User talk:EliWikiEditor

March 2025

Hello, I'm Tgeorgescu. I wanted to let you know that one or more external links you added to Sexual addiction have been removed because they seemed to be inappropriate for an encyclopedia. Take a look at our guidelines about external links. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can leave me a message on my talk page. Thank you. tgeorgescu (talk) 05:18, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because your account is being used only for advertising or promotion.

If you believe that there are good reasons for being unblocked, please review Wikipedia's guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text to the bottom of your talk page: {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}}. Glen (talk) 05:38, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Glen, thank you for your work keeping Wikipedia an amazing resource. I truly appreciate your call out.

I do believe that my additions are beneficial and provide readers a resource to further research ICD coding.

The website I've linked provides not just chapter overviews for ICD-10 coding which does not exist on Wikipedia (or elsewhere), but a modern resource without ads. Happy to provide more information if you need.

Cheers! EliWikiEditor (talk) 19:11, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ping|Glen}} Adding a ping! EliWikiEditor (talk) 19:12, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EliWikiEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Hi Tgeorgescu, I appreciate your edits and call-out. I have a lot of respect for editors like you who keep Wikipedia the amazing resource it is.

However, I believe that the edit I made is beneficial to the article. The last reference was updated in 2017, my update is linked to a more modern resource updated this year for ICD codes (F52.8 - https://icdcodes.ai/icd10/F52.8). Additionally, it is not overrun by ads. I'm happy to explain further if necessary.

Again, thank you for your work! EliWikiEditor (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Every spammer thinks that their spam is beneficial. It might even be so, but it has no place on Wikipedia. As your only purpose in being here seems to be to spam this website, we'll need to leave the block in place. If you have an association with this website, you will need to disclose that, see WP:COI. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Thank you for the quick reply 331dot. I respect that. Can someone with domain expertise review the edits and resource to make the determination if the changes are beneficial or not?

I could support that, but it would have to be extremely clear what the website has to do with AI (LLMs). tgeorgescu (talk) 20:51, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. How do we tag someone to do that review? Or do we first need approval from 331dot? Apologies if I'm a little slow on the uptake, this is new to me. EliWikiEditor (talk) 21:07, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Ten years ago, the method for citing Bible verses was linking to the Bible Gateway. Eventually, that got deprecated, mainly because the Bible Gateway is an ad-supported website. The mere idea of supporting a commercial website was opposed by many. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

That's really interesting context. The current reference links are ad supported, so I think my edits should align with what you are saying. EliWikiEditor (talk) 21:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to get unblocked first, through a successful unblock request. 331dot (talk) 21:34, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Would I do that by submitting another unblock request to you? 331dot? EliWikiEditor (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

You should make a new unblock request, but someone else will review it. 331dot (talk) 21:47, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Appreciate the guidance. EliWikiEditor (talk) 22:18, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

EliWikiEditor (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Please see above conversation for full context. In short, I made a few edits to point ICD10 codes to a more recent site that isn't ad supported. The gentlemen above agreed that a domain expert take a look to see my changes were positive edits, but I first need to be unblocked to make that request. Thank you! EliWikiEditor (talk) 03:20, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

Procedural decline only. This unblock request has been open for more than two weeks but has not proven sufficient for any reviewing administrator to take action, or you have not responded to questions raised during that time. You are welcome to request a new block review if you substantially reword your request. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
1. understand what you have been blocked for,
2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 14:49, 8 May 2025 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

I'm not sure why you addressed a non-admin in your request; please speak to the reviewer. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there! Looking through your recent edits, it appears you added references to an AI-related ICD website. Please read WP:LLM, then reply to this message explaining why using LLMs is discouraged on Wikipedia. Thank you! Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 04:39, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Significa! I read the article, thanks for sharing. The content I reference from the site is static and updated directly from the CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services). It is the search on that site that uses an LLM to help find codes.

Does the policy apply to any site that uses LLMs in general? I understand that LLMs are discouraged for a list of reasons: hallucinations, unsourced/unverified content, bias, copyright violations. EliWikiEditor (talk) 15:31, 27 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Looking through the website, I cannot find anything stating that it works with Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. I would recommend utilizing another, more reliable source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

{{Ping|Significa liberdade}} - notifying you of above message. Thanks! EliWikiEditor (talk) 13:24, 31 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade: Apologies if my previous note wasn't clear, it doesn't work directly with the CMS, but sources the information directly from them. Check out https://icdcodes.ai/icd10/D50.1 you can see the CMS attribution above "Related ICD-10 codes".

Right now a common resource being linked across wikipedia is icd10data.com which is heavily commercialized with ads. In a side to side, this tool just seems like a better experience/source.

ICDcodes.ai is built by Freed an established medical technology company. EliWikiEditor (talk) 16:22, 1 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade: Gentle nudge. EliWikiEditor (talk) 18:49, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I would prefer if you could find a different source, especially given that the information should be available in various places. Yes, an ad-free source is better than an ad-laden source, but a non-LLM source is also better than an LLM source. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 21:04, 8 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Totally understand. This is the cleanest source I found, but I can find other resources.

However, for this particular article on ICD10 chapters it was the best source I can find for a decent chapter level overview.

To illustrate:

- Chapter I | Block A00–B99 | Certain infectious and parasitic diseases

This is a great landing page for someone looking for an overview of that chapters contents. EliWikiEditor (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Significa liberdade EliWikiEditor (talk) 16:30, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to leave this open for someone else to review. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 17:49, 9 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Understood @[[User:@Significa liberdade What are next steps here to get someone else to review? Thanks! EliWikiEditor (talk) 14:15, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Your request is listed in the queue for administrator review. Significa liberdade (she/her) (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]

(Non-sysop, here from exploring the ICD-10 article revision history.)

Just want to point out that there appears to be a conflation of ICD-10-CM and ICD-10.

ICD-10 is maintained by WHO and is used globally. ICD-10-CM builds upon ICD-10 but contains many changes that, as far as I know, are only used in the US. The addition of ICD-10-CM specific resources on ICD-10 topics is not the appropriate space for them—"spam" or otherwise. Even if it's decided they could be added at ICD-10-CM specific topics; to link to an ICD-10-CM code, it's nearly always more appropriate to use the {{ICD10CM}} template. This template links to the CDC's tool, rather than linking to a ad-driven site.

Codes, regardless of the classification, are of limited relevance to lay readers and should be in {{medical resources}} long before they are added to prose. Whilst some articles – such as sexual addition – have a section discussing the addition of the condition to ICD-11 the contrast is to ICD-10, and not any national version. Little pob (talk) 12:15, 26 April 2025 (UTC)[reply]