18-Oxocortisol, 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 Start-Class, which is recorded on its talk page. Most new articles start out as Stub-Class or Start-Class and then attain higher grades as they develop over time. 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!

Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:10, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Masiutin, Hello, can you explain why you revert my edit on Eric Shea as Vandalism. ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 13:44, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your edit by mistake, sorry, I wanted to revert previous vandalism edit but reverted your edit instead, and then immediately restored your edit. So your edit is in place. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 13:49, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your clarification, have a nice day :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 14:06, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aviram7 I cannot delete a comment when I mentioned vandalism, I would have deleted if I could. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 14:42, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, you reverted my edits was by mistake, your aim was only is revert Vandalism , every humans makes mistake and he also rectify them and learn from something from your faults.

I hope next time when you going to revert vandalism firstly you confirming then revert nonconstructive edits.good luck :) ~~ αvírαm|(tαlk) 15:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I try to distinguish between nonconstructive edits and clear vandalism. I try do do my best judgment. In that case, it was a clear vandalism. By nonconstructive edits I understand good faith edits where disruptive edits or test edits as defined by WP:DE or WP:IDTEST, but that one was definitely a bad faith vandalism: [[1]] Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Would you like me to ask admin to delete my those two edits from the logs? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:19, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hey @Maxim Masiutin, I just wanted to let you know that I have reverted your edit on S. J. Suryah as filmibeat is an unreliable source. Thank you and happy editing <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! Can you please give me a list of sources on which are considered reliable and which not so I could know in the future? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim Masiutin, please go through WP:ICTFFAQ to know more about the sources used w.r.t Indian cinema. Thank you <3 Jeraxmoira (talk) 18:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

What link are you describing as disambiguation page? RT news network? I assume it's not the Forbes reference. Ref is broken now though. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The link to tweets was pointing to a disambiguation page. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Right OK, will simply remove it then. Thanks for explaining. You didn't fix that ref though, you simple deleted it unfortunately. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:26, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will put your latest version and then manually remove that link. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:27, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK was about it do it. Sorry for sounding grouchy. Have fixed. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:31, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you wish, you can write "tweets" but the Wikilink will point to "Twitter" this way: tweets Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:32, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That was kinda the point, so that anyone who still doesn't know what tweeting means would be able to understand. Given the context of the paragraph, it's probably understood however. Thanks anyay. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 22:33, 13 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Cancer treatment, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 00:26, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Maxim Masiutin,

Google trends is not considered a reliable source for establishing notability of an article subject. You keep bringing that up, and only Google trends, in your opinions in AFD discussions. Please evaluate the sources present in an article as well as look for other sources that might exist in secondary, independent sources. Or, if you don't find any, bring that information to the discussion. But talking about what is trending on Google doesn't help a discussion reach a consensus because they are not taken very seriously as evidence of anything but momentary popularity. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 07:22, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! I will evaluate the sources and come back with updated opinion. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:55, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Maxim, thanks for your edits in 1881–1896 cholera pandemic; much appreciated. However, I deleted the section Society and culture you created. Such a section could be useful, but the developments you describe there are not specific to the 1881–1896 cholera pandemic, but cover several cholera pandemics. For that reason, I think that section fits better in the general article Cholera outbreaks and pandemics. - DonCalo (talk) 09:10, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thank you! You are the subject matter expert, so you might have known better. Feel free to put the text to the other topics or delete it altogether. Please also consider rewriting a sentence about common stock ownership of British shareholders, as it is still a verbatim copy from another source. I rewritten yesterday the problematic text, but could not rewrite the section. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yizhi has a pronunciation akin to Yizi, so why isn't that an acceptable see also? -- 65.92.247.90 (talk) 10:40, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Your change was correct, sorry, my bad, I restored your revision. Thank you for letting me know. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 10:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings, I redid a lot of med. articles - I am a Physician, but this has little connection with writing a good WP article.

I noted you had made some edits to materials I had heavily edited - if you get a chance - the article on DES really needs another look-see by a better editor than I am - I know there are other clinicians on here -

Drug-eluting stent

I think this an important article - and it looked like it had been largely abandoned based on the talk sections -

Many thanks in advance Dr. BeingObjective (talk) 22:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I will take a look at it, I'm now working on CYP4F2 and look soon to Drug-eluting stent. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. BeingObjective (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I briefly reviewed the article. Do you wish to nominate it to GA? If yes, then there some work need to be done. I've nominated some articles to GA, some passed the review, some failed on first attempt. Let me know if you wish to nominate it, in this case I will be able to help edit it. Therefore, I may help as a technical editor, not as a subject matter expert, since I mostly specialize in writing or editing articles on steroids, steroidogenic enzymes, inborn errors of steroid metabolism, steroid metabolism disorders, genes related to steroids and pharmaceutical drugs. I could be a subject matter expert on steroids :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:42, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but I am not sure it is even vaguely a GA - but sure, I think it would force some discipline and it would get a really robust review in this manner.

This is an important topic - given how many cardiac stenting procedures are performed in any given year.

Let me know what needs to be done.

I'll like pull it into Word and then rework it - I started with small edits and ended up getting totally sucked in.

I am a total newbie - - 43 years as a doctor - but I have only been on WP a month - so I am a bit clueless.

Many thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Don't try to put it into MS Word. Try to use native visual editor or native source editor at Wikipedia.

Alternatively, you can copy the source code of the article to a sandbox under your user name, edit it there and copy back.

Still, when copying, you have to respect the rules of Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia, i.e. put to the edit summary the text as described in the rules, such as Copied content from [[<page name>]]; see that page's history for attribution Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Understood - thanks. BeingObjective (talk) 00:25, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

BeingObjective (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I now finished the competition and can read the article on DES. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:28, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You can edit the article in the meanwhile. On Monday, I will put the summary on what needs to be done for GA, since I will be busy with a CTF cybersecurity competition these days saarCTF 2023. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:02, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad you know the process. BeingObjective (talk) 00:26, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I put my opinion about what should be done on the article at Talk:Drug-eluting_stent#Potential GA article. I also used the [[2]] tool and found a violation, which I addressed already. I hope you will find my contribution useful. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 00:27, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

understood and thanks - I'll take a look at the GA submission directives you posted. BeingObjective (talk) 00:31, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you have access to paid articles, such as via Wikipedia Library or via your institutional access, that would be great, because paying about $40 for each article one will quickly run out of cash, sometimes you need to read about 20 articles to select 1-2. When I was working on an artile on alternative androgens, I read 289 articles, making notes in a spreasheet; if I didn't have access to some articles, my coauthor might have, and if no one of us had, I paid but paid alot :-) Maxim Masiutin (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you generate a protein image for CYP4F2, similar to this one

? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more of a primary care cardiology type - I'll chat with a colleague - he's more focused on basic research in the biomedical field. BeingObjective (talk) 22:09, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please review the image description and the section at Paroxysmal_supraventricular_tachycardia#Anatomy

I wrote this section myself completely, including the image and the description.

Can you please review whether it is correct from the cardiology point of view? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 22:36, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look - no problem. BeingObjective (talk) 22:58, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Looking further to hear from you soon. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I already made the protein for CYP4F2 and nominated it for GA. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 23:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. BeingObjective (talk) 00:29, 18 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

IMDB is wp:user-generated content. As such, it is not a wp:reliable source and probably should not be used in a citation. See wp:IMDB. Thank yoU Adakiko (talk) 12:32, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, I will not use that again as a source, and thank you very much for reminding! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please remove this reference? Thank you in advance! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you have removed several short descriptions (SD). This results in some, but not all, of the articles picking up SDs from elsewhere, possibly using Wikidata. However, there are two problems. Firstly, some articles such as Prostate and Coronary stent were left with no SD at all. Secondly, the community has decided not to use Wikidata SDs unchecked, partly because they are prone to undetected vandalism. It seems better to leave the carefully hand-crafted SDs in place, or to improve them where necessary. Certes (talk) 16:56, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue against the use of such vague statements, such as "elsewhere, possibly using Wikidata". You can simply write that it takes the description from Wikidata unless there is a template used in the article text itself.

I am sorry for removing the article description template, I was using the {{Template:Annotated link}} template and the description in Wikidata items started from a lowercase characters whereas the description template has to be started with an uppercase character. I also need lowercase character. Therefore, I thought wikidata would be one-for-all option to avoid duplication on information, but if you need the article description template, I will use the "desc_first_letter_case=lower" parameter for the {{Template:Annotated link}}.

Thank you for the explanation on why you need the article description template explicitly rather than taking the data from Wikidata item. I didn't know that it is harder to fight vandalism on Wikidata, however, Wikidata is still important and we should not neglect it or try to avoid problems you mentioned by inventing "solutions" like local templates. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WikiProject Short descriptions has plenty of information on the use of Wikidata SDs in Wikipedia. Basically, we have agreed that anyone can import them (creating a copy which won't update when Wikidata changes) as long as they review the text as they go (so no mistakes or misdeeds are imported). There is consensus not to use the WikiData SDs dynamically, nor to bulk-copy them blindly from Wikidata into Wikipedia without checking them individually. Certes (talk) 17:53, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see the point of this whole idea of duplicating data, sorry, therefore I don't like this project personally, but if people need that, I would have to respect. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 17:58, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the explanation at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#What if I want to see the text that is used on Wikidata? is not convincing. Your explanation that it is hard to fight vandalism is more reasonable. Wikipedia anyway rely on wikidata for interlanguage links, for infoboxes, and wikimedia commons, therefore, just importing descriptions would not fully address vandalism because infoboxes will still be wrecked. Don't see the point of such import. But if people decided, let it be so. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 18:03, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There is a discussion at WP:EFR#Identify removal of short description about writing an edit filter to prevent removal of short descriptions. It is aimed at avoiding mistakes by novice editors but, as a more experienced contributor who still saw a reason to remove short descriptions, your input there might be useful. Certes (talk)

Thank you very much, Certes!Maxim Masiutin (talk) 20:07, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I read help on both Short description and Wikidata item description and it seems that I figure out the differences. I tried to explain them at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Short_descriptions#What_are_the_differences_betewen_a_Short_description_and_a_description_from_the_Wikidata_item? -- you opinion is welcome Maxim Masiutin (talk)

It is ridiculously insulting to have left that template warning for Vati after ignoring an earlier request to strike an insulting comment you left about him at WT:GAN. I recommend you drop this as your behavior has now verged into the tendentious and downright cruel. If you persist, I will escalate this to ANI. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:13, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am really sorry about the template. I didn't want to template him. Still, the disappointment does not justify the deletion of the content on Wikipedia - this is a severe violation of the rules and spirit of Wikipedia. Please forgive me for the templating though. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:18, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

But you chose to do it anyway, so don't act like it was a mistake or you were somehow forced to do it against your will. You chose not to strike your insulting comment about his motivations for nominating GAs. Don't act like you don't know what comment you're talking about, both Vati and I called it out as insulting and he explicitly asked you to strike it, which you totally ignored.

Your behavior is the cause of this. You are the one acting disruptive here. You chose to bludgeon that discussion to within an inch of its life, against half a dozen different editors telling you you were wrong. It is ironic to the point of painful that you harp about violating the rules and spirit of Wikipedia when you have been doing so since you took over Roy's review and refused to revert yourself even though you agreed with me that you had failed it incorrectly based on a misinterpretation of the GACR. Shame on you. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You misrepresented the situation wrong because I only agreed that not all sections were required, such as a section on Society and Culture. However, some sections were still needed because the article was incomplete. I presented the proof that information was available from verifiable sources about newborn and prenatal screening, and those sections were needed. It is a significant point that should not be removed. I understand your position, but still please do not try to misrepresent the situation. You could simply state that I agreed that I agreed Society and Culture were not needed by still insisting on Screening. I didn't notice that you asked something to strike it, I might have overlooked something in those lengthy threads. I am sorry that it turned that way. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If you really are sorry, you ought to go back, find the damn comment, strike it, and apologize. It's not that hard. It's right above the last comment I left on the page. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, will do ASAP. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to focus on substance but admitted one personal comment unrelated to the content discussed. I regret about that comment. Such comments are not acceptable in any collaborative environment, let alone on Wikipedia. Still, I'm not sure whether it is what you mean. See the diff at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk%3AGood_article_nominations&diff=1186281438&oldid=1186275226 and please let me know whether it was the right one. Thank you! Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:55, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I appreciate that. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:56, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please suggest on the right procedure, see [3] - I read the arguments and analyzed the matter and now I am convinced that the article is suitable for GA, however, what is the right procedure? May I now change the status from fail to pass without re-nomination, or it should be re-nominated to preserve the correct workflow? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 05:53, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please link the diff of the insulting comment that you've mentioned? I tried to be constructive and care about the content on Wikipedia; I did not want to insult anybody. Still, I would ask for pardon if there were a case, but I need to know what you are speaking about. Maxim Masiutin (talk) 02:21, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm replying to your comment on my talk page. Yesterday, I added categories pertaining to their being a nurse and a psychiatric nurse. I explained this edit. In the process, without thinking about this carefully, the addition included . That was inappropriate per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity as the subject is non-binary. As soon as I realized my mistake I removed only that category. I explained this edit as self-correction. I don't understand your thinking in unrolling both my edits, which removed the relevant categories pertaining to their being a nurse and psychiatric nurse. Thanks for being part of Wikipedia! 2607:FEA8:80A7:700:B566:DAEF:94DE:B7F7 (talk) 15:38, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There were no explanation in the edit summary itself. Could you please make the edits again providing proper edit summary so that the other editors could review it? Maxim Masiutin (talk) 16:14, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done! 2607:FEA8:80A7:700:B566:DAEF:94DE:B7F7 (talk) 16:46, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim, I'm usually the most patient guy on the wiki, but you've exhausted mine. You are causing a lot of trouble and wasting a lot of people's time. Please just walk away from the whole XXXYY syndrome thing and WP:GA in general. If you don't you will surely end up being blocked. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 22 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]