User talk:Eric Deeson

Welcome!

 * }

Piri Reis map
Thanks for that, but I've moved it to Talk:Piri Reis which is where it belongs. Dougweller (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

That's fine with me - thank you! Eric - --178.197.254.3 (talk) 08:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Merging with "Impact of technology on the educational system"
Hello, Eric. I am picking up on your post on the Talk page for Educational technology. The link is Talk:Educational technology from 24 April 2012 (UTC). Do I correctly mirror the points you posted by restating things as, "Educational technology" properly considered is a domain of "learning theory" and is not to be confused with the use of "hardware and software" within education? Responding either here or on the said Talk Page will help me confirm my understanding. FeatherPluma (talk) 20:24, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, FeatherPluma (if I may) - you amke two points / queries: (a) "Do I correctly mirror the points you posted by restating things as, "Educational technology" properly considered is a domain of "learning theory"? ..." Not quite, though (b) is a valid statement. Any "technology" is an application of the corresponding area of knowledge ("science" or "theory") to improve the world - so infomation technology is the application of information science ... and educational technology is the application of learning science/theory.

(b) "Educational technology is not to be confused with the use of "hardware and software" within education" - agreed!

I've written on all that in the curent (July 2012) issue of British Journal of Educational Technology (book review of Spector)

Best wishes - Eric--178.197.254.3 (talk) 08:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent edit to Heart murmur
Hello, and thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. I noticed that you recently added commentary to the Heart murmur article. While Wikipedia welcomes editors' opinions on an article and how it could be changed, these comments are more appropriate for the article's accompanying talk page. If you post your comments there, other editors working on the same article will notice and respond to them, and your comments will not disrupt the flow of the article. Thank you! Orphan Wiki 19:47, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, Orphan Wiki - I couldn't find how to do that and shall now try to remember the Talk page. Please let me know if you have not moved the para in question to the Talk page so that I can try to do that. Thanks again - Eric

Proposed deletion of Patients and public involvement (PPI)


The article Patients and public involvement (PPI) has been proposed for deletion&#32;because of the following concern: "Un-encyclopedic article, as well as incorrect format, tone, etc"

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

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

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing 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. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ  20:12, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

A page you started (Patients and public involvement (PPI)) has been reviewed!
Thanks for creating Patients and public involvement (PPI), Eric Deeson!

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

"I have removed a Proposal for Deletion notice on this article, and tried to tidy it up to conform to Wikipedia statndards. It is written like on opinion essay or lecture, which isn't appropriate for Wikipedia. This is a shame as I think it is a significant element of UK Healthcare (about which I know very little myself). So please work on this article asap, cut out all the trivia and waffle, and create a shorter article which is more likely to stand up in and Articles for Deletion discussion."

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

Learn more about page curation.

Nick Moyes (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Request change of article title to Public Involvement (PI) in health and care research
Don't you just hate fast moving fields? The previous title - Patients' and Public Involvement (PPI) - has gradually been superseded by PI since 2016 and the change has been blessed by the publication in June 2017 by the bodies most responsible for the approach, NIHR and INVOLVE. While many people and organisations still use PPI from force of habit or as teh cost of changing would be too high, the trend will continue. (Personally I prefer "lay involvement" but LI is not such a cool shortening!)

I've assumed that you will allow this title change and have re-worded the opening lines to suit.

Presumably people looking up PPI will get here without being encouraged to write their own PPI article? Or should there be a PPI - see PI article?

Best wishes, all, including for a splendid 2018 - Eric Eric Deeson (talk) 16:37, 28 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I've moved the article so that the title matches the content. I hope this is OK.  The acronym "PPI" is much better known for a mis-selling scandal.   Dbfirs  20:49, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Dear Nick Moyes! I spend far too long on wiki trying to work out how to use it inside. Thus I appreciate your message about renaming the PPI piece to PI and have spent ten minutes failing to find out how to reply to say so!

Just possibly you'll find this one day - but I AM grateful Eric Deeson (talk) 10:46, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Your thread has been archived
Dear @Eric Deeson,

I work at the NIHR as the Wikipedian-in-residence, a role focusing on the dissemination of research through Wikipedia. Together with my colleagues (some ex-INVOLVE) we wrote a new article on PPI. I was aware of your previous article and wanted to consult you before publishing but due to being slow and reaching a deadline I didn't have time to do that, apologies. We started working with your article but in the end it became completely different and I wanted to ask you if you would be comfortable with the new one instead of the other. We want to try to integrate the topic in other relevant Wikipedia articles and the new one adheres a bit more to Wikipedia policies and encyclopedic style. What do you think? I really hope this won't come across like devaluing your work on Wikipedia, that is not the case.

Best wishes, Adam Harangozó (NIHR WiR) (talk) 10:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the courtesy, Adam!
 * This is generally very good. My main concern is confusion right from the title between PI and PPI. Why not call it "PI (previously PPI [the first couple of times]) and have a cross-reference from PPI?
 * Have you removed my own entry?
 * Thanks again ericdeeson proton at me (if that makes sense) 92.233.208.167 (talk) 09:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)