User talk:Drchriswilliams/Archive 9

Royal Medical Society
Hi, can I clarify what the issue was with the sources used in the recent edits on the Royal Medical Society page? I realise I rely heavily on one source, but the book referenced is the only comprehensive record we have covering information from almost three hundred years ago. I would describe it as reliable, given that it is a secondary source synthesising our minutes, historical records and published information on the lives of members, in addition to its publication by Edinburgh University Press. I am gathering other citation sources but am concerned that the same issue will be flagged - our nature as a student society of a substantial history that is only reaching the public now places us in something of an information deadlock. The removal of all this work over one concern has now left us with a largely inaccurate page, so we'd obviously like to improve the article's integrity as soon as possible. In addition, can you clarify which details you have judged to not be notable? Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hp12345 (talk • contribs) 17:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Most of what you added appeared to be promotional or involved the details of multiple non-notable individuals. Even when referring to historical events, the descriptions added were far from neutral, for example: "By 1776, the Society's wealth of activity demanded its own premises." From your comment here it appears that you have a close connection to the society that you have not declared. I advise that you have a look at WP:SELFPROMOTE. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your guidance, I will modify my literary style. With regards to the guidelines, I voluntarily curate the library and museum, which I note is desired in editors and affords substantial historical information on a topic which is of little concern to non-connected people. See also comments re sources and information deadlock above; the author of the referenced book was not a member of the society. How do you suggest we deal with this? I noted that further information has now been removed due to "self-sourcing"- a massive amount of information on Wikipedia is placed without any sourcing at all and is not treated in the same way. Anyone providing information will obviously have some kind of link to the page topic, so I'm now rather unsure of how I can make the page informative and interesting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hp12345 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Some books are considered reliable sources, factors such as how widely stocked the book is in libraries may influence the how useful a source appears to be. A published review can help establish the importance of a source, e.g. . If you are citing a book, then adding page numbers is helpful. Adding a list of people to an article on the basis of them simply being members of a society is not likely to improve the article. In terms of modern day activities of a society, some of these might be considered notable if there has been coverage in newspapers but the sort of detail that would be published on your own society website might not be relevant to an encyclopaedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:43, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thank you. I am aware of another review in the BMJ - do these permit me, along with page numbers, to cite this book in reference to the society's history? Secondly, is the issue with our current activities their relevance or the reliability of self-sourcing? This section now isn't really a true reflection of the society in reality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hp12345 (talk • contribs) 23:06, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
 * The secondary sources- yes, go for it. The current activities- just because something occurs doesn't make it worthy of inclusion in an encyclopaedia. If reliable sources (that are independent of your society) cover such activities then they might be notable. Also, please learn how to sign messages that you leave on talk pages. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:17, 19 February 2017 (UTC)

Third Sector magazine
Hello,

I work for Third Sector magazine and have been asked by my superiors to put the information in that you keep undoing.

The information you have put in is not up to date and comes from last years event therefore is not a source. I would therefore like you to stop changing the copy that Third Sector Magazine have asked me to include.

Kind regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alex.Laybourne (talk • contribs) 08:48, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Springchickensoup
Hi Drchriswilliams

I came here because after leaving a note at User talk:Springchickensoup, I checked the page history and saw that it had been blanked by the user on 24 Feb, and that the previous version recorded several problems raised by you.

The user talk page's history contains sevral further blanking of criticisms, e.g. 23 Feb 2017, 5 FEb 2017, and 18 Dec 2016.

There seems to me to be a persistent set of problems with inappropriate edits, misleading edit summaries, and not hearing any criticisms.

I see that you brought this to ANI at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941, but received at thoroughly unco-operative response, followed a groundless revenge complaint at Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive941

Two months on, nothing seems to have improved. I am inclined to think that there is some sort of NOTHERE/IDHT/COMPRETENCE problem here, which merits another trip to ANI. What do you think? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:42, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for picking up on this. It is helpful to hear this summarised by someone who is experienced but has not been involved with this difficult situation so far. There is a problem with this editor failing to recognise problems that they have been causing yet still rushing to implement similar changes across multiple pages. This is compounded by a refusal to even pause to consider their actions when challenged. Directing this editor towards relevant Wikipedia policy hasn't worked either. On several occasions they have failed to face up to the issues and also sought to deflect blame onto external factors. Over the last few months there have been a fair number of editors that have offered Springchickensoup advice- on their own user talk page, talk pages of articles and at WikiProject Scotland. Any responses to any feedback have continued to be negative, often scornful, and with a general failure to engage. I agree with your suggestion of another trip to ANI as a way forward. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Chris. It seems that we agree there is a persistent problem.
 * Looking your previous ANI post, which didn't attract as much support as I would have hoped, it seems to me (with the huge benefit of hindsight) that you cast the problem a bit narrowly and didn't provide supporting diffs. So I think that if we are going to make the case for some sort of restraint or warning, it needs to be more detailed (setting out the wide range of problematic editing) and drawing in the other editors who have tried to help guide this editor.
 * At a quick glance, the problems I see so far are:
 * mass archiving talk pages which didn't need archiving, thereby blanking the talk pages; not responding to complaints, and not cleaning up the mess
 * persistently adding inappropriate or non-existent categories
 * repeatedly using uninformative or false edit summaries
 * repeatedly adding navboxes which do not link to the page on which they are placed
 * Not signing comments on talk pages, and responding with hostility when asked to do so
 * Unconstructive editing of infoboxes, such as distance of miles to two decomal places, or location by centimetre, and again respnding with hostility
 * Edit warring rather than BRD
 * How that that list look to you? -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:58, 27 February 2017 (UTC)


 * Yep, it's all of that and more. Thanks for the assistance and for helping me to think this through. I have posted at ANI. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Congrats on a very comprehensive and well-organised summary of the problems. I have posted at ANI to add my support to your complaint. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:21, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

March 2017 WikiCup newsletter
And so ends the first round of the competition, with 4 points required to qualify for round 2. It would have been 5 points, but when a late entrant was permitted to join the contest in February, a promise was made that his inclusion would not result in the exclusion of any other competitor. To achieve this, the six entrants that had the lowest positive score of 4 points have been added to the 64 people who otherwise would have qualified. As a result, some of the groups have nine contestants rather than eight. Our top four scorers in round 1 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, last year's winner, led the field with two featured articles on birds and a total score of 674.
 * 🇪🇺 Iry-Hor, a WikiCup newcomer, came next with a featured article, a good article and a tally of 282 bonus points for a score of 517. All these points came from the article Nyuserre Ini, an Ancient Egyptian pharaoh,
 * 🇯🇵 1989, another WikiCup newcomer, was in joint third place at 240. 1989 has claimed points for two featured lists and one good article relating to anime and comedy series, all of which were awarded bonus points.
 * Peacemaker67 shared third place with five good articles and thirteen good article reviews, mostly on naval vessels. He is also new to the competition.

The largest number of DYKs have been submitted by Vivvt and The C of E, who each claimed for seven, and MBlaze Lightning achieved eight articles at ITN. Carbrera and Peacemaker67 each claimed for five GAs and Krishna Chaitanya Velaga was well out in front for GARs, having reviewed 32. No featured pictures, featured topics or good topics yet, but we have achieved three featured articles and a splendid total of fifty good articles.

So, on to the second round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 1 but before the start of round 2 can be claimed in round 2. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is a good article candidate, a featured process, or anything else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help 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 13:52, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Am Buidheann Dub - wiki page help
Hi there,

We (Am Buidheann Dubh) having noticed you have edited our page, would like to firstly thank you, and secondly, ask if you could help us in updating it, as with our group logotype, recent news and up to date coverage of activities etc.

Many thanks in advance. JOHN.

Contact us via any means for confirmation as below:-

Email : abdubh@gmail.com Facebook : www.facebook.com/Buidheann.Dubh Twitter : @BuidheannDubh Instagram : @buidheann_dubh — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.50.231.32 (talk) 13:07, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Chris Cappocia
We are having the same problems with Wikipedian Chris Capoccia's bibliographic edits that you had cited months ago for a different but similar edit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chris_Capoccia MaynardClark (talk) 20:28, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Peter Ramsey / Movem
Hello. I'm new to posting on Wikipedia, and clearly I'm not well versed enough in the processes to upload a page, as I tried to do with Movem. I feel like there's justification for a neutral description of what we do, as we've been around nearly 5 years and done a whole lot in that time. I want to publish something that can stay up there, and isn't considered advertising, but I don't know how.

I'm not even sure if this is how I contact you - so apologies if I've really dropped the ball here.

Would you be able to help a rookie out? I'm happy to spend some time editing other pages and adding to the community - if someone would just show me the ropes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeterRamseyUK (talk • contribs) 08:29, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

May 2017 WikiCup newsletter
The second round of the competition has now closed, with just under 100 points being required to qualify for round 3. YellowEvan just scraped into the next round with 98 points but we have to say goodbye to the thirty or so competitors who didn't achieve this threshold; thank you for the useful contributions you have made to the Cup and Wikipedia. Our top scorers in round 2 were:


 * 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 Cas Liber, led the field with five featured articles, four on birds and one on astronomy, and a total score of 2049, half of which came from bonus points.
 * 🇯🇵 1989 was in second place with 826 points, 466 of which were bonus points. 1989 has claimed points mostly relating to anime and Japanese-related articles.
 * Peacemaker67 took third place with two FAs, one GA and seven GARs, mostly on naval vessels or military personnel, scoring 543 points.
 * Other contestants who scored over 400 points were Freikorp, Carbrera, and Czar. Of course all these points are now wiped out and the 32 remaining contestants start again from zero in round 3.

Vivvt submitted the largest number of DYKs (30), and MBlaze Lightning achieved 13 articles at ITN. Carbrera claimed for 11 GAs and Argento Surfer performed the most GARs, having reviewed 11. So far we have achieved 38 featured articles and a splendid 132 good articles. Commendably, 279 GARs have been achieved so far, more than double the number of GAs.

So, on to the third round. Remember that any content promoted after the end of round 2 but before the start of round 3 can be claimed in round 3. Remember too that you must claim your points within 10 days of "earning" them. Invitations for collaborative writing efforts or any other discussion of potentially interesting work is always welcome on the WikiCup talk page. Remember, if two or more WikiCup competitors have done significant work on an article, all can claim points equally.

If you are concerned that your nomination—whether it is at good article nominations, a featured process, or anywhere else—will not receive the necessary reviews, please list it on WikiCup/Reviews. If you want to help out with the WikiCup, please do your bit to help 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 13:16, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Ref dose say
"and hence the name Madras eye. "

There are pre WP sources Though not great. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:29, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * I get that there are various sources that mention "Madras eye" in the context of a synonym that is in use in India. That aspect isn't currently reliably sourced to any useful extent within the article. The explanation given by the 2011 Times of India article is light on detail, states claims that are not mentioned in the medical literature and which differs from another published explanation in the same paper in 2003. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay agree. reverted myself. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 20:59, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

 * please help translate this message into your local language via meta

Thanks again :-) --  Doc James  along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 18:08, 3 May 2017 (UTC)

Tele-evidence
Hello Drchriswilliams

Thank you very much for all the help and guidance. Also my apology if this is not a proper way to send a message. Working on Wikipedia is a bit confusing and difficult so please don't mind if there are other avenues to communicate which I did not use (I tried Teahouse but was not successful)

I have removed the advert template on Tele-evidence page as I have deleted the names of people contributed in developing this concept. May be at a later date their contribution will be accepted and appreciated. If there is anything else making this page look like an advertisement kindly let me know. I have no intention to advertise Tele-evidence as I have no personal or professional interests attached. Further the concept of Tele-evidence is now a well-developed concept and Govt. of India and other state governments are already implement it at large scale (see the references).

Also those who are equating Tele-evidence to deposition, need to understand the difference. For example Medicine and Tele-medicine are not the same. One can’t oppose the page of Tele-medicine and ask to incorporate it in the medicine page instead. I have added Tele-evidence in “See also sections” of Deposition, Tele-medicine etc. Thank you very much again for the help. I am a working professional and plan to develop the page further in coming days (however I am slow). I hope more and more people will chip in as the concept expands and will help in further developing the page. Hospadmnpgi (talk) 05:31, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Hello Drchriswilliams. I did provide reasons for removal of Advertisement and Ref Improvement templates in edit summary however you still reinstated them. Regarding Advertisement template: Kindly let me know specific sentences/phrases that look like advt so I can review them. I have tried my best to write it in a neutral manner. Regarding Ref Improvement template: All the sentences that require a reference have been provided with the reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hospadmnpgi (talk • contribs) 05:58, 8 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Improvement templates are applied to articles to indicate to editors that there are issues that require attention. These problems had not been fixed. It is not written in a neutral manner and there are multiple claims that required better referencing. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:02, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

2017 encryption terrorism
Hello Drchriswilliams. I don't think we should speedily delete the page 2017 encryption terrorism in light of the discussion to merge the article to WannaCry ransomware attack instead. At first glance, there does appear to be information in the former article that the latter one doesn't have, such as a mention of the Shadow Brokers. I declined your speedy deletion request on that basis, but it appears that you have restored it. Mz7 (talk) 22:28, 12 May 2017 (UTC)