User talk:Martin.uecker

MRI edits
Hi there Martin.uecker! I saw that the thread you made on the dispute resolution noticeboard got closed. You shouldn't take this personally, as it is one of the rules of the noticeboard that we don't allow disputes there that haven't received significant discussion on a talk page. The thing to do now is create a new discussion on Talk:Magnetic resonance imaging, and make a case for the content you wish to add, and we can take things from there. If you have any questions about this, or about editing Wikipedia in general, then I'll be happy to answer them either here or on my talk page.

It's a shame that your first experiences with Wikipedia haven't been as positive as they could be, but once you have got the hang of how this place operates I think you will have a lot less problems. You are right that the conflict of interest guidelines make specific allowances for scientists, so I think there is actually a lot we can do here. It seems to me that an expert in MRI imaging would be a great plus to this project, and that you are exactly the kind of editor we need at Wikipedia; so, if there is anything I can do to help, just ask. All the best. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 14:23, 22 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your kind words! Martin.uecker (talk) 20:15, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


 * You're more than welcome. The offer is still open - any requests for help, just send them my way. —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 18:59, 24 September 2011 (UTC)


 * One more thing - when you are discussing material that another editor has reverted, it is usually more helpful to do it on the article's talk page rather than the talk page of the user who did the reverting. This way, all the editors involved in the article can see the discussion, allowing the group to come to a consensus on whether to include the material or not, and how it should be presented. (If you feel like doing some reading on this, I recommend Wikipedia's policy on consensus and the essay on the bold, revert, discuss cycle.) —  Mr. Stradivarius ♫ 06:57, 25 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Good point. Thanks for the links, I will take a look. Some of the issues have already resolved because other editors stepped in. For some other, I put a note on the talk page for now (e.g temporomandibular joint). Martin.uecker (talk) 20:45, 25 September 2011 (UTC)

virtual particle
Dear Martin.uecker, if you have not already done so, perhaps it may interest you to have a glance at the new lead in the article Virtual particle!!Chjoaygame (talk) 16:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

ResearchGate
Hi Martin, I am writing in response to your addition of spam criticism to the ResearchGate article. I do not agree that the sources being cited for this criticism are credible by Wiki standards. Because there has been some back and forth on this issue over the past few months, I am asking the Wikipedia dispute resolution noticeboard for guidance. Thank you. JNorman704 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I could not find any thread on the dispute resolution board. Please discuss this on the Talk page of the article first. Martin.uecker (talk)

Thank you for the effort you've put into saving the ResearchGate article (though it was in wain, it seems). It is so sad to see a handful of editors (dominated by JNorman704) twist an article so far in the direction of a commercial company at the expense of its victims. Amaurea (talk) 23:18, 9 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thank you. It is sad to see how wikipedia degenerates into a pile of marketing junk. JNorman704 was obviously paid for this. Martin.uecker (talk) 22:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "ResearchGate". {| style="border: 0; width: 100%;"
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |
 * style="width: 50%; vertical-align: top;" |

If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form.

What this noticeboard is:


 * It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction.

What this noticeboard is not:


 * It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct.
 * It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums.
 * It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN.
 * It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy.

Things to remember:


 * Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors.   Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion.
 * Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page.
 * Sign and date your posts with four tildes " ".
 * If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage.

Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot   operator  /  talk 01:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)