Hello, I'm GrayFullbuster. I wanted to let you know that I undid one or more of your recent contributions to Bronchitis because it didn't appear constructive. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thanks! GrayFullbuster (talk) 01:35, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- If this is a shared IP address, and you did not make the edit, consider creating an account for yourself so you can avoid further irrelevant notices.
Howdy. I thought your version of Bronchitis was a significant improvement over the earlier version in terms of readability, actually. Thank you for your work Unfortunately, your version did leave out quite a bit of relevant information that we normally include in medical articles (see the guideline WP:MEDMOS). Also, medical assertions need to be supported by appropriate sources, as described in our guideline, Identifying reliable sources (medicine).
I hope you haven't been too disheartened by this experience. Would you consider copy editing the existing Bronchitis article to retain the existing information (and citations), to improve its readability? Some editors have put in hundreds of hours of work on the article to research and find ideal sources, and decide what to include and exclude, so it's important you don't make changes to that without first running it by the article's talk page. Anthonyhcole (talk) 03:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
- Disagree. It read like a patient information leaflet, and many issues that conflicted with MEDMOS.Lesion (talk) 14:51, 20 February 2013 (UTC)