User talk:Medkatz

Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, Medkatz! Thank you for your contributions. I am HopsonRoad and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions, feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Wikipedia:Questions or type {{help me}} at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes (~~~~); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! HopsonRoad (talk) 02:05, 19 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfC notification: Draft:Gaetano Ciancio has a new comment

I've left a comment on your Articles for Creation submission, which can be viewed at Draft:Gaetano Ciancio. Thanks! scope_creep^Talk 18:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image without license

Unspecified source/license for File:Gaetano.jpg

Thanks for uploading File:Gaetano.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the copyright status of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. Even if you created the image yourself, you still need to release it so Wikipedia can use it. If you don't indicate the copyright status of the image on the image's description page, using an appropriate copyright tag, it may be deleted some time after the next seven days. If you made this image yourself, you can use copyright tags like {{PD-self}} (to release all rights), {{self|cc-by-sa-4.0}} (to require that you be credited), or any tag here - just go to the image, click edit, and add one of those. If you have uploaded other images, please verify that you have provided copyright information for them as well.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

This is an automated notice by MifterBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. NOTE: Once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. --MifterBot ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 20:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaetano Ciancio (May 31)

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed! Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reason left by DGG was:

This submission appears to read more like an advertisement than an entry in an encyclopedia. Encyclopedia articles need to be written from a neutral point of view, and should refer to a range of independent, reliable, published sources, not just to materials produced by the creator of the subject being discussed. This is important so that the article can meet Wikipedia's verifiability policy and the notability of the subject can be established. If you still feel that this subject is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, please rewrite your submission to comply with these policies.

The comment the reviewer left was:

First step is to remove the advective of praise and other puffery. Second is to replace or supplement the general descirion by a lsit of the 5 most cited jurnal articles,with citationsform google scholar.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit when they have been resolved.

If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Gaetano Ciancio and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
If you now believe the draft cannot meet Wikipedia's standards or do not wish to progress it further, you may request deletion. Please go to Draft:Gaetano Ciancio, click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window, add "{{Db-g7}}" at the top of the draft text and click the blue "publish changes" button to save this edit.
If you do not make any further changes to your draft, in 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the reviewer's talk page or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Medkatz! Having an article declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DGG ( talk ) 08:27, 31 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Your submission at Articles for creation: Gaetano Ciancio has been accepted

Gaetano Ciancio, which you submitted to Articles for creation, has been created.

Congratulations, and thank you for helping expand the scope of Wikipedia! We hope you will continue making quality contributions.

The article has been assessed as C-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. This is a great rating for a new article, and places it among the top 21% of accepted submissions — kudos to you! You may like to take a look at the grading scheme to see how you can improve the article.

Since you have made at least 10 edits over more than four days, you can now create articles yourself without posting a request. However, you may continue submitting work to Articles for creation if you prefer.

If you have any questions, you are welcome to ask at the help desk. Once you have made at least 10 edits and had an account for at least four days, you will have the option to create articles yourself without posting a request to Articles for creation.

If you would like to help us improve this process, please consider leaving us some feedback.

Thanks again, and happy editing!

JoelleJay (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple more things to do to clean this article up: put references after punctuation (with no spaces); remove the refs from the lead (lead content should be supported by material in the article body, where the refs should be); add a bit more basic biographical info like birthdate, city of birth (should be in Early Life section as well as infobox); and appropriate categories. JoelleJay (talk) 16:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Gaetano Ciancio

Hi @Medkatz: I got your message. Please remember to sign your comments with the four tildes ~~~~ that will be converted by the system into a signature. Regarding the Gaetano Ciancio, another editor thought it looked like it has been paid for. It was hightly promotional originally, I think that was I stated at the Afc review, and another editor had posted the tag. I can probably take it off as you have stated that you are not a paid editor. Are you connected to the subject in any way? scope_creep^Talk 14:36, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I have seen the subject speak at several urologic and transplant conferences but aside from superficial interaction at aforementioned conferences, am not connected to the subject. Medkatz (talk) 14:39, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Medkatz: Coolio. Your not connected to him at all. Well the other edits on the article, outwith two IP editors who updated the monuments section and fixing a typo are done with Wikipedia regulars it seems not to be paid. The rule is that it must follow WP:AGF, so I will remove the tag. The article does need quite a bit of work. For example, there is no dates in it, to state when the work/research was created. And it is underlinked. For example, Daclizumab, Kidney Tumour. Awards are normally bulleted with a ref for each one. He an Italian OM which is the most senior award, but the article list lots of minors are non-notable. It should have a postnominals template in the lede for the OM. The infobox should be populated with more relevant detail. The life section should be expanded. scope_creep^Talk 15:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to also say:

We do not list all possible papers, but only the highlights, as judged either by awards or citations. Thee seems to be some duplviation about the drugs. We do not claim something as "novel" unless there is a specific 3rd party reliable source saying so. We do not claim "pioneered" unless there is a third party reliable source saying so. We do not consider "supplements" to medical journals as reliable sources; we normally do not regard conference proceeding as reliable journal papers, except for a few such proceedings, mainly in computer science , that have established a particularly high reputation; we never not consider press releases to be reliable sources for any purpose. We do not regard awards given by the person's own institution as significant awards for the purposes of an encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 23:13, 11 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ongoing feedback. I have incorporated those suggestions. I removed the words pioneered and novel, as well as the Miami press releases. I also removed the citation that included a citation from a proceeding. Medkatz (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

there's still more to go. All claims for" first" or "novel" such as in ref 23 require a 3rd party source, no merely one of his own papers. The various papers where he describes his operations seem many of them fairly routine or of doubtful significance. They should be limited to the most important as judged either by 3rd party reliable sources or at least Citation figures. The ilustration of the opeation seem inappropriatei n a biography--is there a third party source for why it is significant? DGG ( talk ) 20:25, 20 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]