User talk:Drchriswilliams/Archive 1

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3→Archive 5

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

  • Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!
  • Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.
  • Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! --LT910001 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation reminders

Here are a few links that I need to be careful to specify...

and more..

Evening, Chris!

This little script will help you avoid inadvertently linking to disambiguation pages: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. Also highlights lots of other useful stuff. Follow the instructions there to install it.

Good luck

--NSH002 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this tool. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Scotland

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Scotland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter123 (chinwag) @ 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please advise

Hi,

You've classified the articles I added re. an online tool for helping individuals assess and monitor their well-being as promotional material. The online tool is actually free for users and we intend to help individuals improve their well-being by talking about our work on appropriate pages in Wikipedia. What can I do to make sure that it is not considered promotional in nature? Should I change the language or is it something else? Nimpal (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

September 2014

Thurso

Congratulations, you've just thwarted any chances of this article being rewritten and perhaps promoted to GA. It's a mess, it needs rewriting from scratch which I was going to do over the next few days, I won't bother now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

  • Hi Dr. Blofeld I agree that there are serious issues with the Thurso article but I hope you will recognise that when you blanked much of the content didn't give any indication of any plan you might have had to do any of the rewriting. I would like you to understand that I had reverted your removal of content on the basis that I couldn't see anything to signal any intent to improve the article. If you are able to spare any further efforts to work on the article further I would appreciate it. I'll also try to lend a hand. I'm sure there would be many other people who would welcome this page being improved. Thanks. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea was to restore it section by section with proper sourcing and removing a lot of the bloat and poorly formatting. It makes it much for difficult approaching the article now as it is. Rosie and I started Thurso Castle.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There you go, that wasn't so bad was it? That's the initial cleanup. Perhaps I'll expand it further later today/this coming week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Social work portal

Category:NHS Scotland hospitals is a sub-category of Category:Social care in Scotland, which is the reason for its inclusion in the social work portal. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, its a sub-category of a sub-category Category:NHS Scotland, but Category:NHS Scotland hospitals is still part of Category:Social care in Scotland, please stop reverting. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)
Spamming? How is it spamming? WikiProjects on talk pages say, "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:", it is "of interest" to social care, or are there no free prescriptions for anyone in a Scottish hospital? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick notification

A user came on IRC #wikipedia-en-help connect and referred to you, thought you might want to come on now and discuss. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Midpark Hospital) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Midpark Hospital, Drchriswilliams!

Wikipedia editor StewdioMACK just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well done!

To reply, leave a comment on StewdioMACK's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talk before Undo the edits

What is your Problem in the Link added by me in Scottish independence referendum, 2014? Talk before you undo.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not an "external link". It is an article from a newspaper. Please integrate it into the article if you feel that there is content that belongs in the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

oh Ok. Thanks.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal College of Emergency Medicine

Greetings Chris. Just to acknowledge that I added details you provided about Clifford Mann's views on the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to Jeremy Hunt's page.
Regards JRPG (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Message for Chris (re EE) ~ Alasdair writing

Never tried this before, so don't really know if it will work, or if it is correct etiquette? IN case you are fed-up of EE, there is some explanatory/apologetic info in the talk pages. As I say there, your comment pointed me to a the material on lead writing from which I cut the following: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies . . ." It is clear that the lead which includes the text "property of the relationship" does not really achieve any of these objectives effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.152.168 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair. This is the correct place to leave a comment. As I said on the Employee engagement talk pages, I don't particularly support the material that had been used so far in this article's lead. As I also said, it would be good to reach consensus. I note that there was a significant difference of opinion between you and another editor. I would again repeat my advice that working to improve other sections of the article might be the best way to be able to establish consensus around the lead section. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Message

i created an article "list of indian doctors associations" some one disrupts the order , so today i edited again....my id *ydsameeksh*....thanking you sir , i created this article on 26, april 2014 , wikipedia accepts this article ...thanking you sir— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydsameeksh (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2015

I have made edits to remove material that you have added to the List of Indian doctors' associations article. I have done this because the material that you are inserting does not appear to belong in this online encyclopaedia. For further information on the relevant Wikipedia policy, have a look here: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

LMS

You have deleted my addition, saying it is copyrighted material. But the reference is given. This is what I don't understand. If this is copyrighted and then the first reference on that page is also copyrighted, then why that can stay there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.12.49 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted your addition to Learning management systems because you had inserted text that was lifted directly from a copyrighted work. Providing a reference doesn't excuse you from replicating material in this way (when you don't have permission from the copyright holder). For further information on this you could look at WP:Copyrights. If you suspect that other material within an article has violated copyright then there is some advice here WP:Copyright violations. If you do have specific concerns that there is other material within the LMS article that is in violation of copyright then you should raise these on the article's talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
I see. I have removed some content that may have copyright issues as you did. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.12.49 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Centre for Gene Regulation and Expression section on University of Dundee page

Hi,

I've put my justification for removing the section from the University of Dundee page on its talk page. I'd be pleased if you could take a look. 77.99.109.71 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied on the University of Dundee talk page, hopefully it will generate some discussion and prompt others to make improvement too. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Ian Blackford

Proposed deletion of Ian Blackford

The article Ian Blackford has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Blackford. Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mhairi Black

Hi Dr Chris would you please be able to explain to me why you removed my sourced material about her comments on Celtic FC? They are not sensationalist, she has openly stated them and it was widely reported. I believe that they are controversial enough to warrant exclusion. She has said a lot of controversial things, why is it acceptable to whitewash these? Huddsblue (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the material that you posted because Wikipedia has clear policy relating to the biographies of living people. As per WP:BLPSOURCES this was contentious material that was poorly sourced, hence it was something that should be immediately removed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes they are controversial views that she has, but how is the Telegraph a poor source? it is not a tabloid newspaper. This outburst and others have made the national papers, and are I believe newsworthy as she is a high profile figure. The rule about Tabloids is clear, can you please point me to the bit which says it's not Ok to use a broadsheet as a source? Seems to me a case of whitewashing. Huddsblue (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
I do not see that this represents views that has she is renowned for. I feel there are some serious reliability issues with this story, in terms of it being used on a BLP as part of Wikipedia. This appears to be a story based on someone finding a message, just a few words in length, once posted on a Twitter account but now removed. In terms of context this would not appear to be an unusual thing for a teenager to be involved in, especially when involving sporting rivalries. Several years later, still a young woman, she is now very much in the public eye. Despite this, over the past few months I haven't been aware of her repeating anything along the lines that are suggests by certain extrapolations of the contents of this single Tweet. So, even though it has been picked up by some parts of the media, I have major concerns about Wikipedia being used to present it as part of a BLP- it just doesn't lend itself to taking a Neutral Point of View. A few words by a teenager in a Tweet years before holding public office should not be given undue weight. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)


You've earned this...

The Original Barnstar
Given in recognition of your work updating and improving pages about Members of Parliament for Scottish constituences. Thank you! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Re Jim Hood

Please stop reverting information that is up to date and took time to do. Please revert back to second last revision by me. I am well versed in the history of this seat and the current events also. If you fail to rectify I will contact others to look at the actions (somewhat mistaken) that you have taken, doctor or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.76.136 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a string of changes that were not consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of style. If I didn't revert your changes then someone else would have removed most if not all of the material that your edits introduced. Irrespective of whether you are versed in the history of the seat and/or current events, on Wikipedia any changes you make need to be the sort that don't break links to other pages on Wikipedia and that are careful to use language that follows a neutral point of view. Have a look at the articles that I have highlighted and you may get a better feel for how things need to look on Wikipedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Alexander M S Green

You have sent me a message regarding my entry under Alexander M S Green. I am new to editing entries. As far as I know, I have one account and I have been using it.

Thank you

--217.34.49.110 (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Have a look at the Wikipedia advice around Help:Logging in. You can look back at the "View history" tab for the pages that you have been editing. It would appear that you haven't been logged in for some of your editing, which means that your edits are only listed as an IP address. That can lead to problems if anyone thinks that you are avoiding being identified, whilst being involved with any editing that may be deemed to have Conflict of interest issues. I will also copy this message to your IP page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for sorting my reference, i'm very new to this so i still am not sure about many aspects here.--TijuanaBandito (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Alexander Dewar

Hi. Since you volunteered to work on the article Ryan Alexander Dewar in your userspace at its deletion discussion, which I have closed with a consensus to userfy, I have moved the article to your userspace. You can view and edit it at User:Drchriswilliams/Ryan Alexander Dewar. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations

I suggest reading up on WP:BLP. Specifically this section

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Additionally this:

The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Your repeated reinstatement of unsourced contentious content about Kennedy such as quotes about his alcoholism, claims that he was often drunk, and the alleged failure of his laid back leadership style all require reliable sources. Further reinstatement can be considered a violation of Wikipedia's policies about living people. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I had reverted your edit because you had removed of a very large amount of text from the article. There is lots of uncontentious material amongst the text you removed. I reverted this because I was suspicious about why you had removed this easily verifiable information, such as his schooling or electoral results. I see that you have reverted my addition of a reference, then adding it as one of your own edits. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)