User talk:Drchriswilliams/Archive 10

Did You Know that Nursing Care Plans were born in Edinburgh?
Hello Dr. Chris, Nursing care plans arose in that Edinburgh University Nursing Dept. They were the brain-child of Canadian Phd student now, Professor, Nancy Grant. Nancy is still alive in Ontario. She was in Margaret Scott-Wright's department, only I can't remember whether it was Annie Altschul or Lisbeth Hockey who was her supervisor. After Edinburgh, Nancy went on to the University of Calgary where she was associate professor. Do you think it's worth dedicating an article to her? Regards, --Po Kadzieli (talk) 12:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Re: autopatrol
Hey, just wanted to drop an note saying I hope I haven't caused you any stress by putting you up for autopatrol! I don't know if you've followed the travails among the New Pages Reviewers, where the backlog is more than 20,000 entries that haven't been checked over by a reviewer yet; we're trying to make a dent in that by looking for folks who might be usefully removed from the queue. I apologize for the unsolicited attention, especially since ultimately "autopatrol" actually won't change anything on your end (doesn't affect your ability to create articles, and applying to patrol other people's creations is a separate process)--this is really just to try to get a handle on the NPR situation. Thanks so much for bearing with us--and thanks for all your excellent contributions to the encyclopedia! Innisfree987 (talk) 19:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm glad that you nominated me! I'm aware of some of the difficulties of trying to deal with the variable quality of the many new articles. In recent months I have followed some of the discussions on the Autopatrolled requests page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Autopatrolled granted
Hi Drchriswilliams, I just wanted to let you know that I have [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&page=User%3ADrchriswilliams added] the "autopatrolled" permission to your account, as you have created numerous, valid articles. This feature will have no effect on your editing, and is simply intended to reduce the workload on new page patrollers. For more information on the patroller right, see Autopatrolled. Feel free to leave me a message if you have any questions. Happy editing! S warm  ♠  05:41, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Politicians
Was trying to add Jamie Halcro-Johnston at the same time as you but was struggling. Can you also add Edward Mountain MSP? Aharrold (talk) 21:43, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
 * you mean Sir Edward Mountain, 4th Baronet ? Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:46, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

University of Stirling page
Hi Drchriswilliams,

Apologies for removing the warning templates without leaving a detailed explanation. I am still learning about Wikipedia rules.

The templates were removed because significant changes were made to the page, specifically in relation to its language and references. As a result, the page now doesn't sound self-promotional, and is in line with the style and language of other university Wikipedia pages. For example, all information about rankings has been moved under an appropriate Rankings heading (this is far from self-promotional, but is something every university has on its Wikipedia page). In addition, first-party references were replaced with third-party ones, where possible. Please note that hasn't been possible in all cases, especially when the original or only source is the university website.

As a result of all these amendments, I would argue that the issues have been addressed and resolved, and therefore, leaving these maintenance templates would be inaccurate and unfair.

Happy to discuss. Bisse anderson (talk) 08:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

WikiCup 2017 July newsletter
The third round of the competition has finished in a flurry of last minute activity, with 288 points being required to qualify for round 4. It was a hotly competitive round with all but four of the contestants exceeding the 106 points that was necessary to proceed to round 4 last year. Coemgenus and Freikorp tied on 288, and both have been allowed to proceed, so round 4 now has one pool of eight competitors and one of nine.

Round 3 saw the achievement of a 26-topic Featured topic by MPJ-DK as well as 5 featured lists and 13 featured articles. PanagiotisZois and SounderBruce achieved their first ever featured articles. Carbrera led the GA score with 10, Tachs achieved 17 DYKs and MBlaze Lightning 10 In the news items. There were 167 DYKs, 93 GARs and 82 GAs overall, this last figure being higher than the number of GAs in round 2, when twice as many people were taking part. Even though contestants performed more GARs than they achieved GAs, there was still some frustration at the length of time taken to get articles reviewed.

As we start round 4, we say goodbye to the fifteen or so competitors who didn't quite make it; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 3 but before the start of round 4 can be claimed in round 4. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them (some people have fallen foul of this rule and the points have been removed).

If you are concerned that your nomination, whether it be for a good article, a featured process, or anything else, will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. It would be helpful if this list could be cleared of any items no longer relevant. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to keep down the review backlogs! Questions are welcome on Wikipedia talk:WikiCup, and the judges are reachable on their talk pages or by email. Good luck! If you wish to start or stop receiving this newsletter, please feel free to add or remove yourself from WikiCup/Newsletter/Send. Godot13, Sturmvogel 66 and Cwmhiraeth 05:38, 30 June 2017 (UTC)

Lauder
Cheers. I must screw my eyes back in. Are the sources reliable enough? Also, we'd need to show that he was a staple diet of vaudevillian audiences, as opposed to making one off, sporadic appearances. This will come with time, I'm sure.  Cassianto Talk   17:25, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
 * . Yep, I did see a 1908 newspaper article about his trips to the US but I agree that more sources are needed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:34, 2 July 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance Template
Drchriswilliams ! I removed maintenance templates by mistake. I just tried to Improve Article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleges.Uttarakhand (talk • contribs) 04:55, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Drchriswilliams. Please help to improve my Article on Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colleges.Uttarakhand (talk • contribs) 05:36, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

About Presidency University Bangalore
Sir,

You have completely deleted almost the entire infobox citing that it was "promotional". I was trying to give an unbiased summary, and I typed the whole thing for 30 minutes. But the only reference I found was their website, which is not surprising for a new university. The Article has multiple spelling mistakes, those edits have also been reverted. For example, in the Facilities section, 'Cassroom' is written instead of 'Classroom'. Even after me correcting it, you have reverted it back. Let's make this article unbiased, and informative. The current article contains very little information. The same thing can be said about the Lovely Professional University, the article contains very little information. I have visited Presidency University myself, it is 180 kilometers away from my house. I had to go there by train. I even have their booklet with me. I can write a detailed article, in my own words, without any "promotional" content, but what is the point if all my contributions will be taken down citing that it is "promotional" when I have tried my best to make it informative and unbiased? Please be specific about what part of my edits were "promotional". I will definitely delete those parts myself as soon as possible. I will be re-writing the whole article soon. I will also try to remove the "promotional" content written by other users.

And about the copyrighted logo, I understand why it was deleted, it was my mistake. Apologies. I will be re-uploading the image stating it is not my own work and I have also requested to undelete it.

Thank you in advance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JOEL REGO (talk • contribs) 07:21, 21 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia and is not here to promote that university. Adding self-published sources has not resulted in an improvement. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:20, 22 July 2017 (UTC)


 * Alright then, I won't edit it further. Thanks for removing promotional lists.JOEL REGO (talk) 10:13, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for First Minister's Questions (Scottish Parliament)
IronGargoyle (talk) 12:57, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

Strikethrough
How would I do that please?Zigzig20s (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

DYK for Richard Scott (doctor)
Alex ShihTalk 00:02, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

Edits
Chris Williams, you keep on making erroneous edits to Damien Moore's page. I work for his and can attest that the information you provide is not true.194.60.38.227 (talk) 12:19, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * No, I restored content which had been removed even though there was a supporting reference. I added a further reference that supports the claim. There has previously been some discussion about this on the article's talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Editing of David Linden (Politician) Wikipedia
Can you please inform me of the issues regarding my updates to David Linden (Politician) wiki page? I am having my edits deleted at every turn and since I am his assistant and have been asked to update it I thought referencing his Biography section on his official website (Which I wrote on his behalf) might be enough but apparently there is a copyright issue. If you need confirmation of this from David's official MP email address I am happy to oblige. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rossdeans (talk • contribs) 12:27, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ross. There are several problems that I can see. You have removed a source that is independent of your employer and replaced it with content that appears written to promote your employer. Additionally that content you added is already published on a webpage that is marked as copyright, therefore it will be promptly removed from Wikipedia. It is possible to donate copyrighted material to Wikipedia but I suggest that you have a read of the WP:COPYRIGHT policy first. I see that has already provided you with a link to the Wikipedia's policy on Conflict of interest. Please have a proper read of the advice on that page too. Please let me know if you need help after you are more familiar with these policies. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:52, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

SUMP
Hi Chris, I would be grateful if you could explain why you have repeatedly put on the page for the Scottish Union of Mental Patients. As it has been shown that this was first Mental Patients Union to be formed in the UK, predating the Mental Patients' Union, it is clearly notable. Please take the trouble to read [From mental patient to service user: deinstitutionalisation and the emergence of the Mental Health Service User Movement in Scotland, 1971-2006 http://theses.gla.ac.uk/8078/1/2017GallagherPhD.pdf] which spends a great deal of time examining the role of SUMP. Then you will better understand the importance of this organisation. Thanks. Leutha (talk) 18:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The PhD thesis covers a 35 year period in the health service. The description of the notability in the thesis doesn't match the claim in the article you created. The thesis was the only source when I added the tag the first time. You removed it without explanation. A second source helps but I still don't see that there is the depth of coverage included yet that would allay my initial concerns. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:18, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, no explanation was needed for the first removal as the issue had been resolved with the additional source. I am not sure how much of the Gallacher thesis you have read, otherwise you would see that it does support the claim in the article. Only you can allay your concerns, and I would suggest that you spend a short amount of time looking at either the Gallacher article or Andrew Roberts work on Studymore, and you will soon see that these references are more than sufficient. Leutha (talk) 18:34, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * The additional source is an article originally published in "Mental Health Today", (now an online-only work). It now exists on on a webpage maintained by the author. I can't see anything about what sort of circulation that Mental Health Today enjoyed back in 2009 and I couldn't if it had been associated with any organisations. On page 29 of Gallagher was this: "the first such group in Scotland which left a paper trail sufficient for detailed investigation is the short- lived but significant Scottish Union of Mental Patients (SUMP), which came and went between 1971 and 1972." This description is significantly from the one you put on "Scottish Union of Mental Patients". You left out the suggestion that there may have been others where a physical record did not survive and also that the organisation itself didn't exist for anything more than perhaps a year. The article is currently five sentences in length, with claims that don't match the two sources so far identified. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:40, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Chris, thanks for your comments. I am not quite sure where your remarks about Mental Health Today take us. Reserachgate has provided some information here. The article in question is mentioned on the Social Care Online website run by the Social Care Institute for Excellence. Andrew Roberts is the a senior sociology lecturer at Middlesex University and is a member of the British Sociological Association's Sociology of Mental Health Study Group . I would also like to clarify the points you have made concerning your critique of the edits that I made. I am sure that on reflection you will come to appreciate the accuracy of my edits and remove the inappropriate notability template you added. You quote a piece from page 29 of Gallagher, but neglect to look at what groups Gallagher was examining which he spells out in detail on page 28: "patient groups" (...) "of local and national scope, meaning groups which formed in response to local problems and comprised people from a particular locality, but which also addressed issues of wider national concern and which made contact with other groups beyond their locality." I was disappointed that you did not trouble to read a few pages further to page 32 where Gallacher writes quite unequivocally "The emergence of the first 'mental patients' union' in the UK is revealed in the documents of the Scottish Union of Mental Patients (SUMP), authored between 1967 and 1972 by a patient of Hartwood Hospital, Thomas Ritchie." which is indeed close to my edit "This was the first Mental Patients Union to be formed in the UK.", whilst avoiding Close paraphrasing. I urge you to pay fuller attention to the texts cited before suggesting that claims have been made which don't match the sources which I identified. Leutha (talk) 21:29, 28 July 2017 (UTC)
 * So I put a notability tag on an article that still doesn't stretch beyond five sentences in length and you respond by attacking me? Only a single page of the thesis (page 38) is referenced in the article at present. Were you going to comment on the issue of you leaving out the suggestion that there may have been others where a physical record did not survive and also that the organisation itself didn't exist for anything more than perhaps a year? Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:43, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

George Turner
The standard format in wikipedia for rugby union players that have been named elsewhere is to put a (rugby union) identifier after the name. (rugby player) is normally only used for players who play dual code. Turner should named as (rugby union) not (rugby player). The rugby player identifier should be the redirect NOT the other way round. In addition the arrow sign is used to specify a loan not (loan) in the infobox. Aedis1 (talk) 21:04, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm quite familiar with the conventions around naming. The problem here is your use of copy-and-paste. I have replied further on your talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:08, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I was moving the page. The redirect was to be (rugby player). Aedis1 (talk) 21:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
 * I have again replied to this comment at your talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:17, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

Personal data
You have removed even the personal data including the educational qualifications of this great cardiologist Gulla Surya Prakash. Kindly consider the basic details. Thanking you.--Rajasekhar1961 14:52, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia asks for certain standards around verifiability to be met for articles that are written about living persons. You can find out more at WP:BLP. This article has had templates added to highlight problems for a long time but they have not been fixed. Before I removed the unsourced claims, I did look for reliable sources, but found none. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Info Box editing
I always check before I save the articles. Which kind of problem do you mean? ReNaHtEiM (talk) 11:07, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course I proceeded. Because there are no problems. On my PC everything is shown just fine. I just try to standardize stadium info boxes worldwide. Only at the articles about the Scottish ones a different pattern is used, so I change that now to the common one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ReNaHtEiM (talk • contribs) 11:18, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Btw what is the problem you are talking about?ReNaHtEiM (talk) 11:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

If you don't answer my question I will keep reverting.ReNaHtEiM (talk) 11:57, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have replied to you several times on your own talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:14, 5 August 2017 (UTC)