User talk:Drchriswilliams

Hello Drchriswilliams, Why you've changed my edition? I'm not associated with that company, I'm just a crowdfunding campaigner of that MyFundNow platform that's why I'm putting address of that site on popular websites like wikipedia, facebook, google plus & others so that people can reach & see my campaign on there. That's it. By the way I think wikipedia should publish information about that recent established reliable crowdfunding platform MyfundNow. So I'm making the changes again & this time please keep that platform to be introduced. Thanks in advance!

Welcome to Wikipedia from the Medicine Wikiproject!

Welcome to Wikipedia and Wikiproject Medicine

Welcome to Wikipedia from Wikiproject Medicine (also known as WPMED).

We're a group of editors who strive to improve the quality of medical articles here on Wikipedia. One of our members has noticed that you are interested in editing medical articles; it's great to have a new interested editor on board. In your wiki-voyages, a few things that may be relevant to editing Wikipedia articles are:

• Thanks for coming aboard! We always appreciate a new editor. Feel free to leave us a message at any time on our talk page. If you are interested in joining the project yourself, there is a participant list where you can sign up. Please leave a message on the WPMED talk page if you have any problems, suggestions, would like review of an article, need suggestions for articles to edit, or would like some collaboration when editing!

• Sourcing of medical and health-related content on Wikipedia is guided by our medical sourcing guidelines, commonly referred to as MEDRS. These guidelines typically requires recent secondary sources to support information; its application is further explained here. Primary sources (case studies, case reports, research studies) are rarely used, especially if the primary sources are produced by the organisation or individual who is promoting a claim.

• Wikipedia is a kingdom full of a wide variety of editors with different interests, skills, and knowledge. We all manage to get along through a lot of discussion that happens under the scenes and through the bold, edit, discuss editing cycle. If you encounter any problems, you can discuss it on an article's talk page or post a message on the WPMED talk page.

Feel free to drop a note on my talk page if you have any problems. I wish you all the best on your wiki voyages! --LT910001 (talk) 21:58, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation reminders

Here are a few links that I need to be careful to specify...

• Darwin
• Fort William
• Melrose
• Press and Journal
• Daily Record
• The Telegraph
• Evening News

and more..

Evening, Chris!

This little script will help you avoid inadvertently linking to disambiguation pages: User:Anomie/linkclassifier. Also highlights lots of other useful stuff. Follow the instructions there to install it.

Good luck

--NSH002 (talk) 20:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know about this tool. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:18, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

Interview for The Signpost

This message is being sent to you as a member of WikiProject Scotland

The WikiProject Report would like to focus on WikiProject Scotland for a Signpost article. This is an excellent opportunity to draw attention to your efforts and attract new members to the project. Would you be willing to participate in an interview? If so, here are the questions for the interview. Just add your response below each question and feel free to skip any questions that you don't feel comfortable answering. Multiple editors will have an opportunity to respond to the interview questions, so be sure to sign your answers. If you know anyone else who would like to participate in the interview, please share this with them. Thanks, Rcsprinter₁₂₃ (chinwag) @ 16:36, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Please advise

Hi,

You've classified the articles I added re. an online tool for helping individuals assess and monitor their well-being as promotional material. The online tool is actually free for users and we intend to help individuals improve their well-being by talking about our work on appropriate pages in Wikipedia. What can I do to make sure that it is not considered promotional in nature? Should I change the language or is it something else? Nimpal (talk) 08:25, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

• The trouble is wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a place to promote a product, even one that it doesn't cost money to use. You could have a look at What Wikipedia is not for further info on Wikipedia's policies about this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:42, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Thurso

Congratulations, you've just thwarted any chances of this article being rewritten and perhaps promoted to GA. It's a mess, it needs rewriting from scratch which I was going to do over the next few days, I won't bother now.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

• Hi Dr. Blofeld I agree that there are serious issues with the Thurso article but I hope you will recognise that when you blanked much of the content didn't give any indication of any plan you might have had to do any of the rewriting. I would like you to understand that I had reverted your removal of content on the basis that I couldn't see anything to signal any intent to improve the article. If you are able to spare any further efforts to work on the article further I would appreciate it. I'll also try to lend a hand. I'm sure there would be many other people who would welcome this page being improved. Thanks. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:15, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

The idea was to restore it section by section with proper sourcing and removing a lot of the bloat and poorly formatting. It makes it much for difficult approaching the article now as it is. Rosie and I started Thurso Castle.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:35, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

There you go, that wasn't so bad was it? That's the initial cleanup. Perhaps I'll expand it further later today/this coming week.♦ Dr. Blofeld 13:02, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Social work portal

Category:NHS Scotland hospitals is a sub-category of Category:Social care in Scotland, which is the reason for its inclusion in the social work portal. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Okay, its a sub-category of a sub-category Category:NHS Scotland, but Category:NHS Scotland hospitals is still part of Category:Social care in Scotland, please stop reverting. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:37, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Spamming? How is it spamming? WikiProjects on talk pages say, "This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:", it is "of interest" to social care, or are there no free prescriptions for anyone in a Scottish hospital? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick notification

A user came on IRC #wikipedia-en-help ^connect and referred to you, thought you might want to come on now and discuss. --L235 (talk) Ping when replying 04:08, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

A page you started (Midpark Hospital) has been reviewed!

Thanks for creating Midpark Hospital, Drchriswilliams!

Wikipedia editor StewdioMACK just reviewed your page, and wrote this note for you:

Well done!

To reply, leave a comment on StewdioMACK's talk page.

Learn more about page curation.

Talk before Undo the edits

What is your Problem in the Link added by me in Scottish independence referendum, 2014? Talk before you undo.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 20:43, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

It is not an "external link". It is an article from a newspaper. Please integrate it into the article if you feel that there is content that belongs in the article. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

oh Ok. Thanks.--Tenkasi Subramanian (talk) 21:12, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Royal College of Emergency Medicine

Greetings Chris. Just to acknowledge that I added details you provided about Clifford Mann's views on the Health and Social Care Act 2012 to Jeremy Hunt's page.
Regards JRPG (talk) 23:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Message for Chris (re EE) ~ Alasdair writing

Never tried this before, so don't really know if it will work, or if it is correct etiquette? IN case you are fed-up of EE, there is some explanatory/apologetic info in the talk pages. As I say there, your comment pointed me to a the material on lead writing from which I cut the following: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies . . ." It is clear that the lead which includes the text "property of the relationship" does not really achieve any of these objectives effectively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.17.152.168 (talk) 14:44, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Hi Alasdair. This is the correct place to leave a comment. As I said on the Employee engagement talk pages, I don't particularly support the material that had been used so far in this article's lead. As I also said, it would be good to reach consensus. I note that there was a significant difference of opinion between you and another editor. I would again repeat my advice that working to improve other sections of the article might be the best way to be able to establish consensus around the lead section. Drchriswilliams (talk) 18:15, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

Message

i created an article "list of indian doctors associations" some one disrupts the order , so today i edited again....my id *ydsameeksh*....thanking you sir , i created this article on 26, april 2014 , wikipedia accepts this article ...thanking you sir— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ydsameeksh (talk • contribs) 16:23, 4 March 2015

I have made edits to remove material that you have added to the List of Indian doctors' associations article. I have done this because the material that you are inserting does not appear to belong in this online encyclopaedia. For further information on the relevant Wikipedia policy, have a look here: WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:56, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

LMS

You have deleted my addition, saying it is copyrighted material. But the reference is given. This is what I don't understand. If this is copyrighted and then the first reference on that page is also copyrighted, then why that can stay there. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.12.49 (talk) 00:29, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I deleted your addition to Learning management systems because you had inserted text that was lifted directly from a copyrighted work. Providing a reference doesn't excuse you from replicating material in this way (when you don't have permission from the copyright holder). For further information on this you could look at WP:Copyrights. If you suspect that other material within an article has violated copyright then there is some advice here WP:Copyright violations. If you do have specific concerns that there is other material within the LMS article that is in violation of copyright then you should raise these on the article's talk page. Drchriswilliams (talk) 06:27, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see. I have removed some content that may have copyright issues as you did. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.30.12.49 (talk) 03:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Removal of Centre for Gene Regulation and Expression section on University of Dundee page

Hi,

I've put my justification for removing the section from the University of Dundee page on its talk page. I'd be pleased if you could take a look. 77.99.109.71 (talk) 21:46, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I have replied on the University of Dundee talk page, hopefully it will generate some discussion and prompt others to make improvement too. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:07, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon

Hey there! As a Wikipedian in Scotland I thought you might be interested in the Scottish Fairground Culture editathon taking place on 7 May at the Riverside Museum - drop me a line if you'd like to know more! Lirazelf (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Oh dear, linkfail! Here's the correct one... Scottish Fairground Culture Editathon Lirazelf (talk) 10:17, 14 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ian Blackford

The article Ian Blackford has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the article should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Bondegezou (talk) 21:50, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

I have now nominated this article for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ian Blackford. Bondegezou (talk) 15:11, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mhairi Black

Hi Dr Chris would you please be able to explain to me why you removed my sourced material about her comments on Celtic FC? They are not sensationalist, she has openly stated them and it was widely reported. I believe that they are controversial enough to warrant exclusion. She has said a lot of controversial things, why is it acceptable to whitewash these? Huddsblue (talk) 15:42, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I removed the material that you posted because Wikipedia has clear policy relating to the biographies of living people. As per WP:BLPSOURCES this was contentious material that was poorly sourced, hence it was something that should be immediately removed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:54, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes they are controversial views that she has, but how is the Telegraph a poor source? it is not a tabloid newspaper. This outburst and others have made the national papers, and are I believe newsworthy as she is a high profile figure. The rule about Tabloids is clear, can you please point me to the bit which says it's not Ok to use a broadsheet as a source? Seems to me a case of whitewashing. Huddsblue (talk) 16:19, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

I do not see that this represents views that has she is renowned for. I feel there are some serious reliability issues with this story, in terms of it being used on a BLP as part of Wikipedia. This appears to be a story based on someone finding a message, just a few words in length, once posted on a Twitter account but now removed. In terms of context this would not appear to be an unusual thing for a teenager to be involved in, especially when involving sporting rivalries. Several years later, still a young woman, she is now very much in the public eye. Despite this, over the past few months I haven't been aware of her repeating anything along the lines that are suggests by certain extrapolations of the contents of this single Tweet. So, even though it has been picked up by some parts of the media, I have major concerns about Wikipedia being used to present it as part of a BLP- it just doesn't lend itself to taking a Neutral Point of View. A few words by a teenager in a Tweet years before holding public office should not be given undue weight. Drchriswilliams (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

You've earned this...

		The Original Barnstar
		Given in recognition of your work updating and improving pages about Members of Parliament for Scottish constituences. Thank you! --Walnuts go kapow (talk) 22:25, 12 May 2015 (UTC)

Re Jim Hood

Please stop reverting information that is up to date and took time to do. Please revert back to second last revision by me. I am well versed in the history of this seat and the current events also. If you fail to rectify I will contact others to look at the actions (somewhat mistaken) that you have taken, doctor or not! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.76.136 (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

I reverted a string of changes that were not consistent with Wikipedia's Manual of style. If I didn't revert your changes then someone else would have removed most if not all of the material that your edits introduced. Irrespective of whether you are versed in the history of the seat and/or current events, on Wikipedia any changes you make need to be the sort that don't break links to other pages on Wikipedia and that are careful to use language that follows a neutral point of view. Have a look at the articles that I have highlighted and you may get a better feel for how things need to look on Wikipedia. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:43, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Thanks

Thank you for sorting my reference, i'm very new to this so i still am not sure about many aspects here.--TijuanaBandito (talk) 10:40, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Alexander Dewar

Hi. Since you volunteered to work on the article Ryan Alexander Dewar in your userspace at its deletion discussion, which I have closed with a consensus to userfy, I have moved the article to your userspace. You can view and edit it at User:Drchriswilliams/Ryan Alexander Dewar. Thanks! Mz7 (talk) 21:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

BLP violations

I suggest reading up on WP:BLP. Specifically this section

We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be explicitly attributed to a reliable, published source, which is usually done with an inline citation. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced – whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable – should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing.

Additionally this:

The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores material.

Your repeated reinstatement of unsourced contentious content about Kennedy such as quotes about his alcoholism, claims that he was often drunk, and the alleged failure of his laid back leadership style all require reliable sources. Further reinstatement can be considered a violation of Wikipedia's policies about living people. Winner 42 Talk to me! 21:54, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

I had reverted your edit because you had removed of a very large amount of text from the article. There is lots of uncontentious material amongst the text you removed. I reverted this because I was suspicious about why you had removed this easily verifiable information, such as his schooling or electoral results. I see that you have reverted my addition of a reference, then adding it as one of your own edits. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

Glasgow Wikimeet #6

Hi there! As you're a Wikimedian in Scotland I'd like to invite you to the 6th Glasgow Wikimeet on Thursday 18th June - hope to see you there for some chat about all things Wiki and a bite to eat/drink. Take a look at the event page and let me know if you can make it! Lirazelf (talk) 16:15, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

recent expansions

I've noticed that you've been expanding abbreviated templates on various talkpages, but I'm not sure if you're aware that doing so has no functional purpose as a casual reader will never notice the difference. The abbreviated versions work perfectly well as they are. I appreciate your energy, but I'd suggest that you find a more productive way to improve Wiki.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for checking that I'm not losing my mind or using my time unproductively in making these small changes (which I saw as offering a slight improvement to people who are less familiar with some Wikiproject templates). I'm aware of the lack of visual impact in terms of how the pages display, however I figure it may help some less experienced editors when they are looking at the code. Drchriswilliams (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Why external links removed?

May I ask the reason why did you have removed reddlinks and external links of Sindhi Wikipedia.--Jogi don (talk) 06:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

In my edit summary I had provided a link to the policy at WP:SEEALSO. Wikipedia's Manual of Style specifies that the “See also” section is for internal links to related Wikipedia articles. The same guidance is clear that the "See also" section should not link to pages that do not exist (red links). Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:38, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Draft:Medworxx

Help! This page has twice been speedily deleted as being promotional. I agree it's very positive, but I haven't found any negative coverage. In fact the company's press releases are less flattering than the stuff which comes from independent sources. Can you help me - either to make it less promotional, or to defend it as it is? I can't see what else I can do to it. I've removed the material which came from the company's press releases.Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Optical Express

I understand this article to be saying that the company has contracts with health boards for domiciliary visits. Do you think I'm wrong?Rathfelder (talk) 21:17, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

I was quite surprised at the way that your edit was composed, mentioning only this one company and leaving the suggestion that they were exclusively providing a domiciliary service. Looking at the source there are no figures reported at all and it would appear to be an example of a company highlighting their efforts to promote their availability. It is not clear that this is available across most of Scotland, although I would note that they do offer this service in several health board areas. Drchriswilliams (talk) 21:33, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Copyvio

Hi Chris, it appears from this that some of the new text is not sufficiently paraphrased. Please give it a bit more rework. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:53, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Kirkcaldy RFC

Hi, I notice you reinstated the Refimprove template on the Kirkcaldy RFC page - can you please explain which parts of the page need additional citations? Thanks Boothy m (talk) 22:31, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I reinstated a template that I felt had been removed without appropriate justification. The template in question is used to indicate that an article needs further references. Another editor had added this template to the Kirkcaldy RFC article several years ago. There is no requirement for parts of the article to be specified. Since then a large quantity of material had been added. I came across the article and realised that the majority of the article was actually material that was in violation of copyright. Since then, this material has been removed and now there is only a small amount of material in this article. There may not actually be enough material to establish the notability of Kirkcaldy RFC (in terms of the standards that Wikipedia demands). My advice would be that if further reliable sources can be identified, and if these can be appropriately drawn upon as citations, then the Refimprove template could be removed. Drchriswilliams (talk) 22:51, 13 August 2015 (UTC)

I have no problem with the long history section copied from the website being removed. My problem is knowing exactly which parts of the remaining article are already verified and which parts still need to be verified. For example, the Notable Players section is covered by page 34 of Allan Massie's book. What about the information in the infobox - do I need to provide a citation for the date the club was founded, the ground, president, coach, and 2014/15 league position? Would that satisfy the requirements to get the template removed?

As for notability - more correctly cited information will be added to expand the article in the near future. However even as it is, the article meets the requirements of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Rugby_union/Notability#Clubs and is more notable than many other Scottish rugby club articles on Wikipedia. Boothy m (talk) 15:38, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the template isn't directly about notability. It is about whether reliable sources exist to verify some of the information within the article that has been presented as factual. There is quite a bit of interpretation that can be used about what circumstances should lead to the introduction of a Refimprove template. At the time it looks like the editor had placed it on the article after adding the Massie citation, thus replacing the Unreferenced template. The Massie citation wasn't used with any inline referencing, so effectively it is more of a source/ bibiography item. It should be straightforward enough either to access or find some reliable online source that backs up key factual information, such as the date the club was formed, ground that the club plays at, etc. Drchriswilliams (talk) 19:25, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding language links

You beat me to it with adding a link to the Gaelic Kingdom of Scotland article at Wikidata; I couldn't work out how to add it in (not for the first time) and I wondered if you could tell me how to go about it for future reference. Not sure if it's a problem with the view in the browser I'm using (Firefox) but if I click on "edit" at the Wikipedia languages box, there isn't an obvious way of adding the link and whatever I tried, "save" remains greyed out. Can you give me any pointers please? Mutt Lunker (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi Matt, it sounds like you were almost there. After clicking edit button, you need to scroll down to the end of the list in the box to be able enter a link. Entering the link is a two-stage process. First click on the area labelled "site", in this case entering "ga" allows you to specify that you want to link to the Gaeilge wikipedia, then in the area immediately to the right you can then add the name of the article, in this case "Ríocht na hAlban". Once a correct match has been entered, the link can be saved. Also Wikidata does seem to get a bit stuck sometimes, which can catch you out even if you are going through the right sequence. Drchriswilliams (talk) 15:39, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, that should help next time I try it. Mutt Lunker (talk) 16:28, 15 August 2015 (UTC)

Microdegree

This article needs more links to other articles to help integrate it into the encyclopedia. In response to this I spent a significant time identifying relevant pages to link to and yet you deleted them all. While I can understand that you may disagree with one or more of the links I do not believe that all of thr links were irrelevant. Pleas explain.

Gareth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3726:6A00:C89C:3A86:F8E8:F6F3 (talk) 02:09, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Hi Gareth. Your editing activity appeared to be almost exclusively adding links to See Also sections. In the Microdegree article your edit did this in conjunction with removal of the Underlinked template and Orphan template. The Microdegree article lacks suitable links in the body of the text. A list of links in the See Also section does not establish how other articles might relate to Microdegrees. At present there seems to be a significant lack of independent coverage in reliable sources demonstrated. The addition of a long See Also section is not an appropriate way to satisfy the improvement requirement. Wikipedia requires a certain amount of Verifiability. Drchriswilliams (talk) 07:14, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Its those (also same) sources on ideologies for this party are sources from Official party website's goal page, Put some wikiuser (Zcbeaton) delete them without explain too.

I didnt explain why restored because those Ideologies with Source are from Offical website itself arent fully necessary to delete them even ITS Name is partailly invloves to Eco-Socialism and Republicanism for Scotland "About — RISE: Scotland's Left Alliance". Rise.scot. Retrieved 2015-09-05., While other for seats are kinda belong here if they get seats is put in opinion while few Zcbeaton cant wait for. 2606:A000:85E7:4E00:5559:9E3D:DA3:336A (talk) 06:50, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

A couple of users had removed the same links from the infobox. The infobox can be used to summarise information which is explained in the main text of the article. Your reversion had also removed some other changes. This included some inline explanation that it is a party that (so far) appear to have only said that they will only be contesting seats at Holyrood. Your source is a primary one, rather than a neutral party (such as a journalist working for a reputable paper) writing about the party. To seek consensus when a couple of editors have been reverting changes like this is best explored on the talk pages. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:58, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Scottish Parliament Elections 2016

Hi there, I notice you have reverted my edit on this article and your explanation in the tag line demonstrates a misunderstanding of the situation. Are you aware of the current consensus that was established for info boxes of articles for elections within the UK? Have you actually read it? May I suggest you do before, edit warring on someone elses behalf. I am not saying that the inclusion of the Greens can't happen, I am saying that thereis a consensus that establishes grounds for inclusion which the Greens do not pressently meet. If other editors want to establish a new consensus for Scottish Parliament election articles, then I see no reason why they can't but as per wiki rules, they need to contact everyone who was involved in establishing the current consensus to contribute to the discussion; it is evident that they have failed to do this and are therefore not acting in good faith by putting ediot warring messages on my wall when they are the ones edit warring and not wanting to followwiki rules for changing consensus. 2.98.38.127 (talk) 11:39, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. You must be aware that I had contributed a fairly detailed explanation to the talk page of that article, explaining why I thought you should not have been removing relevant material. Others editors were also trying to offer you their perspective on this situation. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:41, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Rugby biographies

I am interested in learning more about the naming convention you mentioned at the Ray Nelson (rugby) page when you were moving the page. For biographies of rugby players with common names, I've seen three varities — (rugby), (rugby union), or (rugby player). Is there some WP:RU guidance you can point me to, or a discussion somewhere of this issue? CUA 27 (talk) 19:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

The Wikiproject Rugby union pages do contain some advice on naming conventions, which can be found under the style section. This advice does also contain an appeal for consistency. Advice on rugby players doesn't seem to have made it into the Wikipedia:Naming conventions (sportspeople) policy. I have seen lots of instances of articles that have previously had (rugby player) in the title where a move has been made to use (rugby union) instead. This isn't universal, however. There are some, like Gonzalo Garcia (rugby player) that have been moved the other way. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:06, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

A cup of tea for you!

With this ever dramatic world including WikiDrama, here's a cup of tea to alleviate your day! This e-tea's remains have been e-composted SwisterTwister talk 07:08, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

November 2015

The original article I came across was onesided, appeared to present doctors as an oppressed group and neglected to put the view of those paying taxes and ignoring the context that in professional circles paying certain fees is hardly unusual and all students not just the aparently hard done by junior doctors take out student loans to invest in their future caeers. It completed ignored the median wage and the fact that many jobs involving equal amounts of hard work earning considerably less than the aparent oppressed subject group. The original article ignored all context of economically difficult times where most people understand the simple mathematical challenge that if increased taxes are not democratically supported efficiencies are required. To sum up the original article was in my view an emotionally loaded, onesided hardluck story putting the perspective of one interest group, ignoring the perspective of the majority in what appeared to be an attempt to engender support for a forthcoming strike rather than an academically balanced piece, where such manipulation bordering on propaganda is hardly appropriate in an encyclopedia. It may be assumed you are an impartial doctor of philosophy, where a conflict of interest would arise for a medical doctor to control edits in such a context. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.41.6 (talk) 00:49, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

A number of edits have improved the article in question. It is important for Wikipedia articles to be factually correct and to keep additions encyclopaedic, aiming for a neutral point of view, as per WP:NPOV. Drchriswilliams (talk) 01:04, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:02, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

thank you

thank you for helping me to restore it. I accidentally clicked something that made it disappear, and I am new to wikipedia. Can you show me around? I don't know how to edit well but want to learn it - Anahit falack

A barnstar for you!

	The Original Barnstar
	For your contributions to Spark Energy! Cheers! MurderByDeletionism"bang!" 19:17, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Please advise

Hi I tried to expand the Academy of Family Physicians of India page. but the content was removed. All relevant references were given. Please advice and guide.

Kumar Delhi

Wikipedia article contributions cannot copy material without the permission of the copyright holder from sources that are not public domain or compatibly licensed. You can read more about this here: WP:COPYVIO to help you familiarise yourself with what you cannot add. For example, you added "AFPI act as forum and platform to wide variety of primary care providers towards educational and professional development." which appears to be lifted directly from this website. Drchriswilliams (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Crowdfunding page

Hey Drchriswilliams, This crowdfunding page was incomplete and inaccurate - hence my edits. These edits I made should reflect a more accurate and balanced view of the topic. I am not interested in self promotion - my research,book and coming papers will more than justify the edits I am making here. Thank you for reaching out to me Drchriswilliams - am 'new' and learning! Your guidance is really valuable. CrowdedChris (talk) 22:46, 21 December 2015 (UTC)CrowdedChris

Hi Chris, Welcome to Wikipedia. Please don't be discouraged from contributing on account of me reverting your initial edits. You should bear in mind that your main edit removed a substantial amount of referenced material from the page. I would suggest that you take care to explain why you are removing it. Multiple smaller edits might help other editors understand what you are trying to achieve with certain changes. In terms of your user page, watch out for putting material on it that might give the impression that it trying to appear like an Wikipedia article, or that promotes a product, such as a book that you may have authored that is for sale. Please see WP:UPNOT to help to familiarise yourself with Wikipedia's policy on this. Drchriswilliams (talk) 23:05, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

Happy New Year Drchriswilliams!

Happy New Year!

Drchriswilliams,
Have a prosperous, productive and enjoyable New Year, and thanks for your contributions to Wikipedia. Poepkop (talk) 18:11, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Send New Year cheer by adding {{subst:Happy New Year 2016}} to user talk pages.

.

Medical Schools Council

Hi,

Apologies for editing too much, I wasn't sure how the process worked. I have actually been working on this article for a few months in the article space (it is my first contribution) and other users were helping me edit before it would be published. I actually did not delete your work, I had included them into the text. For example, the information on widening participation fell under the work on admissions, and so I moved it there. You mentioned the campaign with the National union of Head Teachers. I took this out as I had mentioned the campaign under widening partcipation, which is called "Who's in Health?". I though there was no need to mention it twice. Upon doing more research, I found that it was actually work done with Primary Futures and less so with NUHT. I've actually done a lot of work on this topic and would like to be able to include the information? Is there any way you could review my edits and incorporate some of it into the article? I think it is relevant and would add some much needed detail to the page.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Charlie Bravo (talk • contribs) 17:08, 11 January 2016‎ (UTC)

I see you were working on Draft:Medical Schools Council (United_Kingdom) but I also see that it was started less than a three weeks ago. I see that a couple of experienced reviewers had given you some advice, but that your submission was declined as there was already an article in Wikipedia (and had been before you began your draft). When I saw your edit earlier, it appeared to me that you had effectively overwritten the existing Medical Schools Council with your declined submission. I reverted your edit as it appeared that you had removed well-sourced material and six corresponding reliable sources. Wikipedia depends upon collaboration and consensus. As I mentioned in the message on your talk page, adding things bit by bit will help other editors follow changes in material. Also take some time to familiarise yourself with some of Wikipedia's policies. Some sources are better than others, so look beyond primary and self-published sources. There are also some conventions around balance and formatting which aren't always immediately obvious. Drchriswilliams (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I actually created an article in September, but as I am new I went and published it straight away and not through the article wizard. At this time it did not exist. It was rejected and I was told to start again and work on it in article wizard where users could help me get it published. My current revised article has information that would add much more detail to the topic. I will take your advice and edit changes slowly and comment exactly why I think it would benefit. Some of the current citations are not well sourced, however. The article form the BBC on widening participation is misleading, from my research I have found (using current sources, as the BBC article is from 1998) that there is not an imbalance for men trying to get into medical school, in fact the gender ratio is pretty balanced. It is actually currently a class issue and just writing "ethnic minorities" is also misleading as it is not all "ethnic minorities." Chinese and Indian students have shown to do exceptionally well, the issue is with specific minorities. Hence the line is misleading and frankly outdated.

Also, the first paragraph has taken lines out of the Medical Schools Council Website - the "interest and ambitions" has been taken but not cited. It could also be seen as puffery no? Also it represents 33 undergrad and 1 post grad so 34 schools in total, but they cannot be described as all the schools in the UK since private medical schools exist. It should say "publicly funded".

I will go ahead and make some changes and try my best to reason why I have made them. I would appreciate your help.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alpha Charlie Bravo (talk • contribs) 10:37, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

I would suggest don't concentrate too much on the lead but start by adding bits to the sections where you can see that there are gaps, such as major topics where content is missing; add section headings where you need. Part of this advice about starting with the sections of the main text also relates to the convention in Wikipedia of trying not to have references in the lead section. Don't look to get rid of content such as early coverage of widening participation efforts, especially if the basis for this is that there has been a change in emphasis in how issues are currently described or tackled. I'm very happy to help, let me know if there are any specific things to attend to. Drchriswilliams (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

United Kingdom general election, 2015‎;

Chris, could you perhaps contribute to the discussions on the talk page for United Kingdom general election, 2015‎, too? We could do with some new viewpoints. thanks DrArsenal (talk) 14:07, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Scottish Diaspora Tapestry

Hello! Your submission of Scottish Diaspora Tapestry at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! SusunW (talk) 02:59, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Drchriswilliams, it has been ten days since this was posted, and no action has been taken. If you wish to pursue this DYK nomination, please respond there within the next few days. Hope to hear from you soon. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Mortonhall Crematorium

Hello! Your submission of Mortonhall Crematorium at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) underneath your nomination's entry and respond there as soon as possible. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! Espresso Addict (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC) Espresso Addict (talk) 06:49, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

@Espresso Addict: I have made some changes to the article itself and the DYK hook. I'm not sure if you had intended checking back on it. I picked up a DYK credit and so also have left details to show QPQ. Drchriswilliams (talk) 20:05, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Karmanyevadhikarste...

Hi! for this. I want to ask a question to you. This Section is coptyvio ? In my knowledge this commentary done before 100 or 150 years ago. So many sites have this. One or two of them write ©, that no proves that commentary is their. It is free for all. Please guide me on this. Thank you. NehalDaveND (talk) 06:02, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

I flagged up a suspected copyright violation, which Wikipedia has policy to assist with. Wikipedia also has policy on plagiarism. "Whether copyright-expired or in the public domain for other reasons, material from public-domain sources is welcome on Wikipedia, but such material must be properly attributed." Drchriswilliams (talk) 08:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest

Hello Williams, and happy Wikipedia @ 15. This is to notify you of Wiki Loves Nigeria Writing Contest organized by the Wikimedia User Group Nigeria to commiserate the 15th anniversary of Wikipedia. The contest will start on 28 January 2016 and end on 29 February 2016. Please help to suggest articles on notable Nigeria-related topic here and if you like to be part of the jury, add your name here. Thanks for your participation. Warm regards Wikic¤l¤gy^{t@lk to M£} 14:51, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Scottish Diaspora Tapestry

Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Dear,

I am a user of bangla Wikipedia.i come in English Wikipedia now.for learning other informations.dear user,please write the Tangail municipality.Thank you! Rasel ibne husain (talk) 10:37, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

DYK for Mortonhall Crematorium

— Coffee // have a cup // beans // 12:01, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

IDKIWL435495

Why have you removed my times of the school day on Ross High School, Tranent This took time and effort to do, and i felt your actions were wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKIWL435495 (talk • contribs) 11:53, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia. I was not the only editor that thought this material did not belong on an article about a school. Your edit had introduced trivia which is only likely to be of interest to pupils of the school. The relevant Wikipedia project suggests that such material should not be included, see here: WP:WPSCHOOLS/AG#WNTI. Drchriswilliams (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I Do apologise, i had just thought it was okay after seeing a timetable on another schools page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IDKIWL435495 (talk • contribs) 12:06, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for being one of Wikipedia's top medical contributors!

please help translate this message into the local language

The Cure Award

In 2015 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Wikipedia. Thank you from Wiki Project Med Foundation for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date health information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do! Wiki Project Med Foundation is a user group whose mission is to improve our health content. Consider joining here, there are no associated costs, and we would love to collaborate further.

Thanks again :) -- Doc James along with the rest of the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation 03:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)