Material from the associated project or article page was split to Illness-Wellness Continuum. The page history of the associated project or article page now serves as the attribution history for part of the contents of that page.
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourcedmust be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.
Hi User:Theroadislong - Thank you for taking the time to have a look at the article. Your edits were useful and I’ve made some amendments to the article with these in mind.
I reworded the part about the standard approach to medicine being to see wellness as an absence of illness so that now it reads as a viewpoint rather than a statement of fact. I think the ‘citation needed’ tag can be removed now but I’d be happy to hear your thoughts on this.
I’m hoping to find a source for the subject having created the first computerized HRA.
Also, I noticed that you had placed a COI tag on the article and felt that this might be misplaced, unless you had other concerns regarding the article? Thanks Fbell74 (talk) 10:38, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
Not sure why you think it misplaced? Wikipedia strongly discourages editing with a conflict of interest and VERY strongly discourages it when editors with a COI are being paid. Theroadislong (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
"It is not ok with me that anyone ever set up a service selling their services as a Wikipedia editor, administrator, bureaucrat, etc. I will personally block any cases that I am shown.... the idea that we should ever accept paid advocates directly editing Wikipedia is not ever going to be ok. Consider this to be policy as of right now.... Just imagine the disaster for our reputation. Are we free and independent scribes doing our best to record all human knowledge? Or are we paid shills. I know what I choose." — Jimbo Wales. Theroadislong (talk) 09:27, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
I think because I had previously posted in the Teahouse asking editors to take a look at the amended version of the article while it was in my sandbox. Some suggestions were made, which I incorporated and following this I posted the amendments with COI declarations on my own Talk page and that of the article. I thought that this would cover off COI and obviate the need for a COI tag. However, perhaps I should have posted the amendments on the article's Talk page instead. Would this work if references/infoboxes/images and so on are part of the amendments? Fbell74 (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Wellness: There was a typo in the original text and a subsequent deletion resulted in inaccurate information appearing in the article.
Originally the article stated: “Dr. Travis originally wrote and published the Wellness Workbook in 1977 in collaboration with Regina Ryan. It was then re-published as an expanded edition trade paperback with Ten Speed Press (1981, 1988). The book was revised as a third edition in 2004 by Ten Speed's Celestial Arts division.”
Following the edit it now reads: “Travis wrote and published the Wellness Workbook in 1977 in collaboration with Regina Ryan.” This is incorrect as Ryan got involved later.
It should read: “Travis originally wrote and published the Wellness Workbook in 1977. In collaboration with Regina Ryan it was then re-published as an expanded edition trade paperback with Ten Speed Press (1981, 1988). The book was revised as a third edition in 2004 by Ten Speed's Celestial Arts division.”
Can this perhaps be added back?
This is already what the article says more or less? Theroadislong (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
Unfortunately not. As it is currently written it reads as if Ryan co-authored the Wellness Workbook in 1977. However this is incorrect - she got involved later. In the original text there was a misplaced period, which changed the meaning of the text.Fbell74 (talk) 06:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
Non-government organisations (NGOs): The subject is also involved with another organisation - Intact America, 2009 (Source: http://www.intactamerica.org/aboutus). Can this be included, please?
Separately, I included sources to support the subject’s involvement with the other NGOs mentioned but these were removed in a subsequent edit. If sources are needed however, please let me know.
External links: These were removed as they failed to include more information about the article’s subject. I wondered whether they might be useful as sources of additional information though? Thank you in advance Fbell74 (talk) 09:21, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘Regarding closed request: looks like edits were implemented. That is fine with me as a delay of 7 months had elapsed. I WP:AGF and have not compared the requested items vs. the actual edit. Nevertheless I've closed the request in order to reduce the backlog. – S. Rich (talk) 00:19, 12 September 2014 (UTC)