User talk:Drchriswilliams/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

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)