User talk:Battykin/Archive 1

Archive 1

Pneumothorax

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

When your changes are challenged, as at Pneumothorax, you go to the talk page and discuss why your changes are an improvement. You don't just reinsert the challenged material. The objection was that you added redundant information, not that it needed more sources. No matter how many sources you added, the text would still have been redundant. Our articles are not medical advice pamphlets, and we have a defined structure. The Signs and symptoms section is for signs and symptoms, not for treatment, and there is a perfectly well written Treatment section in the article. It is sufficient for the Signs and symptoms section to define a tension pneumothorax and note that represents a medical emergency in addition to discussing its principal signs and symptoms. --RexxS (talk) 11:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I explained my change in the edit, and removed the redundant sentence from the bottom paragraph. When a condition is considered a medical emergency, it is usually stated in the first paragraph. The issue was therefore not considered redundant as I had explained so. Also, the page for pneumothorax seems to be a bit sloppy. If a person wants to read strictly about tension pneumothorax, they should be able to get the most important details within that section, not have to jump around to find treatment, etc. The more detailed explanation of the procedure can be stated under the treatment section. I simply stated a sentence in the Tension Pneumothorax section. This is something I was planning to bring up on the talk page there, and will do so. However, my adding additional sources was to show the emphasis on the treatment. There was no need to remove them. I will be bringing up the issues on the talk page there. Thanks.Battykin (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Pneumothorax is classed as a WP:Good article and has been subject to independent review. You might want to read up on the Good article process and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles before you start calling other editor's work sloppy. Tension pneumothorax is treated alongside other varieties of pneumothorax, and the article is organised as most medical articles are. Encyclopedia articles are expected to cover all aspects of a topic, so it's not possible to cover all aspects of a condition in one section. A reader who wants to read about treatment of tension pneumothorax will look at the Treatment section of course.

"I simply stated a sentence in the Tension Pneumothorax section": actually you've twice inserted recommendations on treatment into the Signs and symptoms section, and phrased it as if there are no options. Treatment of tension pneumothorax is already covered in far greater detail in the Treatment section, where it would be expected. The reader doesn't need have your emphasis on the treatment pushed at them in the wrong section. How can I make it any clearer to you that this isn't a guide for first-responders? it's an encyclopedia article that summarises knowledge the topic in an organised manner. --RexxS (talk) 17:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You might want to read up on being civil to other editors as your tone has been downright rude from the start. You seem to take on an authority/superiority position when Wikipedia is a free encyclopedia for anyone to edit. I expressed MY opinion of why I felt it was sloppy. Part of IMPROVING articles, which even GOOD ARTICLES can be improved, as stated on the page itself, is to provide feedback. I didn't just say "it's sloppy". I expressed WHY I felt that way. If you don't agree with it, that is your opinion. All editors have a right to their opinion on what they believe would improve the article. This was mine. Also, as I stated multiple times. I felt it should be in the first paragraph, which is why I moved it there and removed it from the second. You didn't seem to have a problem with that otherwise you would have moved it back. Your original edit simply said "see below", not "see treatment" section. "Below" can mean below paragraph, which didn't explain treatment in that section. This is considered "sloppy" to me. Furthermore, I am not pushing the treatment on readers. It is in multiple emergency medicine books, journals, and practice an an emergent initial treatment. I provided sources, you removed them. I am going to start a subject on the talk page there, as I stated already. Other editors can give their feedback. Don't assume that just because an article is considered a "good article", it cannot be improved, and don't assume that my feedback is wrong and yours is right. That is not helpful to wikipedia. Battykin (talk) 17:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I'm not under any obligation to sugar-coat my complaints to editors who choose to repeatedly reinsert challenged content. The article Pneumothorax has been principally the work of User:Jfdwolff, a very well respected editor, and I'm entitled to object to you calling his work sloppy. It isn't. If you want to provide feedback, there is a talk page for that, which is where you should have gone after your first edit was rejected for good reasons. Feedback happens when you engage in constructive discussion on the article's talk page, not when you try to force your view of how the article should be organised by repeating edits to force your view into the article. Take your content complaints there. --RexxS (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Repeatedly? I had put it back in once after you removed it. I had put it in with an explanation. Your over exaggeration of my edits being repeated is not only condescending, but false and constitutes as harassment. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of ONE editor per article. Your praise of the editor who put the info in is irrelevant to improving the article. Favoritism is not allowed on Wikipedia either. I had said to you multiple times now that I was going to discuss on the talk page there, but you repeatedly felt the need to continue with your condescending attitude towards me on my talk page, which is not helpful at all. Just because you agree with another editor or praise the article does not give you authority over it, nor do your over-exaggerated assumptions of my 2 edits. I am now ending discussion of this on my Talk Page. Further comments from you can be put on the Pneumothorax Talk Page. Have a good day. Battykin (talk) 18:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

"I had put it back in once after you removed it that's what the definition of "repeat" is. You don't get to force your version by edit warring. Take it to the talk page.--RexxS (talk) 19:09, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

For the last time, I had put it in with an explanation, which obviously had relevance or A)it would not have been left in the first paragraph, and B)you would not have changed "see below" to "see treatment". Furthermore, the additional words I removed as to the multiple definitions was left out, because saying something is "generally" considered... already implies, there can be other definitions. Therefore, my edit was helpful. As for the "needle decompression and chest tube part", I feel it should be mentioned briefly in the same paragraph, but as you may have noticed, I didn't reinsert that again. ANd the definition of "repeatedly" is over and over again, not just one time. As I said, I would discuss it on the talk page. I have said that to you multiple times now, as well as said to end the discussion here, but you continue to harass me. I now feel the need to request admin interference. Battykin (talk) 19:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of WP:harassment without good evidence is very serious here, and you'll do well to read its definition and strike that. Otherwise I'll be happy to make my case at WP:ANI. Your call. --RexxS (talk) 20:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Already read that page. You wrote on my talk page. I replied to you, and had told you I was going to open a discussion on the pneumothorax talk page. It should have ended there. You continued to 'shame' me on my page. I replied to you out of decency, but continued to address the fact that I was going to take it to the talk page and have others leave their feedback. Yet, you continued some more on my talk page. I told you I wanted the discussion ended on my page. Yet again, you continued. This is harassment. Your replies were not constructive. Your ACCUSATIONS of "repeatedly" and "edit warring" were wrong, perhaps you need to read those articles before accusing an editor. You misused my way of expressing what I felt was a bit sloppy, by implying I was calling an editor "sloppy" themself. You purposely have been targeting everything I say. None of this was constructive. Mainly, you have disrespected my closing when I said I wanted to end discussion on MY talk page. I am simply asking for interference of an admin or editor to ask you to refrain from continuous accusations on this matter. Battykin (talk) 20:39, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Battykin, RexxS happens to be an admin, btw. Usedtobecool ☎️ 21:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Civility and Harrassment

Battykin, I came here in response to your Teahouse post. I have reviewed the exchange above on this page and your edits discussed in that section. It is my view, based on quite a few yuears of editing here, that RexxS in no way violated the ci8vility policy and was not even close to harassment. When one editor believes that another editor's edits are not helping an article, and contradict the usual methods of organizing such an article, it is perfectly proper to tell the editor so, and explain the relevant policies and customs, particularly if the editor seems new to Wikipedia or to the topic area. This should not be done in a confrontational manner, but may be stated firmly, and may explain why there edits are disapproved of in clear, even stark, terms. Furthermore, while medical articles are not my specialty area, I think that RexxS is correct in this instance. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 21:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

You obviously have bias, as I was asking for a neutral user. Your whole reply was slanted because of your bias for the user. If you had actually taken the time to read the discussion, you would have seen that multiple times I told the user I was going to discuss on the talk page for pneumothorax, yet he continued with accusation on my page. I asked to end the discussion here. Nothing was constructive. The user is not right, as you claim. You should read the article on reverting and on edit warring. Nothing I have done is against that. Considering my edit was also left in the first paragraph. Also, just because I am a new editor does not discredit my editing or knowledge, nor does it allow others to continue to disrespect me on my page. Battykin (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I am another uninvolved and neutral user, who came here after reading your Teahouse post; I agree with DESiegel's assessment. The responses to your posts were no more "disrespectful" than your own posts were. Is there any particular reason why you haven't taken up the discussion at the article talk page? That would be the most constructive thing to do at this point. --bonadea contributions talk 21:38, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

When a user posts on your talk page and you reply by telling them you will open a discussion on the topic's talk page. It should be left at that. However, he continued. I replied again out of decency. But after continuous replies, I told him I wanted to end the discussion here. I said "Have a Good Day". That should have been the end. But again, they replied. This does show lack of respect and is NOT constructive. If you are agreeing then you are in support of disrespecting someone's page. Also, you say I was disrespectful on my own page? Where is your evidence of that? I did not go to his talk page and burden him with endless replies. Battykin (talk) 21:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

THIS DISCUSSION IS CLOSED. The matter has been resolved as far as another user closing the discussion for me. My request was for the user in the discussion to respect my comment about ending the discussion here. He was not doing so. It is now CLOSED, thanks to another user for helping. This topic is CLOSED. Battykin (talk) 22:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.