Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:05, 4 October 2014

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

please help translate this message into the local language

	The Cure Award
	In 2013 you were one of the top 300 medical editors across any language of Misplaced Pages. Thank you so much for helping bring free, complete, accurate, up-to-date medical information to the public. We really appreciate you and the vital work you do!

We are wondering about the educational background of our top medical editors. Would you please complete a quick 5-question survey? (please only fill this out if you received the award)

Thanks again :) --Ocaasi, Doc James and the team at Wiki Project Med Foundation

reflinks link

http://tools.wmflabs.org/dispenser/cgi-bin/viewer.py/Reflinks

https://tools.wmflabs.org/fengtools/reflinks/

Please comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Gender-neutral language

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Misplaced Pages talk:Gender-neutral language. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola article

In the future please use group consensus when you make major article decisions such as the split that you did for Guinea in the Ebola epidemic article. Gandydancer (talk) 11:57, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

The article wasn't split, Gandy. Your article Ebola virus epidemic in West Africa has not been affected in any way. There's nothing from that article in the new Guinea article. There wasn't anything useful to transfer. It's only a summary, which it should be when there's a main article. I think you don't understand what a split means. A split will happen when, for example, the 'responses' section gets removed and moved to a new article. That's something you are having done. That's a split. None of the new country articles represent a split. There might be a relevant WP page on this. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:22, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Here's the link that will explain moving content here. SW3 5DL (talk) 15:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

please do not call an article "your" article as it implies WP:OWN. Setting up a subarticle is something that needs to be done with care and thought so that the editors working on the topic can keep everything aligned. btw the relevant guidance articles are WP:SPLIT and WP:SUMMARY.unsigned comment made by Jytdog

The article is not a split. I don't know any other way to explain that. Perhaps you could provide diffs that show what you say is a page split? Also, remember to sign your edits. SW3 5DL (talk) 16:08, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, I wanted to mention I hope you won't make comments like this one again to anybody on WP, but especially to Brian. Your comment chased him off WP. Fortunately, he's back now, as he should be. He's done a wonderful job on the article. You completely misunderstood what he was saying in the exchange on the article talk page, which didn't have anything to do with you at all, and on top of that, he came back and clarified what he meant, which you apparently ignored. You really need to read through another editor's comment before you respond. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 17:00, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

considering the encylopedia as a whole, what has been done is a split, per WP:SPLIT. There is no other valid justification in WP for creating a content fork. Jytdog (talk) 17:39, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the articles in question are perfectly allowed Spinouts. Cheers. SW3 5DL (talk) 19:05, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

you are getting it now. gandy's email did not dispute that they are allowed. what she asked for was that we discuss the strategy for doing that, as they are related to the main article. this is indeed best practice. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

He sure seemed on-board yesterday and I quote:

"Well, another maverick split - two down and two to go... I think that we should wait to remove our individual coverage of the affected countries until the new articles are cleaned up. What do other editors think?" Gandydancer (talk) 15:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

"Two down, and two to go. . ." doesn't sound like a complaint to me.

SW3 5DL (talk) 19:49, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

am talking about gandy's comment at the top of this thread and at starstr's page, which you reacted to the same way, in both places. Jytdog (talk) 20:14, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Jytdog, thanks for your support - I really appreciate it. It has been very time consuming and frustrating to try to deal with this editor. I try to not get into disputes and I know that you do as well, but some people just have a way of hooking one in... Besides the fact that of course, if this editors actions harm the article, one must step in and respond to his actions. SW3, I note that when Jytdog made a mistake he did his best to correct it with an apology, which I assume was sincere since Brian is now back and without a grudge. You, on the other hand it seems would rather argue till doom's day to defend your mistakes. Hopefully this issue can be dropped on the article talk page and we can move forward and work on the article rather than constant bickering. Gandydancer (talk) 11:47, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Gandydancer:

• . . .gandy's email did not dispute that they are allowed. what she asked for was that we discuss the strategy for doing that, as they are related to the main article. this is indeed best practice. Jytdog (talk) 19:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

• Perhaps fewer emails asking Jytdog to come and engage in your one-sided battles that you create out of air, and less this is my article behaviours, will help you achieve that goal where you say, "we can move forward and work on the article rather than constant bickering." You're doing the bickering, so you're the only one who can stop it. We're not in middle school anymore. Passing notes via emails off Wiki to create drama on WP is considered disruptive.

• Commenting in the third person about an editor on that editor's own talk page is just plain rude and childish. Your behaviour on the article is WP:TEND. All these behaviours make you sound immature. If you've an issue, there are appropriate WP resources for resolving them. Personal attacks, disparaging an editors contributions, calling an editor a 'mother fucker', encouraging other editors to engage in battle, especially via off-Wiki channels, edit wars, and refusal to engage on the talk page with only a few editors, is inappropriate behaviour. Please don't return to my talk page. It is a talk page for civil discourse about WP topics. It is not a space for you to go on a rant as you do on the article's talk page. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

about the change you just made, you now have made a false statement as the words in quotes were not used; implied, but not used. please revise. and it should be noted that gandy struck the comment. (and btw, grudges are unhealthy) Jytdog (talk) 11:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

No, it's not a false statement. Calling me that was his exact intention he was just gaming the rules to avoid a block for a personal attack. Also, I reverted your refactoring. Don't change your comment after another editor has responded to it. And this discussion is closed, btw. Enough said by the both of you. Thanks. SW3 5DL (talk) 22:55, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola map

Why would you want the map placed on a Guinea article? The patient in Texas is from Liberia. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 19:43, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13, I meant to say the Liberia article because of the connection. What do you think? SW3 5DL (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, here's the updated map.

Great, thanks! Also, there's a possible case in Hawaii. SW3 5DL (talk) 04:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

SW3 5DL, once the case in Hawaii is confirmed, I will add it. Until then, this is the most recent map. AmericanXplorer13 (talk) 13:56, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

AmericanXplorer13, Yes, agree. And excellent job on this map. Thank you very much for your time on it. I've added it to the Ebola virus case in the United States article. SW3 5DL (talk) 14:07, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Ebola medivac case

HI SW3 5DL, must say good job on this one. I triommed a little on the west African article but still kept the main info. Butt it my be a good idea to add the medivacs here.. Perhaps heading previous medivac cases in US.. Give a opportunity to trim that section in the main. Just a thought..GreetingsBrianGroen (talk) 20:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I worked on it until late last night. On the medivac cases, that's a great idea, Brian. The section title can be specific about the medivac so I don't see any problem with readers being confused. Thanks for the help, I appreciate. SW3 5DL (talk) 23:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sam Brownback

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Sam Brownback. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Misplaced Pages:Feedback request service. — Legobot (talk) 00:08, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Nomination of 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States is suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages according to Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/2014 Ebola virus cases in the United States until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Floydian  _¢ 04:45, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Closed as "Keep" per WP:SNOW SW3 5DL (talk) 13:27, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

TPG

per WP:TPG: Own comments Shortcuts: WP:REDACT WP:REDACTED If it becomes necessary to edit your own comments to correct false information or remove (or redact) personal attacks, follow these guidelines:

Where possible, make the edits before other users reply or must step in to amend the text. If anyone has already replied to or quoted the original comment, consider whether the edit could affect the interpretation of the replies or integrity of the quotes. Use "Show preview" and think about how your edited comment may look to others before you save it. Any corrected wording should fit with any replies or quotes. If this is not feasible, consider posting another message to clarify or correct the intended meaning instead. Other than minor corrections for insignificant typographical errors made before other editors reply, changes should be noted to avoid misrepresenting the original post. For example: Mark deleted text with ..., or ..., which render in most browsers as struck-through text (e.g., wrong text). Mark inserted text with ..., or ..., which renders in most browsers as underlined text (e.g., corrected text). If it is necessary to explain changes, insert comments in square brackets (e.g., "the default width is 100px 120px ") or consider inserting a superscript note (e.g., "") linking to a later subsection for a detailed explanation. Append a new timestamp (e.g., "; edited 00:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)" using five tildes) after the original timestamp at the end of the post. Removing or substantially altering a comment after someone else has replied may deprive the reply of its original context; however, leaving false text unrevised could be worse. If it is necessary to make such an edit, consider the following steps: Mark up your edits as shown above. Add a comment in the edited comment (in square brackets) or below the comment to explain that you made the edit and explain why you needed to do this after others had replied to it. Contact the person(s) who replied, posting on their talk page to explain the change. Under some circumstances, you may entirely remove your comments. For example, if you accidentally posted a comment to the wrong page, and no one has replied to it yet, then the simplest solution is to self-revert your comment.

i am restoring my edits. 00:05, 4 October 2014 (UTC)