User talk:WarriorDO14
June 2023[edit]
Hello, I'm FenrisAureus. I noticed that you added or changed content in an article, Trapeziometacarpal osteoarthritis, but you didn't provide a reliable source. It's been removed and archived in the page history for now, but if you'd like to include a citation and re-add it, please do so. You can have a look at referencing for beginners. If you think I made a mistake, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 05:41, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- This is my mistake. Could you please point me to where I made the error. I will correct it. Thank you WarriorDO14 (talk) 05:42, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello fellow traveller! I reverted your edits because you cited no sources for the information you changed. On wikipedia, any changes to content must be reliably sourced. Furthermore, you deleted large sections of the article without consensus. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- The deletion of the epidemiology section probably should have been made with consensus. That reverision I understand the logic for the reversion. However, the information I changed in the other sections was backed by the sources already cited in the article and thus did not need further citations. When necessary I added citations. Could you please specifically point me to an edit that is not propeerly cited? Thank you for your time and effort in making this page as accurate as posssible. WarriorDO14 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Upon reviewing my edit, I will concede that the edits do seem to be properly sourced however the mass removal of content in the epidemiology and treatments sections do need proper consensus. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you please specificy which sub sections of the treatment section you feel the edits were inappropriate? Thanks for your help. WarriorDO14 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Metacarpal Osteotomy and complications section as well of the removal of the possible complications of the other treatments. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding the complication concern: All of the possible complications in my edits were moved to the complications section. They were not removed. It seemed logical to discuss the complications in the properly named section instead of the treatment subsections. What do you think?
- Regarding the metacarpal osteotomy section: The content of the first paragraph remained the same, simply streamlined to better represent that patients with mild OA maybe considered for the procedure. The second paragraph is incorrect in the description of the surgery and thus was removed in my edit. In the third paragraph I simplified the surgical description by removing medical jargon in order to make the information easier to digest. The 4th paragraph discussing the complications was moved to the complications section. The radial nerve palsy is not backed by that refernce and was removed. Could you please articulate why you are disagreeing with the edits when no factual information was removed and the discussion was simplified for readers? I am having trouble understanding your thought process. Thank you. WarriorDO14 (talk) 06:48, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Regarding complications, the complications should be in the treatment subsections as each treatment has different complications and risks.
- Regarding MO, your rationale seems fine, consider the matter resolved and feel free to reinstate your edits with the exception of the changes to epidemiology and complications.— FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 07:12, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- The Metacarpal Osteotomy and complications section as well of the removal of the possible complications of the other treatments. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 06:32, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Thank you. Could you please specificy which sub sections of the treatment section you feel the edits were inappropriate? Thanks for your help. WarriorDO14 (talk) 06:23, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Upon reviewing my edit, I will concede that the edits do seem to be properly sourced however the mass removal of content in the epidemiology and treatments sections do need proper consensus. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 06:16, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- The deletion of the epidemiology section probably should have been made with consensus. That reverision I understand the logic for the reversion. However, the information I changed in the other sections was backed by the sources already cited in the article and thus did not need further citations. When necessary I added citations. Could you please specifically point me to an edit that is not propeerly cited? Thank you for your time and effort in making this page as accurate as posssible. WarriorDO14 (talk) 06:06, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- Hello fellow traveller! I reverted your edits because you cited no sources for the information you changed. On wikipedia, any changes to content must be reliably sourced. Furthermore, you deleted large sections of the article without consensus. — FenrisAureus ▼ (she/they) (talk) 06:01, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
- @FenrisAureus: After reviewing your edits I disagree with the revision strongly. I have reworded the language utilized to help the readers better understand the disease and the treatment options. All of the edits were covered by the research papers cited in the article. To reverse all the edits seems extreme. WarriorDO14 (talk) 05:53, 23 June 2023 (UTC)