User talk:AssassinT90
Welcome!
[edit]Hi AssassinT90! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.
As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:
Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.
If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:
If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:
Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.
Happy editing! --đŠDrWho42đ» 22:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
January 2022
[edit]
Welcome to Wikipedia. We appreciate your contributions, but in one of your recent edits to Lymphadenopathy, it appears that you have added original research, which is against Wikipedia's policies. Original research refers to materialâsuch as facts, allegations, ideas, and personal experiencesâfor which no reliable, published sources exist; it also encompasses combining published sources in a way to imply something that none of them explicitly say. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your contributions. You can have a look at the tutorial on citing sources. Thank you. 747pilot (talk) 12:22, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi, this change [1] probably should have been discussed on the Talk Page. Graham Beards (talk) 18:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- It has been [1]. In feb. 2020. Moreover, it's not like that is a controversial issue: every single secondary source you consult on rotavirus vaccine will mention the intussusception risk. Sadly, it appears that, in the wikipedia article, the risk has been disrergarded on account of a single study. AssassinT90 (talk) 12:27, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about that old comment. Your rather long edit summary â which, incidentally, comes across as a rant â would have been better placed on the Talk Page and "See Talk Page" used as an edit summary instead. I don't think the risk of intussusception following rotavirus vaccination, which is about 1 in 100,000, was deliberately "disregarded"; the article needed correcting, that's all. Thank you for doing this. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's understandable if citing sources there might have come across as a rant - we usually cite them in the article, not on the summary. And I have to admit it has been somewhat exasperating to talk about vaccine side effects since COVID vaccines came out. Still, I believe working towards scientific accuracy, at least in Wikipedia, is worth it in the end. AssassinT90 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I agree with you and understand your frustration. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 11:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- It's understandable if citing sources there might have come across as a rant - we usually cite them in the article, not on the summary. And I have to admit it has been somewhat exasperating to talk about vaccine side effects since COVID vaccines came out. Still, I believe working towards scientific accuracy, at least in Wikipedia, is worth it in the end. AssassinT90 (talk) 09:27, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
- I had forgotten about that old comment. Your rather long edit summary â which, incidentally, comes across as a rant â would have been better placed on the Talk Page and "See Talk Page" used as an edit summary instead. I don't think the risk of intussusception following rotavirus vaccination, which is about 1 in 100,000, was deliberately "disregarded"; the article needed correcting, that's all. Thank you for doing this. Best regards. Graham Beards (talk) 16:47, 5 June 2022 (UTC)