User talk:TParis

UTRS Account Request

I confirm that I have requested an account on the UTRS tool. v/r - TP

Deletion of PatientOS

Hi! I think your decision to delete the PatientOS article was a bit hasted. It seems you have only read the Keep and Delete comments here, but most of them were issued when the article had fewer references. Please consult the last version of the PatientOS article and its references which I have tried to assess against Wikipedia's notability guides in this comment. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dumol (talk • contribs) 10:27, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but you still fell short. Refs 1 and 2 are very trivial mentions. Ref 3 has a substantial paragraph about PatientOS and would count toward notability. Ref 4 has several mentions, but again all trivial. In fact, ref 4 says of PatientOS "none of these are traditional hostpital legacy vendors, and most are names with which many hostpital I.T. people are not familar." That's pretty damning evidence of the lack of notability of this product. I believe the AFD concluded correctly.--v/r - TP 14:34, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the swift answer. However, I think you are being inconsistent in regards to ref 2. First you said On the subject of the Wiki, I'm convinced that if it truly is a Wiki of experts, then WP:RSN might make an exception for it. However, no effort has been done yet to take the source there. I strongly suggest that any WP:DRV do their homework and take that Wiki to WP:RSN first. and now you say it a very trivial mention. I think it qualifies as a reliable source, especially in the light of WP:NSOFT which says it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. And I don't think it is only a trivial mentions as the section dedicated to PatientOS represents a significant proportion of their notes on open-source EMR options.

As for ref 4, I'm not trying to assess PatientOS is notable in the larger field of commerical EMR (which would make it familiar to hospital IT people). What I'm trying to establish is that PatientOS is notable in the (much smaller) field of open source EMR, which that book helps to establish. It has more than several mentions, [..] all trivial as the matrix at page 386 shows it has been tested against +40 criteria by the authors themselves in addition to benchmarking it against the MSP EHR Selector, which also a suite of +700 tests. Dumol (talk) 17:59, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Your assessment is incorrect and the entire AFD has tried to explain it to you. What I said was that you should take it the Wiki to RSN. That doesn't make the mention in the source any less trivial. Even if it were a reliable source, the mention is barely more than a mention and a few key features. More of an advertising blerp than anything. As far as ref four, it is still trivial and the point is to establish notability for an encyclopedia. This product does not meet Wikipedia's threshold. May I ask what your connection to the product is?--v/r - TP 18:33, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

My only connection with PatientOS is my masters thesis on the subject of free software EMR, I have said that twice already in the deletion discussion. Only one person in that whole thread actually demonstrated some knowledge in this particular field, he gave the article a Keep vote and he has also expressed regrets about this awkward situation in my talk page after your final decision. It is regrettable that notability in the field of open-source EMR is being established by people that know practically nothing about this. The cherry-on-top is that the final decision is taken by someone who repeatedly misspells hospital in his native language. Sorry for venting, it is that frustrating...

As for RSN, you were the only one who mentioned this new-to-me Wikipedian acronym when closing the discussion. I would argue that as per WP:NSOFT that is not required as it is not unreasonable to allow relatively informal sources for free and open source software, if significance can be shown. And for Nyaya Health, PatientOS was unarguably the most significant open-source EMR, this is shown not only from their notes in the wiki where they said they chose it for their tests but also from a later [document] that says Our clinical forms are downloadable from http://nyayahealth.pbwiki.com/Clinical_Records. We have customized the open-source PatientOS software (http://www.patientos.org/) for the electronic medical record that we are starting to use at both at the Sanfe Bagar Clinic and at the Bayalpata hospital.

I have repeatedly said in that discussion that it could be the case that the whole field of open-source healthcare is not notable enough for Wikipedia. However, I am not a deletionist, so I would advise against removing the already existing tens of articles on this topic. And as long as there is a place for open-source EMR in Wikipedia, PatientOS is notable enough to be mentioned, even though it is a relatively new entry into the field and not much talked about on the Internet. There are enough reliable sources to show its notability in the field of open-source EMR. Dumol (talk) 20:25, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You said: "It is regrettable that notability in the field of open-source EMR is being established by people that know practically nothing about this." My response is: "It is regrettable that folks don't understand what Wikipedia is and assume because our guidelines say something is 'unnotable' it is assumed we mean 'unimportant.'" As for my spelling, I tend to get ahead of myself when I write and I misspell easy words. It's not that I can't spell. I've never claimed to be in a profession that involves equisite composition. Wikipedia is not the place to get the word out about this software. We don't publish original thought. All of our content must come from reliable sources that have already reported on a topic. You were unable to show evidence of this. Perhaps in a few years, the software will gain more notability in hospitals and gain more attention by the media, journals, or authors. Until then, it doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Please don't blame your failure to understand what Wikipedia is on our failure to understand how important this software is. We get it, it's an important peice of software and is used in "over 5000 hospitals". You need sources that say that.

I'm not an expert on this software, but I'm an expert on Wikipedia's guidelines for inclusion. I've explained to you what you need for this subject. You as the expert on this product have not meet the requirements as explained. What more do you want or expect? We've afforded you every opportunity.--v/r - TP 21:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry to be forced to point this again, but I'm not sure you understand even the most basic arguments from the beginning of the deletion discussion. It was not me who brought in the discussion the over 5000 hospitals claim. I have actually said there is no free software suite 'used in 5000 hospitals worldwide'. Do you realize that requiring such a high entry barrier for open-source healthcare software actually means removing the entire list of such packages from Wikipedia? And if you do, as an expert on Wikipedia's guidelines, why don't you just delete that list and the tens of articles linked there? Yeah, I think that would be truly foolish but I dare you follow the notability guidelines as explained by you and your fellow deletionists... And why do you raise the problem of original thought when there is absolutely no original research in my article of PatientOS? Have you actually read those two paragraphs? Thank you for the attention, I realize there is no hope in pursuing this further with you. I don't question your good intentions but you are way too superficial. Dumol (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

(talk page stalker) "You should delete that too" is not taken as a valid argument on Wikipedia.Jasper Deng (talk) 22:11, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it is not an argument for adding yet another open-source EMR in Wikipedia. My point was that requiring such a high entry barrier would be an argument for removing that whole list of articles. However, I believe that would be against the spirit of Wikipedia. Dumol (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Where exactly do you get "deletionist"? Have you edited with any other account before this one?--v/r - TP 22:16, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not a native English speaker and I don't think I get your first question. As for editing with another account, this account is the only one I have used in the past 7 years or so in Wikipedia. After accusing me of a hidden agenda, am I being accused of sock-puppeting now? Have you ever considered that after someone exposes obvious flaws in your arguments (like attributing to me the over 5000 hospitals claim and raising the false problem of original thought in the PatientOS article in your last comment), you should actually address that and explain yourself or apologize if you realize you have mistaken? Dumol (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

No, what I'm curious about is how someone with only 85 or so edits is familar with wikipedia-centric terms such as "deletionist" and "sock puppetry".--v/r - TP 16:15, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Keep it up man... That's the spirit! Hit me with one more gratuitous accusation and do not bother with all the distortions and false allegations you have already said. The problem is now that I have learned too much about how Wikipedia works. A few days ago I was pretty much oblivious in regards to Wikipedia's notability guides (as any person can quickly deduce from the short history of the PatientOS article, the associated talk page and the deletion discussion) and now I know more that I should? Yeah, something is very fishy with that... Dude, get a brain! Dumol (talk) 21:40, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I think we're done here. Feel free to continue on to WP:DRV, you won't find any more help here.--v/r - TP 23:12, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Any luck on general sanctions?

If you want, we can tone down the language for specific users and only give a few diffs to support it. This isn't an ArbCom case after all. Magog the Ogre (talk) 20:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I've been meaning to talk to you. TopGun, JCAla, and Darkness Shines have all requested to try out Jehochman's noticeboard idea. Given their unity toward this idea, I think it's worth a try before general sanctions. What do you think about proposing such a noticeboard on WPAN instead?--v/r - TP 21:00, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

Only if we make the noticeboard say, "if you continue to accuse people of the other side of bad faith, you will be blocked." It seems like all they do is accuse each other of bad faith and try to get each other blocked. Magog the Ogre (talk) 01:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. "This noticeboard is for content disputes, not conduct disputes."--v/r - TP 02:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Notify?

Regarding this topic ban, shouldn't you actually notify the user? —danhash (talk) 17:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, you're right. I got caught up in reading something else. I get sidetracked easily.--v/r - TP 17:16, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Advice needed

Tom, I think you are a fair and open minded guy, I suppose Magog is also but he seems pissed at me :o) I would like your advice, once again TG has edit warred unsourced content into an article, I am at a loss over what can be done. Is it best just to leave him to it? I do not want another block over this guys actions, but the fact that he just keeps doing this is insane, why does nobody tell him to stop? Darkness Shines (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

DS - I'm having a hard time trying to find the right way to say this, so I'll just say it procedurally. The steps to dispute resolutions are so:

1. Discuss with the user
2. Invite a third party for a neutral opinion
3. Discuss the issue on a relevant noticeboard (ANEW, NPOV, ANI, 3O)
4. Try an WP:RFC
5. Take the issue to dispute resolution
6. Ask for WP:MEDCAB (Requires voluntary participation by both sides)
7. Start an WP:RFC/U
8. WP:ARBCOM

I think you know what I'm trying to say without taking a position here. Determine what levels you've tried, and elevate to the next level.--v/r - TP 18:03, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Tom, I discovered a new notice board which I hope will do the job. [1] I never knew it existed ) I have no wish to drop anyone in the poop, nor get anyone blocked so I'll hope for the best on the notice board, cheers. Darkness Shines (talk) 18:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

On another note, have you considered apologizing to Magog for being the huge pains in the butt that you, JCAla, and TopGun have been ;) Maybe you guys can open a new dialogue on better terms. Just saying.--v/r - TP 02:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hatting

Hi TParis, would you mind looking again at where you hatted the Fae RFC? Currently you've left four lines unhatted at the beginning that names certain editors such as myself. Would you mind revisiting it to include the bit which lists us in your hatted section. Thanks ϢereSpielChequers 23:20, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually didn't miss them, they were added after the hat. I've fixed it.--v/r - TP 23:33, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I just figure I should let you know: [2]. By the way, I heartily agree with you about the hatting. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:36, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

TP, your hatting wasn't honest. In your hatting statment, you gave your own, pejorative opinion of what it contained. In order to equally rebut your opinion, I have summarize what is contained within the hat. Now, perhaps you could place a more neutral, true title to the hat, such, "Discussion hatted because I don't agree with what it contains and I'm an admin." If not, then I suggest you discontinue trying to win your argument with me, because both of us have equal claim to what we believe to be the truth. Cla68 (talk) 00:00, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You'll be hard pressed to prove I have any sort of bias in this matter. I'm as honest as it gets. My opinion is that you've engaged in personal attacks. As you surely know, you have no rights here except the right to leave. I suggest you discontinue trying to reinsert the material. I'm acting in an unbiased administrative capacity only here.--v/r - TP 00:04, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You took a side and gave an opinion. You're previously uninvolved, but you aren't neutral. Did you read every single one of the diffs contained in that section? Cla68 (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, every single one; even the long ones. Also, please read WP:INVOLVED: "...an administrator who has interacted with an ...topic area purely in an administrative role...is not involved and is not prevented from acting in an administrative capacity in relation to that...topic area". Having acted in an administrative capacity does not make me involved or on a "side". I don't take sides.--v/r - TP 00:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

You took a side in your hatting summary. Talk pages are for editors to give an opinion. I gave mine, then you hatted my opinion to hide it and gave your opinion as to why, and gave your authority as an admin as justification for your right to do so. You said that me saying that those editors had engaged in personal attacks was itself a personal attack. Thus, we're making the same argument. You go one step further and say that your argument wins because you are a "neutral" admin. Cla68 (talk) 00:14, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you can take the issue to WP:AN or WP:ANI if you wish to try to find a consensus that I was wrong. Having an opinion doesn't constitute a 'side'. I'm sure my editing history has known I don't align to 'sides'. I say what I think and do what I think is right and I work with others despite their 'sides'.--v/r - TP 00:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

The two "sides" here are me and you. You disagree with me and I disagree with you. The difference is that you use your assumed perogative as an admin to impose your will on me. I can say on a talk page if I think someone has violated WP:NPA. I can summarize what is contained inside a hatted discussion. What you do from there is up to you, but if you are bound and determined to win your side of the argument, then you are the one who can win by utilizing that "block account" feature, while telling yourself that you are doing so as a neutral admin. Cla68 (talk) 00:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Again, you must not understand WP:INVOLVED. I do not become involved by enforcing WP:NPA. If you disagree, you are welcome to ask WP:AN. There are no sides between me and you. There is you, and there is WP:NPA. It's not a personal argument between us, and it won't be despite your attempts to get me to make it one. I've not threatened to block you, I specifically said I did not intend to. Again, feel free to seek wider review at WP:AN.--v/r - TP 00:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TParis, this is getting really stupid - he's done it again, in bold this time. [3] Could you please deal with this once and for all? I don't appreciate this individual making false claims. Prioryman (talk) 00:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth Cla, I took the case to ANI because your edits did not represent NPA/Civil violations and were in fact incivil with the attempt to still conversation. I asked for an admin to review the edits and two did. Both concurred that your thread failed to contain NPA/Civil violations. You are more than welcome to try to take this to ANI, but it is pretty much an open and shut case... if this does go to ANI please let me know.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:24, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks TParis, Good call, and my apologies for not spotting that those lines had been added later. ϢereSpielChequers 00:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, good call. Cla68 has a habit of collecting diffs of people disagreeing with him and his pals and presenting them falsely as "personal attacks". Your comment that it was intended to chill discussion and intimidate others was spot on, IMO. That's how it goes. The follow-up badgering is standard practice too, I'm afraid. Prioryman (talk) 00:36, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

IF that is the case, you might want to find examples of it. If it's not, then this can similarly be construed as a personal attack.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 01:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

He has done it to me previously. I'm not going to trawl over the ashes of a year-old incident - I have better things to do with my life. Prioryman (talk) 01:44, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'd recommend just striking your comments until you're ready to back them up with diffs.--v/r - TP 01:48, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Fine, stricken. I'm not going to waste my time on the likes of him. Prioryman (talk) 01:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best approach, while I don't doubt that it's true, without difs, it is hard to tell him that he's engaged in NPA without admonishing you as well.---Balloonman ^{Poppa Balloon} 02:07, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, ad hominem tactics are used way too often in Wikipedia by editors in lazy, dishonest attempts to win debates. My sister worked at a car rental place and said that it was true that those businesses are notorious for rude customers. Her agency fixed it using a simple approach...they put big mirrors behind the customer service desk. The level of rudeness dramatically dropped. People just can't be rude when they are looking at themselves in the mirror. Cla68 (talk) 04:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
• Guess what? Cla68 has reposted his accusations yet again [4]. He's daring you to block him. Prioryman (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi dear Tom Paris

Can you reverse the deletion of the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ? Thank you very much and best wishes. --Samen54 (talk) 01:33, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I got es:User:Miss Manzana to review it and they've confirmed your sources are strong so I've restored the article.--v/r - TP 02:17, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

TP, please take a few minutes to reconsider your revival of the Galindo article. Miss Manzana notwithstanding, the article has exactly the same problems as before: (1) Even if all the claims in the article are true, there's little or no evidence of notability, and (2) the references are, with few or no exceptions, blogposts, primary sources, and sources not supporting the article's text. A great deal of time has been wasted combatting an extensive sockpuppetry campaign [5] [6] to support this article, and by reviving it you risk repeating that waste. I'd appreciate hearing from you (I'll be watching here) after you've had a chance to look into the matter. EEng (talk) 06:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

EEng - I actually spoke with a fluent Spanish speaker from Spain (an es-wikipedia sysop) who identified the sources as a make Catalonian newspaper. Why is it that she says the sourcing is strong and you say they are blogposts and primary?--v/r - TP 13:54, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We have verified that has been Attacked with untruths and slander by a group of Catalan separatists who managed to cast doubt and delete the character. The reasons "alleged" for deletion no longer exist. Anyone, with good will, can be easily checked.--Samen54 (talk) 12:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much to regain the article "Jaume Cañellas Galindo" ( We just ask that protects you from new meaningless attacks ). You are righteous, with a true word honor, upright and generous. We support you on Wikipedia. Our best and most sincere wishes for you and your family. --Samen54 (talk) 12:34, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Wrong link

Are you sure that the ANI diff you posted at User talk:Tomcloyd is correct? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk to me} 04:25, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Courtesy notice

You have been mentioned by a busy-body who increasingly favors The Day The Earth Stood Still (original Rennie version)-style civility-enforcement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk • contribs) 11:47, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

LOL. Actually, I spent six years in construction with my Dad, so I do know how to handle a 2 x 4 quite well ;).--v/r - TP 13:52, 9 February 2012 (UTC)