User talk:Carolethecatlover
Welcome!
[edit]
|
Talkback
[edit]
Message added 08:49, 15 April 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.
Hi Carole
[edit]Hi Carole. I'm Bob House 884, I'm not a podiatrist or a software developer, as it happens I'm a lawyer. I'd like to help you, Mu Mind and a couple of others work out a solution on the Dyshidrosis page. The mediation case you asked for appears to be getting under way. Please feel free to make comments there, but do try to stay civil and remember that we're looking for a solution that makes everyone happy and, most importantly, improves the wiki.
You're free to leave the process at any time, if you'd like to do so leave a message to that effect on the case page or my talk page. Best regards, Bob House 884 (talk) 12:52, 1 June 2011 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for your reply (I've been away for a day or two). I think you have some good things to say about this condition, and clearly you have access to lots of sources (you said you'd read 500 journal articles on the topic.. wow) so I really think you can be an asset to this article (and any others which take your interest).
- I think the reason you are getting reverted is that you aren't really sticking to the Manual of style or providing sources for verifiability. The good thing is that these problems can be fixed quite easily! I'm sure the people who have been reverting you don't hold any grudges and really do value your expertise, however certain things you've been doing don't really fit the 'wiki-way' as it were (for example we don't talk in ALL CAPS on article pages and don't provide email addresses on articles (partly because a lot of spam-bots crawl wikipedia and would send all kinds of spam emails if we did), you also need to provide more sources).
- I can think of a few ways forward which might help and which I hope the other users in the discussion would agree to:
- (1) You could make less changes in one go on the article, for example you could just change some stuff in one section at a time - that way it would be easier for people to just keep the good stuff
- (2) You could suggest changes on the article talk page so that other people can comment on them before they go live.
- (3) You could work on changes in a draft article - I could set one up for you if you liked - this way you could have more freedom to make changes without getting reverted, after a while you could ask people to try to merge them together.
- (4) I think it would help, both on wikipedia and in your studies, to keep a record of journals you are planning to refer to. This could be done on a word processor or indeed on your wikipedia user space - again, I can show you how - hopefully if you keep an up-to-date record like this, it will be easier to source your additions. If you add impeccably sourced information to an article, nobody will want to revert you.
- (5) I can tell that your an expert contributor, and it may be infuriating at first to have your edits reverted by non-experts, laymen and software developers. It's sort of a perrenial problem that we have here - experts, like yourself, often don't stick around long after having their edits (which often contained things which are well established facts in their field) reverted by some random Joe. Indeed wikipedia's lack of providing any preference to expert contributors was the main reason for the creation of Citezendium. It really is a valid concern, which is expressed daily by numerous experts (in fact there was a Nobel Prize winning physicist expressing similar concerns a few weeks ago, I think that he is still editing). I do hope that you will stick around though, as an expert I'm sure you will be more familiar with the subject area and have greater access to sources and so long as you make sure to cite them, your contributions here will really stand out.
- I'm sure there are other ideas to, what I would love to achieve is to help you integrate and understand the way the 'pedia works, it won't take too long and it'll make your experience here a lot more enjoyable. This way we could all benefit from your considerable expertise. You are of course free to ignore all of them if you wish :) Please do feel free to ask me any questions and pop by the mediation case (which is still open). All the best. Bob House 884 (talk) 12:46, 4 June 2011 (UTC).
G'day Bob. Well I did put in 14 references: But I used APA, a little number in brackets after the citation. Mumind is unaware of this system, and his revert removed them and the corresonding reference. You don't seriously think I didn't put in references. True, a lot of what is 'common knowledge' to me must have a reference somewhere. I did CAPS because this was really, really important information: Doctors do NOT understand this disease which has only found a cure in the past 4 years. The only email I put in and I understand the fear of spambots, was dyshidrosisampersandyahoogroupsdotcom which is the most active and informative group for this condition. Yes, well, I have better things to do than argue with MuMind. I did start with a minor edit. The 'no known cause' bit. The cause is known. But that was reverted. So, I will keep and improve my edit, and from time to time, when I think about it, revert MuMind's edit. It is a pity that people will not have the best information, but that is the run-by-software-engineers nature of wikipedia. Yours, expert in a hair's thickness of information, Carole, podiatrist and dyshidrosis curer. (I don't want a Noble prize, I want to help people suffering from dyshidrosis, which made my younger years miserable.)
Hi Carole, I've closed your MEDCAB case because you seem to have disappeared for quite a while. If you do come back to Wikipedia and need any help, please do contact me or another user. All the best, Bob House 884 (talk) 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)