User talk:DuBose

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] A welcome from Sango123

Hello, DuBose, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions; I hope you like the place and decide to stay. We're glad to have you in our community! Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Though we all make goofy mistakes, here is what Wikipedia is not. If you have any questions or concerns, don't hesitate to see the help pages or add a question to the village pump. The Community Portal can also be very useful.

Happy Wiki-ing!

-- Sango123 (talk) 20:18, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

P.S. Feel free to leave a message on my talk page if you need help with anything or simply wish to say hello. :)

[edit] Inline links

Thanks for your medical ultrasound contributions. Could you please avoid using inline links like this: http://www.google.com. This clutters the page; additionally, the links in their present form lack a description. The correct form according to the manual of style would be [http://www.google.com Google] where the second term (after the space) is the description. Better still, footnotes can be constructed, but I'll leave that to you. JFW | T@lk 08:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Since you are a person with obvious academic credentials: Shouldn't you consider better references than those you put into Medical_ultrasonography? A reference to a page that is only a reference to further pages is a hardly a reference. --Ekko 09:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Terminology

You seem to be changing every use of "ultrasonography" with "sonography". I wish you'd discussed this on the relevant talk pages first. I think the correct term is "ultrasonography" if the test is called "an ultrasound". I've changed it back for now. Please provide some support for your changes. JFW | T@lk 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

If you think the article medical ultrasonography should be called sonography instead, please do not create a duplicate page but suggest a move on the former page. JFW | T@lk 14:37, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your recent edit

(referring to this)

removed a stub tag from an article. It is a short article, which can definitely be expanded further, and so qualifies as a a stub. Please don't remove the tag again. Thanks,xC | ☎ 21:50, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

Thanks for picking up the ball on editing the ARDMS article to bring it up to Wikipedia standards after its revival from deletion ! I made an initial effort to "NPOV"-ize the language, since I was one of the ones who recommended the article be kept. I realize you have much more knowledge of subject than I do. One improvement I wanted to make was to add some references from the professional journal JDSM (I googled refs to ARDMS and found their website http://www.sdms.org/jdms/ . I assume that you or one of your colleagues has access to their articles, which I don't. These references would near guarantee the article would pass WP:V (3rd party, reliable). Another thing to notice is that the language is copied near-verbatim from the ARDMS website. This practically guarantees that the prose will read like an advertisement, besides raising copyright issues. This is the reason the article was picked up for deletion due to the WP:OSTRICH syndrome. Therefore, it needs to be rewritten (as I started doing). Additonally, the tags at the top that I placed were to help prevent premature deletion, and get attention to the article so that it can be improved. I'm puzzled as to why you deleted them. It seems to me they would help you get this article up to standard (and avoid yet another nomination for deletion by an WP:OSTRICH). Again, thanks for pitching in to Wikipedia ! Congenially, Plvekamp (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)