- 1 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Mount Stuart House
- 2 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 3 ArbCom 2018 election voter message
- 4 Write for Signpost on medicine?
- 5 Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Wemyss Bay railway station
- 6 Attribution
- 7 ArbCom 2019 election voter message
- 8 Pricing
- 9 notice
- 10 MEDMOS price
- 11 Disambiguation link notification for December 21
- 12 Season's Greetings!
- 13 Manual of Style Discretionary Sanctions
- 14 Interaction with RexxS at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles
- 15 Notice of noticeboard discussion
- 16 Valentine's Day thanks
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit
ArbCom 2018 election voter messageEdit
Write for Signpost on medicine?Edit
You criticized Jytdog's assessments at WT:MED recently. I appreciate the feedback but that talk page is not the correct forum for a conversation about a particular editor. As I was reading what you read I wished that you could have reframed your discussion as a criticism of Wiki medicine process, but seemingly your view is that the process was just an opinion of Jytdog.
If you feel strongly then I could get a response for you if you drafted an opinion piece for The Signpost or some other appropriate forum. Maybe you could mention Jytdog, or maybe you just have opinions about the oversight of Wikipedia's medical content. I feel that Jytdog only executed consensus and do not see his actions in the example you gave as personal.
Many times I have offered to chat with you by voice or video on various issues. That still applies, and I offer again because if we did a point/counterpoint article I would not want anyone to be surprised by the response.
What you stated was what I feel many people believe. WP:MED has a counterpoint, of course. It could be that WP:MED is in error, but I feel like part of your argument that WP:MED had not thought through the issues you raised. There is an established discourse, and if you can organize any number of editors to present one side, I can organize a response on the other.
If we did this some goals I would have would be keeping this entry level for new users, not committing so much labor to the article, and linking out to anywhere appropriate where people could contribute to the discussion. Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
- I don't really follow your comment "You criticized Jytdog's assessments at WT:MED recently". I wasn't talking about "assessments" and my section was entitled "scapegoating", not "Jytdog". Scapegoatingisn't quite the accurate word since he's taking a fall that is fully deserved, but my point is that his bullying behaviour is endemic at WP:MED and WP:MED does nothing to identify, prevent and deal with bullying. It is trivial to find other examples for other editors. I pulled out that one example, because it was brought up at the Arb and nobody, not one person at WP:MED, said OMG that's just unacceptable. I saw some horrendous behaviour from a different WP:MED editor just earlier this month, to a newbie who was very much editing in good faith and struggling simply with the protocol and etiquette. I have seen this bullying going on several times this year, and the bullying of an expert at Epilepsy by a whole gang at WP:MED, led by James, is the reason I semi-retired from WP.
- If serious comments about serious issues are going to be treated with the kind of childish abuse that WP:MED seem to think passes for discussion, and responses so full of careless misunderstandings, then I frankly have better things to do with my time. Jytog's block could have been a moment when WP:MED reflected on its pattern of editing and attitudes towards other editors, and embarked on reform. I'm sure you are well aware of public events in the last year or two in the entertainment business, where an individual's horrendous behaviour has sparked reflection in an industry that exposes the problem is not unique to that person, and that the industry was not only in denial of the problem, but actively colluded in attacking anyone who raised a complaint. WP:MED is in that place and at some point the boil will burst. There is no counterpoint argument for bullying, just as there was never ever any excuse for the abuse that went on in the entertainment business. -- Colin°Talk 17:46, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
It may be the case that attribution is simply invisible to many people, including Wikipedia editors, when they are reading the news. I've seen myself how journalists (or their editors) can choose to highlight attribution, downplay it, or even obscure it, by placing the attribution at the beginning or end of a statement. Journalists may also choose to repeat or not repeat this attribution for subsequent statements from a single source.
I'll admit, I'm sensitive to attribution because I was taught to read the news while paying careful attention to it, and because in scientific writing it is common to have almost every sentence ends with an inline citation.
For this reason, I'm amazed when other editors see an attributed statement in a newspaper, and are incredulous when informed that the statement may not be a certain fact. -Darouet (talk) 14:50, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- Darouet, see British journalists have become part of Johnson’s fake news machine. See also Churnalism. Journalists are often just mouthpieces for getting "facts" from the fiction-machine into people's heads. There's very little questioning investigative journalism, because that costs so much money and takes so much time. I'm not saying that using attribution is wrong or a waste of time, but it is probably not as effective as we'd hope. -- Colin°Talk 15:08, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
- @Colin: the OpenDemocracy piece is extraordinary but unfortunately not surprising. I just re-read Orwell's Homage to Catalonia. In it, he describes watching a CP agent denouncing various left-wing dissidents:
"It was the first time that I had seen a person whose profession was telling lies — unless one counts journalists."
ArbCom 2019 election voter messageEdit
Hi Colin. Thank you for taking on the difficult subject of pricing. Have you seen Wikipedia:Prices, which has a fairly good list of relevant discussions at the end.
As you point out, the big problem is that "price" depends on many factors, and can vary considerably. Because of this, price is generally not something that can be simply identified and incorporated as wikidata. I've been hoping some simple pricing information can be agreed upon. But as long as editors are behaving as they are, I don't think we can make much progress.
I'm awaiting closure of Talk:IPhone_11#RfC_about_including_pricing_information_in_article. I don't think it will help with the inevitable ArbCom, but it should get editors to tone down their behavior at least a little. --Ronz (talk) 21:03, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ronz, I have see Wikipedia:Prices and is a good example of where an essay can get distorted by a POV pusher with no interest in the truth. I have rarely seen such blatant BS outside of a Trump tweet or a Tory party Facebook advert. I'm a bit out-of-touch wrt Wikipedia dispute resolution but I suspect this isn't quite arbcom level. WP:MED used to have editors who cared about source->article faithfulness and writing encyclopaedic content. I'm not seeing any evidence of that these days and there are plenty better websites for medical information today. -- Colin°Talk 22:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Hello Collin, just to reply quickly to , yes I agree it's complex, your comments a month ago made me search for the literature on the subject. I'll reply on MEDMOS with my findings and thoughts. Best regards. --Signimu (talk) 13:11, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited International Medical Products Price Guide, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Depression (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)
Faithful friends who are dear to us
|... gather near to us once more.
May your heart be light
and your troubles out of sight,
Manual of Style Discretionary SanctionsEdit
Colin, I've spent a few hours working on the pricing RfC and only now have swung around to Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles/RFC on lead guideline for medicine-related articles. I would ask you to strike the portions of this diff which comment on RexxS as an editor rather than the substance being discussed. If you have questions about this please don't hesitate to ask me either by pinging me here or asking on my talk page. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:50, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Notice of noticeboard discussionEdit
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "An update on and a request for involvement at the Medicine MOS". Thank you.Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
Valentine's Day thanksEdit
|... for your many years of considerable help to make Tourette syndrome the best it can be. Happy Valentine's Day to you and yours!
Sandy (Talk) 19:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)