User talk:TylerDurden8823

Advice and Touro University California

Hello TylerDurden8823, first I would like to suggest to you to archive portions of your talk page rather than delete comments. For help in learning how to archive your user talk page see WP:Archive.

To continue with the previous conversation that you deleted, the problem with the references in Touro University California is that most of the citations are simple url links. This is not sufficient because websites tend to reorganize their sites periodically and change all the urls creating broken or dead links. For this reason, each citation should have information (author, publisher, date, ect.) such that if the link is broken, the information will be easy to search for. Please read through Wikipedia:Referencing for beginners or Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example style for how to format refs. As for all the other items that I listed in Touro's GA review and in my previous post that you deleted, I think it would be helpful for you to read through some of the other example Good Articles to give you a sense of what a good article should look like. Good luck. --Tea with toast (話) 21:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I still really need more specific advice regarding what is missing other than the references. I'll look at those articles and see what you mean but I did run the citations through that citation machine. I don't know how to change them otherwise. I'll look at the links you sent me to see if that helps. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see the improvements you have made to the page. Since I'm not quite sure how to better communicate to you the further changes that need to be made using other words (especially about the refs), perhaps it would be better if somebody else were to review the article and give you there own tips. You may be able to find someone who can help by making a request on the talk page of Wikiproject Medicine or Wikiproject University. Best of luck! --Tea with toast (話) 02:50, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the lack of response; I've been on vacation recently (I have a tag indicating such on the top of my talk page). I'll be fairly busy over the next few weeks, so I probably won't have the time to review it. It might best to have someone else to review it anyways, since they might have different opinions and advice. Best of luck! --Tea with toast (話) 14:57, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, I saw the banner up top but I also saw that you had responded to other people recently so I figured you were around. I'll see if I can get a fresh editor to give it a look. Thanks for all of your help, you helped me get the article much further along! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:50, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Peer review

I saw your comment at WT:MED and I recommend putting the article up for WP:PR. It may take a while before someone comments, but it should generate useful feedback. Biosthmors (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Reference Formatting

Hi TylerDurden - just read your post on my talk page about formatting references. The reflinks tool is awesome, but it doesn't catch everything. Here are a few pointers:

• For all references, be sure to include <ref> before the inserted citation template, and then close the reference with </ref>.
• Check out the citation templates; there are several for different types of sources. I almost always use either Template:Cite web or Template:Cite news. If you go to the template pages, you'll see citation templates that you can copy and paste into the page that you're editing, and then fill in the information (url, title, author, etc). If you're citing a journal, book, encyclopedia, etc. then there are different templates for those, too. I've added a box below with the links (Citation Style 1 - noticeboard).
• Here is the cite web template:

{{cite web |url= |title= |author= |year= |work= |publisher= |accessdate=12 May 2024}}

• Wikipedia:refToolbar 2.0 I've recently discovered a really convenient way to cite references: on the edit page, if you look to the far right of the edit tool bar, next to the advanced, special characters, and help options, there is a "cite" option. Click it: it will expand a menu bar below and on the left there will be a drop-down menu entitled "templates." Click it and it'll open up a little page that you can fill the info into. When you're finished, click "insert," and the reference will be inserted whereever you left your cursor on the edit page. The only thing is that this cite option isn't always shown next to the help, and I'm not sure why... I've noticed if I reload the edit page it usually shows up. It's a helpful too, though; saves time.
• Merging references: you can do this by "naming" a reference. Instead of having the typical reference of <ref>...</ref> you have <ref name=X>...</ref>, where X is the name is the name that you chose for the reference. Once you have a reference named somewhere (anywhere) in an article, if you want to use the same reference again in that article, all you have to do is type: <ref name=X></ref>, or <ref name=X />. If you want to see an example of this, find a page that has at least one merged reference (multiple citations to the same reference), and open the edit page. Control F to search for "ref name".

Rytyho usa (talk) 00:14, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

I have responded at the peer review. The Rambling Man (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Nikola Tesla

Not that it matters much, but couldn't isn't an informal contraction. Informal contracts are words, such as "gunna" and "kinda". Just clarifying. Slushy9 (talk) 02:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Contractions are really meant to be used sparingly, if at all, in formal written English. That being said, I see that an "informal contraction" is something else though that isn't what I meant. What I meant is that couldn't is a contraction and is not the most suitable form for formal writing such as in an encyclopedia. Contractions are generally less preferred, if at all, for example in the APA style. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:51, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

revert on Joel Weissman

My apologies for this edit, which reverted all of your changes, when the only issue I had was with a source tag in the lead. I had intended to undo only that one change, but had inadvertently removed all of your recent edits. I see that you have reapplied the other changes and apologize for my error. Alansohn (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, that's okay. I agreed with your edit on the tag part but the rest didn't make sense to me. Glad to hear it was just a misunderstanding, it's all good man. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:04, 26 July 2012 (UTC)== SuggestionBot Suggestions ==== Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot ==

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs American Osteopathic Association Bureau of Osteopathic Specialists Enrico Fazzini Attending physician American Osteopathic Board of Emergency Medicine American Board of Radiology Master of Medicine American Board of Emergency Medicine American Board of Otolaryngology Touro College of Osteopathic Medicine W. Kenneth Riland American Board of Preventive Medicine Campbell University School of Osteopathic Medicine Commission on Osteopathic College Accreditation Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates Medical license Lotan son of Seir American Board of Ophthalmology Clinical clerkship American College of Osteopathic Emergency Physicians

Cleanup San Juan Bautista School of Medicine American Podiatric Medical Association TEA laser Merge General chemistry Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis General pathology Add Sources Podiatry American Board of Dermatology Workers' compensation Wikify Directors and officers liability insurance Laser capture microdissection National Doctors' Day Expand Women in medicine List of master's degrees in North America Nursing

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker. -- SuggestBot (talk) 01:29, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

AOBOO

Thanks for the note. I put the technical writing tag on the AOBOO article because I think it's somewhat dense with terminology and procedure in places. I think the lead section is ok other than the unexplained "(D.O.)" abbreviation. I would also consider removing acronyms for organizations that aren't referenced later in the article except in the navbox (AOABOS and AOA), as their inclusion creates an expectation that they will appear later and the reader needs to keep them in mind. And I'd recommend explaining terminology in layman's terms within the article instead of relying on wikilinks wherever possible. For example, otolaryngology can be described as the medical specialty covering disorders of the ears, nose and throat (I think). Everybody understands what ears, noses and throats are. More people will know about ophthalmology, but it still might be worth simplifying. A lead like, "The American Osteopathic Boards of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology (AOBOO) is a joint organization that provides certification to doctors who practice osteopathic medicine and specialize in treating disorders of the ear, nose, throat and eyes" is more accessible to the average reader than "in the medical specialties of ophthalmology and otolaryngology to qualified osteopathic (D.O.) ophthalmologists and otolaryngologists." The same sorts of issues exist in the body of the article. And the listing of the CAQ qualifications should be reformatted as prose since there are only two of them. I hope this makes sense and helps improve things. --Batard0 (talk) 05:58, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Well done. Just fyi, you can also use wikilink piping to accomplish the goals of making the text more accessible while still providing a link to the corresponding article, for example by typing [[otolaryngologist|ear, nose and throat specialist]], which appears as ear, nose and throat specialist but links to otolaryngologist. --Batard0 (talk) 07:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I know, but I feel it's good to provide the explanation alongside the technical term otolaryngologist so people are not unfamiliar with the term. After all, the purpose of an encyclopedia is tp be a reference and to educate people so they should know that an otolaryngologist is an ears,nose,throat (ENT) physician. I think it's useful to provide both terms. Glad to hear the article looks better after the adjustments I made. =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 07:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)

GAN of interstitial cystitis

Hello there. I saw your nomination of Talk:Interstitial cystitis/GA1, and I opened the review. Thanks for your interest. There appears to be some significant work behind getting the article up to the good article criteria, unfortunately. I left the review open in case you would like to improve the article now. I encourage you to improve it now or later. If you need any help identifying sources, or if you have any other Wikipedia questions in general, please feel free to contact me at my talk page. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 21:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

SOMA page

FYI, I've uploaded the logo for the SOMA article, as well as the new image for the AOA page. Both look pretty good to my eye. Cheers! Rytyho usa (talk) 04:54, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up, both look great! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:57, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks

I also did this to activate doi links. Another cool thing is just typing PMID 12690197 generates an active link like this: PMID 12690197, in case you didn't know. Either one of those two active links will help make things on my end easier. =) Thanks again. I'll look tomorrow. Biosthmors (talk) 02:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Done. Biosthmors (talk) 19:49, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

PMID 12690197 generates the link. The nowiki things deactivate wiki possibilities. Thus, [[DVT]] does not link to DVT, but only shows what one would type in an edit box, whereas DVT works. Sorry I didn't make that clearer. Biosthmors (talk) 17:13, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for all your work to the article. I'm pretty busy at the moment. How about this: how about we close the review as "not yet", but that we try to get more feedback through a WP:PR to see if there's any other work to do before GA. I could provide feedback at a peer review, we could ask for others' comments at WT:MED, and then you could open another good article nomination when you're confident/others are confident things look good? Thanks for your patience with me too! Biosthmors (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your understanding. Yep, you should be able to open the peer review now! Best. Biosthmors (talk) 18:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI I posted at WT:MED about your peer review. I recommend two things. 1) Patience, it can take weeks before someone comments (in fact my DVT review was automatically closed, and I had to manually revert that, before I collected any comments). 2) Help out another person or three who works on GA/peer review/FA content with something they would like to see get attention. I think it is best to incorporate oneself into the community of those who try to create GAs, FAs, etc. if one wants to get articles here upgraded in quality. Best wishes! Biosthmors (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

FYI

See here please: User_talk:Quasihuman#My_condolences.21. I hope you're doing well. Biosthmors (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Consider also assisting Quasihuman if you find my comments here helpful: Wikipedia:Peer review/Interstitial cystitis/archive1. Best. Biosthmors (talk) 22:28, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your patience! I've been on a bit of a tear at WP:PRV and elsewhere. Thanks. Biosthmors (talk) 16:54, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't see "Tyler" pop up your name when I searched in Wikipedia:RX#December_2012. Did you put in a RX request elsewhere? Biosthmors (talk) 07:29, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Replied at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment. And I left a short note on the talk page of the article you've been working on. Thanks for all your edits! Biosthmors (talk) 19:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I hope my comments are helpful! Biosthmors (talk) 01:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

article

Hi Tyler! Regarding the article you asked me about, unfortunately it looks like my institution doesn't subscribe to that journal. Sorry about that! If you have access to a university library, you could ask them to do an interlibrary loan for you. best, -- phoebe / (talk to me) 22:23, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

That's okay, thank you for trying! TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

See my talk page ... -- phoebe / (talk to me) 21:33, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

if you click here you can send me a note with your address, and I'll send you the paper! -- phoebe / (talk to me) 18:18, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

PRV

Have you kindly asked two to three people at WP:PRV yet to help out with bronchitis? I recommend doing so if you haven't already. Best! Biosthmors (talk) 20:40, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

Re: Journal Access?

Yes I do. Here's the file. Next time please leave the message in user talk page, NOT in user page. Otherwise people wouldn't know you left a message (hence the long turn around time to get back to you). OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 07:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

Here you go. [1] Just leave me a message if you need more articles. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 05:00, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't have access to that article. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 01:25, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I deleted them thinking that you already downloaded them. Which one(s) did you not download yet (I have to reupload them again)? OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 18:05, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

The link is back up (the second link in this section) OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:44, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my library subscription for this journal is only for articles published in 1998 or later. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 19:07, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Nice work - vertigo

Nice work on the vertigo article! Very extensive additions. Monkeyjunky (talk) 11:09, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks! =) TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:33, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For our your positive efforts on medical topics. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

By the way drop me a note if you need help with access to papers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 07:28, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks!TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:17, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

refs

Hi, when refs are in a separate location in the source of a page it is easier to edit, it is a little difficult when the text of a page is mixed with refs,what's your opinion? this is in regard with Bronchitis. Kiatdd (talk) 19:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I mean this edit [2], did you put the ref back inbetween the source of the page. Kiatdd (talk) 20:03, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

when the refs are inside the bracket at the bottom of the source of a page, it is kept away from the text, so using this method we separate refs from content. for example if you look at the source of Amblyopia, I mean click on it and then press edit to see the source, you will notice that all the refs are between brackets at the bottom of page. Kiatdd (talk) 20:20, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

I am trying to explain that what I was doing in Bronchitis, is based on WP:LDRHOW, it is a method to make editing easier, just to let you know. Thanks. Kiatdd (talk) 20:46, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll have to talk to someone who knows more about that than I do. The page you referenced looks like the reference section is incorrectly done to me and the Asperger syndrome page is a featured article so I tend to go by an article like that as a model.TylerDurden8823 (talk) 20:48, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Bronchitis

Hey TD, saw your note about bronchitis confusion at Doc's User Talk page. What else can I say other than "I was wrong"! I didn't know enough about the subject to know to tell you to split it up into the subarticles as suggested. But, on the bright side, instead of just one GA bronchitis, you'll end up with three after you add in acute and chronic! Keep up the good work... Zad68 03:22, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

moving this all here

It's cool Zad, it was just that when I saw what happened, it was such a dramatic revision that I felt compelled to ask what was happening. I'm not the most experienced wikipedia user and I learn about new policies all the time, so I'm always open to learning about that, but I usually ask for an explanation. I'm not clear on what you mean about 3GAs, are you recommending that I just work on the main article for acute bronchitis, the main article for chronic bronchitis, etc. instead? TylerDurden8823 (talk) 03:26, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Sure, after you catch your breath (HA!), what I mean is: instead of having just one article to nominate as a WP:GOODARTICLE (GA), you'll have three: bronchitis, acute bronchitis, and chronic bronchitis. I'm recommending that you develop all three! You've probabaly been pulling the sources you need for all three anyway. As you get each one to GA status, submit. Good stuff. But first you need to finish that discussion at Talk:Bronchitis with Doc and get him to explain how the articles should be laid out. It sounds like bronchitis will be a very small article, and nearly all the content that's in there now will be pushed down to the 2 subarticles. That's what it sounds like, but get a clear explanation so that you're not surprised like this again. You picked a good topic. Cheers... Zad68 03:31, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Gynecomastia

Hi Doc, I was wondering if you would be willing to help me out with this article. It's coming along nicely and I've been adding reliable secondary sources to it, but I feel like the organization of the article could use improvement and I believe you have more experience than I do in this aspect of improving articles. Please let me know either here or at my talk page if you have any interest in this project. Thanks. Sincerely, TylerDurden8823 (talk) 21:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks will take a look. One concern I see is the pictures from the plastic surgeon. The after photos seem to include tanning which is always worrisome. I fear self promotion. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:08, 2 March 2013 (UTC)