Wikipedia. Please know that there is no pressure to take action; I merely wanted to share my concerns with someone who has a understanding of these topics. Best wishes. RowdyPotato (talk) 10:41, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
You can simply edit the text again to have the right version, and additionally add a topic in the talk page where you explain that your edit is right where you fixed a wrong edit, and explain why it is wrong. If someone disagrees, you can appeal for a third opinion as described in Wikipedia:Dispute resolution requests/Third opinion, however, please read that section before requesting the third opinion. Just don't fix the same text after somebody modified it more than thrice a day, otherwise it will trigger a violation of the 3-edit rule ("Edit war"), see Wikipedia:Edit warring. You can edit the other text (that you modified, not other people) as many times as necessary, but fixing text of other people with a frequency of more than 3 times a day triggers the violation. Still, if you have questions, please ask in the Wikipedia Teahouse at Wikipedia:Teahouse/About. Please let me know whether it helped. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 19:45, 4 March 2024 (UTC)
Trajal Harrell edit
hi there, thank you for you feedback
I have to edit a wikipedia page for a school assignment. How do I add a valid sources and references to wikipedia?
Posting a few tips here, as I don't want to bring the GA review off course.
Usually, when you do a review, it's convenient to use bullet points. That way, nominators can reply to each point individually easily.
Be mindful of using very long paragraphs. Paragraphs longer than ~100 words start becoming difficult to understand, and therefore a bit of an accessibility problem. Most of what you said can be condensed, especially when you know somebody has experience.
Thank you for your tips! Feel free to fix only what does not currently comply to 1a and 1b on lead section, as the rest is OK. I will follow your recommendations, as they are very valuable. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 21:04, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
One more thing: WP:ENGVAR is also not included in the GA criteria. I do really appreciate you fixed it, as we will need to comply before FA. 😀 —Femke 🐦 (talk) 08:26, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
While WP:ENGVAR is not explicitly included, 1a states that to comply with the criteria, it should be that spelling and grammar are correct; before I fixed it, the spelling wasn't technically correct, because from the point of view of American spelling, the British spelling might have been considered incorrect, and vice versa. I came to this conclusion because when I went to school we had English classes and we were penalized for using American spelling, and and some official exams such as TOELF will penalize for mixing, therefore, before I fixed, the article technically failed GA criteria due to violation of 1a (spelling). WP:ENGVAR only mentions about consistent use of an English variety, it doesn't address the issue on whether mixing English varieties is considered a correct spelling or not (outside quotations titles and proper names). Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:27, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Can you please let me know how to interpret the "The spelling and grammar follow an established system, even if you prefer a different variety of English"? Is mixing English varieties allowed in a GA article or not? Maybe we should make it explicit while it is an essay? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:00, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Grzegorz Mazurek please read carefully and you will see in Para 3 that he wrote - " Since 2018, I have been a member of the EFMD Advisory Board for the Central and Eastern European region." Shame ON wikipedia to list this, without reading....I suspect that entire profile is written by him
GRZEGORZ MAZUREK - WIKIPEDIA Profile is written by me.
I appreciate your concern about the accuracy of information on Wikipedia. However, I would like to clarify that I, Maxim Masiutin, have not been involved in editing the article about Grzegorz Mazurek. Therefore, it would be more appropriate to address your concerns to the actual editors of the article (see the history of the page on Grzegorz Mazurek) or the Wikipedia community at large.
As for your concerns about the notability and accuracy of the information in the articles, Wikipedia has a specific procedure for contesting the notability of an article (see Wikipedia:Notability and Wikipedia:Notability (people)). Here are the steps you can follow:
Verify the information and check if the information in the article is verifiable and if it has been sourced from reliable, independent sources.
Start a discussion, so that if you believe that the subject of the article does not meet the notability guidelines, you can start a discussion on the article’s talk page. This is a good place to discuss your concerns with other editors.
Nominate for deletion, so that ff after discussing, the community agrees that the subject does not meet the notability guidelines, you can nominate the article for deletion. The Wikipedia community will then review the nomination and make a decision.
Follow the three-revert rule, and remember, that while editing, follow the three-revert rule to avoid being blocked from editing (see Wikipedia:Contributing to Wikipedia).
I would like to add that the steps I provided earlier are general guidelines for contesting the notability of a Wikipedia article. They are not based on any analysis of the actual content of the page in question. As a Wikipedia user, I, Maxim Masiutin, have not analyzed the content of the page about Grzegorz Mazurek that you raised an issue about.
Please note that I am not an administrator or any official of Wikipedia, and I am not obliged to verify the content or resolve any complaints. My role is to contribute to the Wikipedia community as a regular user, just like you.
If you have further questions or need assistance with Wikipedia procedures, I recommend asking in the Wikipedia Teahouse at Wikipedia:Teahouse/About. It’s a forum where new editors can get help from experienced editors.
Your edit to Drug-eluting stent has been removed in whole or in part, as it appears to have added copyrighted material to Wikipedia without evidence of permission from the copyright holder. If you are the copyright holder, please read Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for more information on uploading your material to Wikipedia. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted material, including text or images from print publications or from other websites, without an appropriate and verifiable license. All such contributions will be deleted. You may use external websites or publications as a source of information, but not as a source of content, such as sentences or images—you must write using your own words. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously, and persistent violators of our copyright policy will be blocked from editing. See Wikipedia:Copying text from other sources for more information. This is your third warning. — Diannaa (talk) 02:07, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Dengue fever
Hi, your edit of Dengue fever has referenced an obsolete archive version from 2019 of the WHO factsheet, it was updated in 2023. Please can you correct or remove this? Many thanks.
Hi. Can I ask you not to replace simple cite sources with full cite ones in the above project and all related archived pages? By long-standing consensus, we agreed that, to keep page loading times down, we would only adopt URL, headline, in lang and subscription details when referencing each of the many, many entries we end up with per month. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)08:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Deaths in 2023, Deaths in 2022, Deaths in 2021, &etc., all the way back to Deaths in 1979, which is as far back as "Deaths in" records go for some reason. If you could kindly avoid all those, it would be appreciated. Otherwise, please open a section at the current talk page to let us know why you think they should be full citations, though this has been debated over and over many times before, and consensus always seems to stay with the simple cite option. Thanks. Ref(chew)(do)16:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
My apologies, Ref. I wasn't aware of the established consensus regarding citation convention. I appreciate the explanation and fully understand the reasoning behind keeping citations simple to maintain page loading efficiency. I will adhere to this consensus moving forward and have no intention of disputing it. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Have a good day! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:59, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
Hello, @AManWithNoPlan, I have submitted two issues on GitHub: I splitted my CodeCoverage files on two parts: one part contain only NULLs, another part contains all other lines; I sorted the lines in both parts and removed duplicate lines. I then submitted each of the part as a separate issue on GitHub. Therefore, you can, for example, process the NULLs first and let the other issues accumulate so that you will handle them later when you have time. Please let me know whether such format of submitting my CodeCoverage is OK for you. Also please let me know which frequency would you prefer. Would the weekly frequency be OK for you? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:37, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
if you had a bit of time that would be brilliant - particularly any sense check; e.g. do you think it makes sense, whether any sections need more work...
.
it's a big and difficult medical topic that affects many people and yet tends to fall outside all the specialist disease silos; so that patients often get very little help with it.
(this article gets about 400 page views a day)
.
p.s. there was a past debate about whether to make this article about just fatigue in the medical sense. that has been parked for now, but does leave some lack of clarity. the heading mentions the more normal physical or mental exertion fatigue, but the body of the article is almost all about fatigue in the medical sense.
Thank you! I will first find the sources for some claims that lacked sources, and then will try to think on substance, i.e. what you mentioned. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:16, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Should you have further messages to me, could you please write in the Talk page of the article rather than here in my user talk, so that the other people could also read and contribute, i.e., for better visibility? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I convert naked urls to refs using https://refill.toolforge.org/ - I wondered if you could recommend a better tool for this? but no worries at all if there isn't one.
The Refill is a very good and very fast tool to expand bare references. I use it too. I also use the citation bot User:Citation_bot/use which is much slower but does many more things besides expanding the bare URLs: it checks existing citations and tries to ad as much attributes as possible if not all attributes were filled. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:34, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
If you need to expand just one reference, you can paste it into a sandbox under your userspace and click the button, so that the bot will quickly expand it, because expanding a whole page with hundred of citations may be slow up to a point of a timeout. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the Refill produce acceptable refs. However, all the references in an article have to be consistent, i.e. have the same style, same attributes present or absent, etc. So you can use Refill often, but it may not produce the references of the same style as the other references, so from time to time, ocasionally, you may run the citation bot to make them all consistent with each other. If the button to call citatino bot gives you a timeout, run it via the web interface at ToolsForge. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:58, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
