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)

Your account has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia because it appears to be mainly intended for publicity and/or promotional purposes. If you intend to edit constructively in other topic areas, you may be granted the right to continue under a change of username. Please read the following carefully.
Why can't I edit Wikipedia?

Your account's edits and/or username indicate that it is being used on behalf of a company, group, website or organization for purposes of promotion and/or publicity. The edits may have violated one or more of our rules on spamming, which include: adding inappropriate external links, posting advertisements and using Wikipedia for promotion. Wikipedia has many articles on companies, groups, and organizations, but such groups are generally discouraged from using Wikipedia to write about themselves. In addition, usernames like yours are disallowed under our username policy.

Am I allowed to make these edits if I change my username?

Probably not, although if you can demonstrate a pattern of future editing in strict accordance with our neutral point of view policy, you may be granted this right. See Wikipedia's FAQ for Organizations for a helpful list of frequently asked questions by people in your position. Also, review the conflict of interest guidance to see the kinds of limitations you would have to obey if you did want to continue editing about your company, group, organization, or clients. If this does not fit in with your goals, then you will not be allowed to edit Wikipedia again.

What can I do now?

If you have no interest in writing about some other topic than your organization, group, company, or product, you may consider using one of the many websites that allow this instead.

If you do intend to make useful contributions here about some other topic, you must convince a Wikipedia administrator that you mean it. To that end, please do the following:

  • Add the text {{unblock-spamun|Your proposed new username|Your reason here}} on your user talk page.
  • Replace the text "Your proposed new username" with a new username you are willing to use. See Special:Listusers to search for available usernames. Your new username will need to meet our username policy.
  • Replace the text "Your reason here" with your reason to be unblocked. In this reason, you must:
    • Convince us that you understand the reason for your block and that you will not repeat the edits for which you were blocked.
    • Describe in general terms the contributions that you intend to make if you are unblocked.
If you believe this block was made in error, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 7 April 2015 (UTC)