Nelbs

Thank you for your message. You say you are a newcomer to Wikipedia, so congratulations - I think you have already learnt a great deal about appropriate protocol, and I am very impressed! All looked fine with the suggestions for wikification. Looking at the Yahoo! site, I did think that the article was sufficiently different for that on hypoglycaemia unawareness to escape copyright infringement; however, my worries about the article were:

1. Its brevity; 2. Secondly, and more importantly, there were no source acknowledgements. ACEO 20:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback - nice to see I am on the right track! As far as I could tell, great swathes of content were simple copy-pasted from the site. Entire paragraphs were copied verbatim - is this acceptable? I'd still suggest the article could be rewritten - with the Yahoo! site as a source - and therefore be more acceptable to Wikipedia. Doing this would likely increase the length of the artice too. Do you agree? Nelbs 18:18, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not know the original website, but I do feel that some one who edits this article should be a qualified medical person (which I am not - my Ph.D. is in psychology). I have, however, put up a reference on the "Discussion" page of the article in question. I have access to sources on diabetes in my university library, and I have also added a little information to the "Discussion" page. Let us hope that Wikipedian physicians will find this page and edit it accordingly without copying from other websites! ACEO 18:52, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say. I was certainly not suggesting I rewrite the article - my Masters in Electronics is not the best background for this! Hopefully someone more qualified will sort it out - the topic is clearly an important one. Nelbs 14:55, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Multi-burst

I found: "... : high frequency roll-off causes loss of definition, ...". Is it the intention of the accompanying image to demonstrate high frequency roll-off? The present image does this perfectly by showing loss of contrast for the more closely spaced vertical lines on the right-hand side of the screen. Ghidoekjf (talk) 00:19, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. I guess the picture does show that pretty well. I simply re-used the image with the original article and did not expand further - although I'd be delighted if you would like to edit the caption accordingly. Happy to do this if you would rather not. Nelbs (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2010 (UTC)