Talk:Hematoma

message: Ed, I find your addition to hematoma rather unhelpful. External links are already hugely over- and misused, and adding a Google search instruction with a silly warning does not in any way enhance the page. JFW | T@lk 20:36, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Jfdwolff. Thanks for your feedback. I originally thought about adding an image to the article itself, and performed the Google search as part of finding an appropriate one, but after realising how many were available, couldn't decide on any one in particular, so thought the best thing may be to have a link, allowing people to effectively browse examples. As many of the examples were quite likely to shock some people, I considered a warning of some sort to be appropriate, but I wasn't entirely sure of the best way to word it. I hope you were able to word it better! --Rebroad 18:26, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, yes, everyone can search anywhere without being pointed in a direction to do so. So perhaps we should unwikify everything, and let people use their intelligence instead? Or perhaps not - I suspect Wikipedia is here to help people find information. If a link to google images does that, we should include it. Many people (including me) are visually orientated, and words simply cannot convey information as efficiently as images can. Please do not remove the link, but instead, perhaps include an images that you consider is a good example of a hematoma. Thanks, --Rebroad 18:30, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Ed, your approach is a violation of the External Links policy. If you revert again, you will find yourself in a request for comment. Just stop trolling, for heaven's sake. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: If I might add my comment, and from a purely practical point of view, I think that Jfdwolff has a point: the pictures, as given by Google, are not very helpful, usually not representative, and dramatically lack explanations. It would certainly be an improvement to add pictures to the article, but not this way. Rama 20:58, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Rama, could you draw a (non-shoking) hematoma for this page? :-) JFW | T@lk 10:48, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would be glad to, but I am unsure of the result. I'll try and let you know the result. Cheers ! Rama 11:28, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Google images link 

message: I've removed the additional images section with its two images. In particular, the "eye" image is rather shocking. I'm not actually that squeamish, either; I'm not sure how someone who is would react to it. The second "elbow" image didn't really add much to the initial image at the top of the article, either.
If we'd like to use these images for this article, would it at least be best to simply make a text link to them (maybe from beneath the top image, or maybe down near the end of the article)? While I understand this subject has certain necessary content, it seems like there's no reason to put up more gore than is required. Gugustiuci (talk) 16:00, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed additional images 

message: I apologize: the entire page is not inaccurate, but some signicant parts.
IiKkEe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction and apology 

message: I apologize: the entire page is not inaccurate, but some signicant parts.
The image of the ecchymosis should be removed, since it is not a hematoma. Hematomas do not stain the skin: they cause a lump under the skin. It's also possible to have a lump and a stain: then it's a hematoma and an ecchymosis.  
IiKkEe (talk) 15:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction and apology 

message: I've done some online reading and found numerous reputable medical authorities who say petechiae are  a type of hematoma.
I just learned it differently: a stain is not a mass, a mass is not a stain, and there are terms for each.
I will withdraw and not comment further.
IiKkEe (talk) 15:34, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another apology 

message: The photo of a buttock/leg hematoma currently on this page is a photo of my ass. When the young resident in the emergency room asked if could take a photo of it with his cell phone, I expressed some reservation -- I told him I didn't want it to appear on the Internet. He said not to worry about it, and made some sarcastic remark to the effect of "nobody's interested in your ass." So I assumed he just wanted the photo for internal reference in my medical records, to show the change in the hematoma over time, and I let him take the photo.
I discovered the photo on Wikipedia by accident when looking up hematomas here. Now I see that the photo is identified as "Picture by English Wikipedia editor Martinkidgell" -- which is certainly a lie, he didn't take the photo. It is now on multiple Wikipedias all over the world, supposedly "in the public domain" and with permissions that "grants anyone the right to use this work for any purpose", granted by the "owner" of the photo, Martin Kidgell. How did he become the "owner"? He isn't the doctor who took the picture, and that doctor had no right from me to use it in this way either -- he irresponsibly uploaded it to the Internet against my explicit statement.
I realize it's physically impossible to "remove from the Internet" something that's already been widely disseminated, but just to be clear, I did not grant ANYBODY the right to use this photo for anything other than private medical documentation (i.e. in my hospital records). I don't really care about the photo per se, but the whole process by which this photo was handled feels like a gross violation of my privacy, to say the least.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.8.218 (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: This image has now been deleted. I'm sorry this happened to you. Thincat (talk) 18:21, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nobody asked my permission to use that photo 

message: Please add more information about large areas of skin discoloration (Ecchymosis "bruise") caused by blood seepage from nearby but distinctly separate location of actual trauma (Hematoma swelling bump). (The Bruise article currently seems much better about this than the Ecchymosis article which really ought to be more detailed and helpful about this aspect.)-73.61.15.113 (talk) 22:07, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  discoloration distant from trauma site 

message: A discussion is taking place to address the redirect :Suffusion. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 9#Suffusion until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.   talk 03:05, 9 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Suffusion" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]