User talk:70.171.229.32

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Welcome

[edit] Welcome!

Welcome to Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia! You don't have to log in to read or edit articles on Wikipedia, but creating an account is quick, free and non-intrusive, requires no personal information, and gives you many benefits, including:

We hope that you choose to become a Wikipedian and create an account. Feel free to ask me any questions you may have on my talk page. By the way, make sure to sign your posts and comments with four tildes (~~~~), which will let others know who left it. Wikipediarules2221 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please Use Edit Summaries

When editing an article on Wikipedia there is a small field labeled "Edit summary" under the main edit-box. It looks like this:

Edit summary text box

The text written here will appear on the Recent changes page, in the page revision history, on the diff page, and in the watchlists of users who are watching that article. See m:Help:Edit summary for full information on this feature.

Filling in the edit summary field greatly helps your fellow contributors in understanding what you changed, so please always fill in the edit summary field, especially for big edits or when you are making subtle but important changes, like changing dates or numbers. Thank you. Wikipediarules2221 21:01, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

I have noted that you often edit without an edit summary. Please do your best to always fill in the summary field. This is considered an important guideline in Wikipedia. Even a short summary is better than no summary. An edit summary is even more important if you delete any text; otherwise, people may think you're being sneaky. Also, mentioning one change but not another one can be misleading to someone who finds the other one more important; add "and misc." to cover the other change(s). Thanks! ... discospinster talk 03:31, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Shaken baby syndrome

Hi, how's it going. I noticed you've been editing the Shaken baby syndrome page a lot. Just a few comments. I think that while the controversy about whether the diagnosis is valid certainly has a place in the article, it may not be best in the introductory paragraphs, which are usually used to explain what the subject of the article is. Also I think for the integrity of the article it's important that it give an accurate representation of the consensus of the scientific community. I wondered if it would be ok to keep the controversy material in the controversy section, so as to prevent redundancy and keep the article in line with WP's very important NPOV policy. Also, did you know you can edit multiple sections at once by clicking on the "edit this page" button at the top of the page? Anyway, thanks much for all the work you've put in. I hope this message doesn't come off as hostile or critical. Let me know on my talk page or the article's talk page if you want to discuss this further. Peace, delldot | talk 16:32, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

I was asked by Delldot to comment on this article. I appreciate your hard work, and admire your attempts to make it comprehensive and thorough. A couple of points: without edit summaries it is very hard to understand why you might be making particular changes, and some bona fide edits may be interpreted as violations of our neutrality policy.
Furthermore, please familiarise yourself with our footnotes system. It's a bit of a learning curve, but it enables you to insert full academic references (as per WP:CITE) in the text that are automatically collated into a references section. Surely an improvement over the external links presently in use to cite research.
I am not a paediatrician but I've mediated many medicine-related articles. If you need help in a disagreement, or have questions about policy, please drop me a line on my talkpage. JFW | T@lk 22:20, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Shaken baby syndrome is an impressive article with a large number of very good citations provided. I am only trying to improve on the markup used for providing links and references, and not in anyway diminish the great content you have provided. Please discuss why you are reverting my hard work in implementing cite.php - a system I am well versed in using. Please use edit sumaries as previously requested and engage on the article's talk page to discuss this further. David Ruben Talk 00:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk: Shaken baby syndrome

Thank you for using edit summaries. It's very helpful for other editors to have an idea of what's being changed. There is currently a discussion going on at the talk page for the article Shaken baby syndrome. Perhaps you would like to join the discussion; that way you can make points that might be too long to fit in the edit summary. Regards, ... discospinster talk 13:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith & Citation hyperlinking

Your edit of 07:19, 11 October 2006 risks breaching WP:Assume good faith - I am well aware of the proper format - see discussion at Template talk:Cite journal#Publication volume number in bold / additional data / descriptive labels where I source and link to the British Medical Journal's stylebook, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Uniform Requirements style, style of National Library of Medicine (NLM) and American National Standards Institute (ANSI) guidelines.

Stop trying to "own" articles and work with other editors in what is supposed to be a collaborative effort, unlike your attempt to instruct me to "leave this page alone". Your reversions to what were sincere attempts to copyedit to improve the article, seemed disruptive to the wikipedia process - please note the comments and edit summaries of several editors to your talk page and the shaken baby syndrome article.

Whilst Wikipedia is not beholden to any outside organisation on how it thinks best to do some thing, there are a number of standard approaches taken in footnote linking from a place within the text to full citation details listed in a reference or footnote section. Editors are free to choose whichever of these systems they like when creating an article (Harvard, ref/note, cite.php etc) - but manually arranged reference lists with a divorced series of inline links is not standard in wikipedia. It is a difficult approach to maintain, and indeed as of 9th October the version of the article had a mismatch with 42 inline links yet only 41 listed in the reference section, and several references were duplicated. Preventing others from trying to help sort out such issues was hardly collaborative.

As for style of presenting citations: - sure manually format if one wishes or use the appropriate citation template to do this for one. However the application of hyperlinking to the publisher or citation reference in the previous versions is not standard in wikipedia. Instead the hyperlink is generally applied to the title of the paper in question. This has nothing to do with the overall "format is for medical and scientific refences" as this is an in-house issue of how one applies hyperlinks within wikipedia to a given reference. Hence: Smith A "Report on X" The Times 12 Jan 2004 but not : Smith A "Report on X" The Times 12 Jan 2004. The linking of The Times would be assumed to be either to wikipedia's own article on the newspaper or the paper's homepage, e.g. : Smith A "Report on X" The Times 12 Jan 2004 David Ruben Talk 23:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Citation

Got your message on my talkpage. I'm not sure what your question is; to cite an article one uses an academic reference (instead of an URL). WP:CITE and WP:FN are useful guidelines. Please don't antagonise David Ruben, he knows the system better than most Wikipedians. JFW | T@lk 16:27, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Your note

Hey, I got your message on my talk page. I agree that his note was somewhat rude, but I don't really know what to do about it. I'm not at all familiar with the process editors use to deal with conflicts, except I've heard of having a nice cup of tea and a sit down. Are you and he able to discuss things politely on talk pages? Because my first recommendation to you both would just be to try to talk things out as civilly as possible. Good luck! Peace, delldot | talk 01:31, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glen Dettman

Could you please explain why you de-link Glen Dettman's claims about having awards from the American Biographical Institute and International Biographical Centre? If he claims that he has such awards in his book, then it is reasonable for readers to find out what these awards are. Maustrauser 22:15, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

This is your own point of view (POV) and what you have written about ABI is inaccurate. 70.171.229.32 11:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is it my point of view? Dettman claims to have these awards. These awards are issued by ABI. You make a blanket statement that what I have written about ABI is inaccurate. How so? What references can you provide to demonstrate the inaccuracy of what I have written? What of the references provided in the ABI article. Are these wrong? If so, please provide alternative evidence. Maustrauser 21:42, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../7/0/2E/User_talk%7E70.171.229.32.html"