User talk:HCUP US

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

File source and copyright licensing problem with File:Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Logo.jpg[edit]

File Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading File:Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP) Logo.jpg. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status and its source. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously.

If you did not create this work entirely yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, please add a link to the page from which it was taken, together with a brief restatement of the website's terms of use of its content. If the original copyright holder is a party unaffiliated with the website, that author should also be credited. You will also need to state under what licensing terms it was released. Please refer to the image use policy to learn what files you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. The page on copyright tags may help you to find the correct tag to use for your file.

Please add this information by editing the image description page. If the necessary information is not added within the next days, the image will be deleted. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem.

Please also check any other files you may have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Using HCUP data as source[edit]

I am not sure if you should be adding claims based on HCUP data into articles. Firstly, the data focuses heavily on the situation in the USA, while Wikipedia has an international focus. Secondly, the data are primary source-based and by definition less useful than the secondary sources we prefer to use for medical content. Could I suggest that you leave a post on WT:MED (the medicine forum) to discuss this further? JFW | T@lk 00:24, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Recent addition to natural childbirth[edit]

Hi, I'm concerned that the recent edit is not contextually appropriate or meaningful. The text doesn't pertain to Prevalence. The terminology used is easy to misinterpret, particularly "complicating condition", a term so broad as to be meaningless. See talk page.Millionmice (talk) 01:02, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

N.B On a further look, a lot of your edits seem to be numbers without clear context. Millionmice (talk) 01:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for recent edit to Pneumonia article.[edit]


I think you recently included that a diagnosis of pneumonia is the number one reason in the United States for the hospital admission for an infant or a child up to age 17. I think this is highly relevant information and thank you for including it.

On an unrelated note, I'm trying to include some pictures for Oral Rehydration Solution. Any chance you'd be interested in this and/or know the steps for including pictures? Cool Nerd (talk) 19:25, 1 August 2014 (UTC)