User talk:Je.rrt/Talk:Archive

Medical articles

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

JFW | T@lk 19:21, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Polysomnographic technician

Hi Je.rrt, I specified two problems with the edit I removed from Polysomnographic technician. First, it was speculative which per WP:CRYSTAL is not allowed on Wikipedia articles. Secondly, it promoted the organization concerned by including an external link to the company. This isn't a proper reliable source, so its purpose appears to be to drive awareness of and traffic to that source. Thanks, Claviere (talk) 21:11, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

National Board for Respiratory Care

In a few days I hope to add some of the info to this article that had been lost in the merge of the NBRC article into it. Since you have done most of the work on the existing article, I will use your framework for entering info.Bill Pollard (talk) 06:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Sure, add all of the information you can.In a section above Claviere (talk) replied to why that section was removed about the future plans for another credential. Je.rrt (talk) 15:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I see User:Claviere's comment above. I still disagree, but I see no point in me pursuing this any further. This credential is being put into place. Applications to take the exam are being accepted, so there is nothing speculative about this credential's existence. Also, I put no external links to the AASM website inside my text. I referred users to view the site in the reference section, which is valid. My biggest blunder in all this was not putting references in the footnote to all the sites that have commented on the credential. In the end, at some point someone will again look at this issue and wonder why documentation on the RST credential was not allowed. If I run into any issues in the NBRC article, I will keep you informed.Bill Pollard (talk) 22:02, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

post your proposed addition with its sources into the article talk page and I can help funnel it into the article, if its an active credential it should be included, just with the appropriate formating Je.rrt (talk) 22:31, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Yes certainly. But we need to mention the most common cause first. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

We need a review from the last 10 years to support stuff per WP:MEDRS. I am slowly working on trying to get pneumonia to WP:GA status.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:36, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

See Review article. If one is not available a recent textbook would also work but a review article is preferred.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Margaret Eliott of Redheugh

The article Margaret Eliott of Redheugh has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Uncited - no notability claims.

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. ConcernedVancouverite (talk) 00:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

references and citations were included in my next update, sometimes the speed of the bots and their spam of people's talk pages are a little redonkulous. thanks Je.rrt (talk) 01:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Your contributed article, List of famous elliotts

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, List of famous elliotts. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - Elliot. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will continue helping to improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at Elliot - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.

If you think that the article you created should remain separate, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Baseball Watcher 01:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I have replied to this horribly huge template on the talk page, please type a personal response with rationale for why you believe it qualifies for the template. thanks Je.rrt (talk) 01:08, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Oxygen therapy

Hi there,

I have reverted your move of oxygen therapy for several reasons:

• The article is not about mediacl gases in the wider context, and i think that oxygen therapy probably requires its own article. A medical gas therapy article may well be useful, with daughtering and linking to oxygen therapy, but that should probably be a separate thing
• Even if that was not the case, your naming convention was incorrect, using captial letters, when only the first word should be capitalised as per WP:MOS
• It is too big a change to make unileterally without discussion - i suggest posting at Talk:Oxygen therapy if you still want to make the change

Any questions, let me know

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 11:09, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

actually, the inclusion of other gas therapies are so small that they do warrant a change in the article name, with the appropriate naming convention of course. Nitric Oxide would be a single section, Helium+Oxygen (Heliox) would be one section as well as just simple Room Air therapy would be its own section. All of those pages would be 1 paragraph stubs and should be included in a comprehensive article, at least in my opinon. Je.rrt (talk) 16:45, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

As i said, i don't disagree with a master article on medical gases, but i don't think it should overwrite the oxygen therapy page (as before medical gas therapy or medical gas treatment would probably be good. As for your assertion on stubs, both entonox and heliox have quite substantial articles already (at nitrous oxide and oxygen and heliox respectively). there are of course a range of other gases used too, but master article is the way forward, not trying to squeeze it in to an existing stable article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

good point, I agree. Je.rrt (talk) 17:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

NBRC-WRE

Hello,

This article looks like a copy/paste from NBRC-ELE that has not been properly proof read, the first "word" on NBRC-WRE describe the NBRC-ELE with a different "abreviation" description?--69.196.137.94 (talk) 18:26, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Looks like the NBRC-CSE has the same issue! :)--UnQuébécois (talk) 18:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I am confused as to what the exact issue is, the prefix to the examination name is the same but they are separate examinations so naturally they have a similar format? Je.rrt (talk) 18:34, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

From NBRC-WRE: "The NBRC-ELE (National Board for Respiratory Care Written Registry Examination) is an examination for the advanced credentialing of previously certified respiratory therapists in the United States."

From NBRC-CSE: "NBRC-ELE (National Board for Respiratory Care Clinical Simulation Examination) is an examination for the advanced credentialing of respiratory therapists in the United States."

Both articles say "NBRC-ELE" in their opening description, and not the appropriate -WRE or -CSE. Looks like some re-reading of these articles is needed to make sure you are have the right things in the right articles, I am not knowledgeable about the subject, but the first sentance in both of these articles confuse me.--UnQuébécois (talk) 18:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

I re-read them completely and then discovered what you meant, my mistake :) its fixed now. thanks! Je.rrt (talk) 18:44, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

;) — Preceding unsigned comment added by UnQuébécois (talk • contribs) 19:03, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

BTW Welcome to Wikipedia

Great to have an RT (I assume) involved. :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:51, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

File source problem with File:Applied measurement professionals logo.png

Thank you for uploading File:Applied measurement professionals logo.png. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file 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. 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 refer to the image use policy to learn what images you can or cannot upload on Wikipedia. Please also check any other files you have uploaded to make sure they are correctly tagged. Here is a list of your uploads. If you have any questions or are in need of assistance please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Eeekster (talk) 22:19, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Fixed Je.rrt (talk) 22:23, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Drop me a note if you have any questions

As far as I am aware you are the first RT to begin editing which explains the poor state of the RT articles. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:43, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

A belated welcome!

Sorry for the belated welcome, but the cookies are still warm!

Here's wishing you a belated welcome to Wikipedia, Je.rrt. I see that you've already been around a while and wanted to thank you for your contributions. Though you seem to have been successful in finding your way around, you may benefit from following some of the links below, which help editors get the most out of Wikipedia:

• Introduction
• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• How to write a great article

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); that should automatically produce your username and the date after your post.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page, consult Wikipedia:Questions, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there.

Again, welcome! VQuakr (talk) 04:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Wynn Varble

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Wynn Varble requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about a person or group of people, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 15:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Applied Measurement Professionals

If this is the first article that you have created, you may want to read the guide to writing your first article.

You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.

A tag has been placed on Applied Measurement Professionals requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A7 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the article appears to be about an organization or company, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is important or significant: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, such articles may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion". Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. MikeWazowski (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Reply

I've restored for the time being so that you can add independent verifiable sources to enable us to verify the facts and show that it meets the notability guidelines. Jimfbleak - talk to me? 14:39, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

NBRC

I made some additions to the NBRC article that were lost in last month's merge operation. Since you provided the framework for the NBRC article, I tried to weave my additions thru that. If they want more sources, I will be happy to incorporate these, as well.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Associations for pulmonology and respiratory therapy

Category:Associations for pulmonology and respiratory therapy, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 20:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Lung volumes

Hi,

Why did you remove the image from Lung volumes in this edit [1]]? Thanks, JoeSperrazza (talk) 00:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I moved it to the infobox, I was trying to fix the feng shui of the article :P Je.rrt (talk) 00:32, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Coolness, thanks! JoeSperrazza (talk) 01:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

RST

I plan on taking a new approach concerning the RST exam. At least, I'm looking into it. It will involve much more documentation of the debate on the exam. I'll let you know as my strategy takes shape. This credential is a going concern.Bill Pollard (talk) 21:51, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Please see the new article American Board of Sleep Medicine and the discussion page for the article. I am again bringing up the RST credential, since it has been launched and as of yesterday, 1,549 individuals have been granted RSTs.Bill Pollard (talk) 13:52, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for getting info about the RST into the Polysomnographic technologist article. I don't know why I was prevented from putting this into the article in the first place, considering it was valid info. If this issue comes up again, I will bring it to the attention of an admin I have consulted several times before. Again, thanks.Bill Pollard (talk) 12:16, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

I noticed the user who objected to the RST credential no longer has a user page.Bill Pollard (talk) 01:12, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Table of modes of mechanical ventilation

The article Table of modes of mechanical ventilation has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

no sources suggesting notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. —EncMstr (talk) 08:12, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Nomination of Table of modes of mechanical ventilation for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Table of modes of mechanical ventilation is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Table of modes of mechanical ventilation until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. —EncMstr (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks

Just a note to say thanks for tagging articles for WPMED's pulmonology task force. You can assess articles yourself if you want: the instructions are at WP:MEDA, but stubs in particular are pretty easy to spot. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:29, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Respiratory Therapy, and sources on Oxygen Equivalents?

Hi! My name's Pendelluft! I noticed you do a lot of work with the Pulmonulogy (thanks for that, by the way!)... are you a Respiratory Therapist? I'm looking for more sources on oxygen equivalents, since we learnt about them in class, but none of the standard Mosby texts say anything about them, and the teacher seems rather reluctant to divulge his sources. If you know anything about this, please continue being rather darling, and let me know. Thank you!~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pendelluft (talk • contribs) 04:04, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:Pulmonary function

Category:Pulmonary function, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Pichpich (talk) 01:21, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Blood gas tension

Thank you for your contribution. Please note that articles relating to medicine must be fully sourced, and may not contain any original research. Please consider returning to the article and addressing the flagged issues. Thanks. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 07:51, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

TOC left

Which articles have you put a TOC left template on? Please don't mark that as a minor edit. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Per Help:Minor_edit#When_not_to_mark_an_edit_as_a_minor_edit. Jesanj (talk) 15:27, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Healthcare professional credentials

The article Healthcare professional credentials has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Non-essential list that is very non-inclusive and duplicative of article about healthcare professions

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 00:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

Category:Wikipedians by Clan: Clan Elliot

Category:Wikipedians by Clan: Clan Elliot, which you created, has been nominated for discussion. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:57, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Non-free rationale for File:Registered Respiratory Therapist Sleep Disorders Specialist.gif

Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:Registered Respiratory Therapist Sleep Disorders Specialist.gif. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under non-free content criteria, but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia is acceptable. Please go to the file description page, and edit it to include a non-free rationale.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified the non-free rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the file is already gone, you can still make a request for undeletion and ask for a chance to fix the problem. If you have any questions, please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:40, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

Non-invasive ventilation?

I noticed that this edit removed the entire section on “non-invasive ventilation (NIPPV).” The edit summary suggests the information would be moved to Modes of mechanical ventilation, but as it stands now, “Modes of mechanical ventilation” is a somewhat technical article that lacks the overview found in the removed material; therefore, please provide more details on why the “non-invasive ventilation” section was removed. Please reply on the article talk page. (If you prefer to reply here instead, then please be sure to put “{{Talkback}}” on my talk page; otherwise, I might not see your response!) Thank you. Bwrs (talk) 00:58, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

American Association for Respiratory Care

I added some sources to this article to help prevent someone from nominating it for deletion. We recently had several sleep study articles nominated, because too few sources were listed and it took a fair amount of evidence to have these articles kept. Bill Pollard (talk) 06:55, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of International Council for Respiratory Care

The article International Council for Respiratory Care has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails WP:ORG notability guidelines, no secondary sources here

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Brianhe (talk) 01:46, 17 March 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Applied Measurement Professionals

The article Applied Measurement Professionals has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. If you disagree and deprod this, please explain how it meets them on the talk page in the form of "This article meets criteria A and B because..." and ping me back. Thank you,

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:16, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2015 (UTC)