User talk:Khobler

Welcome!

Hello, Khobler, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! JFW | T@lk 02:46, 4 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

appendicitis

Cheers! I made some edits to the appendicitis entry which I noted you've taken an interest in. I'm a practicing surgeon and have some practical experience with this. Let me know if you'd like to bounce any ideas off. RobDroliver 19:19, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

October 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Shock (circulatory) may have broken the syntax by modifying 2 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Committee defined septic shock: ". . .sepsis-induced hypotension (systolic blood pressure < 90 mmHg or a reduction of 40 mmHg from baseline) despite adequate fluid
and for guarding against respiratory arrest. Oxygen supplementation, intravenous fluids, [[passive leg raising (not [[Trendelenburg position]]) should be started and blood transfusions added

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 02:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Some tips

Hello Khobler, thanks for your edits to the hypoxia and shock articles. I hope you don't mind that I fixed a couple of things. For instance, some of the changes broke wikilinks (all sorted now).

In general, I would recommend that you have a look at WP:MEDRS. In medical articles we really try to use recent high-quality secondary sources (textbooks, reviews from key journals) and not small studies from the early 1970s. I am very happy to advise if you ever have trouble finding a good source. JFW | T@lk 07:10, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]