User talk:Dreadstar/UTDEHA3: Difference between revisions
keep thread together. |
No edit summary |
||
Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
--[[Special:Contributions/24.216.168.36|24.216.168.36]] ([[User talk:24.216.168.36|talk]]) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
--[[Special:Contributions/24.216.168.36|24.216.168.36]] ([[User talk:24.216.168.36|talk]]) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
||
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at [[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard]] regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "[[Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard#Elizabeth Rauscher|Elizabeth Rauscher]]". Thank you.<!--Template:DRN-notice--> --[[Special:Contributions/76.119.90.74|76.119.90.74]] ([[User talk:76.119.90.74|talk]]) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:32, 6 November 2011
![]() | Dreadstar is trying to take a short wikibreak and will be back on Wikipedia soon. Most likely, however, Dreadstar will not be able to keep away from Wikipedia for that long, and will probably be back a lot earlier while making some small edits every once in a while anyway. |
Dawn Gibbons Article
I noticed that you semi-protected the article I created on Dawn Gibbons due to persistent vandalism by unregistered users. and I wanted let you know about a couple of past incidents involving that article just in case they might related to the incident(s) which prompted you to semi-protect the article. Last February, I noticed that the article had been edited by User:Tdawngibbons whose username seemed to imply a connection to the subject of the article, and reported my concerns to an administrator, User:WereSpielChequers who proceeded to issue a warning for a possible violation of Wikipedia's conflict-of-interest guidelines. In a more recent incident occurring within the last month, User:Dawn Gibbons was blocked by administrator User:Edison for editing the article while sharing a UserName with the subject of the article. I am not entirely sure these incidents are related, but like I previously told User:Edison, I think further investigation may be warranted. --TommyBoy (talk) 05:34, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
- I was responding to an RFPP, and I'm not sure if I have the time to investigate further. If you find something actionable, let me know and I'll take a look. Dreadstar ☥ 18:45, 5 November 2011 (UTC)
Occupational Therapy Article
Dreadstar, thank you for your work maintaining the neutrality and accuracy of Wikipedia entries. On 30 Oct 2011 you locked the entry on Occupational Therapy due to persistent unsupported edits by Phyiogod1 (and related [[1]]). It appears that two of that users edits went uncorrected. Specifically, in paragraphs one and two:
- "Many believe that occupational therapists are considered Physiotherapy assistants or assistants for many other important health professions such as podiatry or optometry. It is true that in Australia that Physiotherapy, Optometry, Podiatry and Pharmacy are much more important and more prestigious as an job than Occupational Therapy"
- "A new discipline of occupational science has been developed to enhance the evidence base of the profession even though to the extent that Occupational Therapy will never be on par or as good as a profession as the real superstars of Allied Health i.e. Physiotherapy, Pharmacy, Dietician and Optometry. The only other health profession below occupational therapy are Speech pathology, social work and music therapy."
I am ignorant in the ways of Wikipedia, and am not myself a member. As such, I am unable to address the edits myself. If you see fit, I would appreciate any assistance in addressing these unsourced opinions. Thank You.
WJthrowaway [at] gmail [dot] com - my oft-checked spam address.
--24.216.168.36 (talk) 18:59, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
And, I apologize for breaking your talk page. I will try to minimize the disruption.
--24.216.168.36 (talk) 19:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is "Elizabeth Rauscher". Thank you. --76.119.90.74 (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)