User talk:Justinmarley

June 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Liaison psychiatry, did not appear to be constructive and has been automatically reverted by ClueBot. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Liaison psychiatry was changed by Justinmarley (u) (t) redirecting article to non-existant page on 2008-06-29T11:28:09+00:00. Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 11:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

July 2008
Welcome to Wikipedia. We welcome and appreciate your contributions, but we regretfully cannot accept original research. Original research also encompasses novel, unpublished syntheses of previously published material. Please be prepared to cite a reliable source for all of your information. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Reliable sources have been used and included books and journal articles Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * No, they were not as has already been explained to you multiple times. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

What is your interest in Liaison Psychiatry? A cursory examination of the literature would reveal the importance of the included texts Justinmarley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * I have none. You can make all the claims you want. Without a reliable source, anyone regardless of knowledge of the topic, will remove them as false claims. Again, you can't NOT use the book itself to support your claims of the books being important. You must find reliable, third party sources that make the claim. YOU are not a qualified source, period. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Referencing third party peer reviewed comments on stated texts is straightforward. Justinmarley (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * You did not, however, do it. Instead you threw a temper tantrum and kept putting back the invalid references until the article was locked to stop it. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit that you made has been reverted or removed because it was a misuse of a warning or blocking template. Please use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do, or take a look at our introduction page to learn more about contributing to the encyclopedia. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The vandalism template was used because a significant proportion of work had been removed without discussion Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * It was falsely and wrongly used. It is not vandalism to clean up an article. Don't use a template if you don't know what you are doing, and when you have no understanding at all about what vandalism is. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * My text was removed without discussion. Also whilst I was in the process of inserting references within minutes my original text was removed. In my opinion, the article was being vandalised. Justinmarley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * That is your opinion, and its wrong. Read the page, and while you are at it, read WP:OWN. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to violate Wikipedia's no original research policy by adding your personal analysis or synthesis into articles, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Facts were included very densely in the article and were referenced appropriately Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * Again, no, they were not. There was nothing in the article actually referenced that wasn't just "the book exists" which is not real referencing. This has been explained to you repeatedly. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion, your simply wrong and I believe its inappropriate for you to repeatedly remove intricate details on a topic about which you have no qualifications Justinmarley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * Again, just your opinion which doesn't really count for much. Go read WP:OWN. You don't get to tell people that you are somehow better qualified to edit an article and for them to go away just because you feel they are unqualified. You are blatantly lacking in neutrality about this topic and seem to have a serious conflict of interest here, pushing your own personal opinions and research without any real sources to back it up. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * It is your opinion that has been used to initiate the actions you have done. Your actions are clearly value driven. These are judgements not facts. My opinion is important to me. It is also important to other people who are interested in dialogue. You have repeatedly removed relevant references. What's more you have not justified why certain references have been removed. It is here that I believe that knowledge of the subject area is important as at the very least other references would have been suggested. However your responses have invariably resulted in loss of referenced information and/or loss of structure. Both references and structure are important in an encyclopedia Justinmarley (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * I have justified them, multiple times. Your choosing not to read, or to ignore them, is your problem. Wikipedia is not the place for your personal essays, which is what you attempted to structure the article as. I pointed you to the MoS when I reformatted the article. I have explained at least half a dozen times why those false references were removed. You're to busy screaming to the world that you're being abused to actually pay attention to the corrections and accept them. Notice that not a single person has stood up to back up any of your edits or to say that the removal of the references were wrong. Instead you've been told to stop making the same post at the editor assistant board and told to cut out the name calling and attitude. Continuing to complain won't make it any better. You want to actually learn how to be a proper Wikipedia editor, then learn. --  AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * In my opinion your justifications have been inadequate. I would recommend that you refrain from commenting on my actions on the editor assistant board and hope you are not trying to influence my actions in this regards. I have relevant qualifications and training in the area i am writing on and therefore your requests for qualified people in this area have other connotations 06:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley


 * Your "qualifications and training" are irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia is NOT the place for your personal opinion and research, no matter what kind of expert you are. I am allowed to comment on your actions on the board when you make false accusations and violate WP:CIVILITY with your remarks there. I also suggest you read WP:COI and WP:N. You are the one who keeps violating Wikipedia guidelines and policies, and continue to argue that just because you feel you are an expert, you should be allowed to do so.-- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 06:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. ''You seriously need to just stop and actually take some time to learn editing basics. Also, you do not WP:OWN the article, and you need to realize that others will edit, and correct, anything you add to articles, especially when you continue violating basic editing guidelines and the manual of style that applies to all articles. '' -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


 * Where would you suggest we talk on this article given that there is no discussion page and instead there is a reference to a generic medical page Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmarley (talk • contribs) 06:06, July 6, 2008


 * There is a talk page. Sitting there plain as day at Talk:Liaison psychiatry, as I already noted in your post to the editor request board. That is not a "reference to a generic medical page," it is a project header, which you will often find on article talk pages to note the article falls within the scope of a specific project. Also, please stop posting the same thing over and over in Editor assistance/Requests. You have now made the same basic post FOUR times. Once is sufficient. Your first post is still there at Editor assistance/Requests‎. Why not read the response there, then if you have NEW comments/questions, reply to it. Posting it over and over again will just annoy others and get you no responses at all, at least not positive ones. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 11:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Welcome
Please, use these links to help learn about editing. Also, note that posting the same topic over and over in the editor request board will not get you "help" any faster, but rather will annoy others and will likely result in your requests being ignored completely. Keep in mind that while it may be daytime or early evening for you, its very early in the morning for many editors, and a holiday weekend, so not too many people are around right now to answer questions. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

You have been accused of sockpuppetry. Please refer to Suspected sock puppets/Justinmarley for evidence. Please make sure you make yourself familiar with notes for the suspect before editing the evidence page. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

This allegation is consistent with a series of what I perceive to be other hostile behaviours by Collectonian and I have reported this appropriately Justinmarley (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley
 * See closing comments hre: Suspected sock puppets/Justinmarley. If you consider Collectonian has some agenda, provide evidence, otherwise, AGF. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 11:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Cardiology task force
-- Addbot (talk) 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC) Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)
The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration. Cheers, Ocaasit &#124; c 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
 * Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
 * If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)