User talk:Danjeffers

Welcome!

Hello, Danjeffers, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! David Ruben ^Talk 03:17, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple links and Spamming

Generally adding links to the same site to multiple pages is seen as possible spamming. External links should be for information that is beyond the level of detail that is appropriate to include in a general encyclopaedic article. If the external website contains no greater level of detail than that already found in an article, or which should be included if teh article were at Featured Article level, then teh external link is probably unwarrented. Please see the guidence at WP:SPAM and WP:EL :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 03:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reply. This might be question to raise at the project page WP:CLINMED. However I thought the selected links (apart from one which I rescued when another editor tried to help out by removing) generally were unhelpful to the wikipedia articles.

If you have a read of the guidence links above, you'll see that generally wikipedia strives to have good Featured Articles on ever topic. So ideally the only need for links will be to external [{WP:Reliable sources]] purely to WP:Cite to WP:Verify what is stated in our articles.
External links are not there just because some webpage is good. Adding links to each topic to the corresponding page of Encyclopaedia Brittanica or Microsoft's Encarta may be to good articles (or not) but the aim is that a reader should find all that is required here onsite. Hence the general phrase "add content not external links".
External links should therefore be for webpages that go into a topic in far more detail than would be appropriate to ever have in general encyclopaedia (i.e. adds info beyond that which wikipedia should have).
I don't disagree that any of the information at The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute is incorrect, just that most of the topics had fuller descriptions here at wikipedia and with links to any related terms. Hence NHLBI webpages were far more simplistic that here. Of course very complete wikipedia pages should start with a simple opening introductory paragraph that summarises the topic, so again there should be no need to link to external sites just for a "vetted and filtered to be accessible in a way that the longer article may not be to everyone." If an article is too complex and without a simple introduction, then a simple introduction needs to be written (again that phrase "add content not external links").
The one article I thought worth linking to was Angioplasty as the site's webpage seemed substantial and did have rather nice pictures :-) If you look at its 'History' you'll see another editor had removed the link and then restored it when I explained why I had left it.
So if there is a substantial article at NHLBI, then perhaps ask on the corresponding wikipedia article's talk page whether other editors feel would be helpful.
I expect you will have noticed the Template:Infobox Disease that most wikipages on a disorder have. This has links to eMedicine Medline etc. If you wish, raise a suggestion at WP:CLINMED whether NHLBI links would be appropriate there, but I suspect not (given quality of its articles, failing cite its sources, and that articles often not been revised in several years - its more of a tertiary source than a secondary one).

Hope above of help - please feel free to discuss further :-) Yours David Ruben ^Talk 20:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NHLBI links

I am puzzled that despite the exchange above you have now returned to insert more links to many pages. In most cases, the pages you added links to have basically the same content as the relevant Wikipedia article, but they have no sources, making them less ideal. They are obviously vetted by experienced professionals, but I dispute their usefulness for readers.

I have stopped short of removing all the links you have added, but I hope you could address my concerns. JFW | T@lk 19:09, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is a shame that you have chosen to ignore my message. JFW | T@lk 21:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danjeffers, please read the guideline WP:External links - a link needs to provide a greater amount of detail than would be appropriate within wikipedia's own article. As an example, the WP article Atherosclerosis runs to about 10 screenfuls including the references, whereas http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/dci/Diseases/Atherosclerosis/Atherosclerosis_WhatIs.html runs to about 2 narrow-width screens.

Yes, it is policy that information be supported by WP:Cite from WP:Reliable sources in order to WP:Verify, but that means that individual facts have an accompanying footnote (see WP:FOOTNOTE for various accepted techniques) or have an overall reference source listed in a "References" section. But merely adding multiple links to basic articles at NIH "Diseases ands conditions index" is not adding content or value to articles. Please stop just adding external links - if you wish discuss this further at the Medical Wikiproject (see WT:MED) to help form a consensus, but ignoring the views of others (such as JFW) is foolish. It would also risk a formal warning of impending block from the site, which would be regretable as you clearly are able to search through the internet for information and could help improve the medical articles. I do not know your background, but even if you do not have specialist knowledge then you can still help by rephrasing parts of articles that might read like a medical textbook into a better style of English, in this a general encyclopaedia :-) David Ruben ^Talk 22:53, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have read the guidelines, I will try to stay within them. The NHLBI pages on these topics are actually quite extensive, even the Atherosclerosis is actually about 8 pages, and several are far longer. The Atrial Fibrillation is quite a bit longer and more informative than the AHA article which is provided as an external link. I think this is inconsistent. As to citations, these articles are published by the National Institutes of Health, and are fully vetted by that institution. However, I don't wish to be seen as a spammer, so I'll not press the issue here. I do think these articles are add something simply because they are more quickly accessible and the information is validated by the National Institutes of Health.. Danjeffers (talk) 16:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright problem: Wear red day

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia! We welcome and appreciate your contributions, such as Wear red day, but we regretfully cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from either web sites or printed material. This article appears to be a copy from http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/hearttruth/events/nwrd.htm NIH Wear Red Day page, and therefore a copyright violation. The copyrighted text has been or will soon be deleted.

If you believe that the article is not a copyright violation, or if you have permission from the copyright holder to release the content freely under the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) then you should do one of the following:

If you have permission from the author leave a message explaining the details at Talk:Wear red day and send an email with confirmation of permission to "permissions-en (at) wikimedia (dot) org". See Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission for instructions.
If a note on the original website states that re-use is permitted under the GFDL or that the material is released into the public domain leave a note at Talk:Wear red day with a link to where we can find that note.
If you own the copyright to the material: send an e-mail from an address associated with the original publication to permissions-en(at)wikimedia(dot)org or a postal message to the Wikimedia Foundation permitting re-use under the GFDL, and note that you have done so on Talk:Wear red day.

It may also be necessary for the text be modified to have an encyclopedic tone and to follow Wikipedia article layout. For more information on Wikipedia's policies, see Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.

If you would like to begin working on a new version of the article you may do so at Talk:Wear red day/Temp. Leave a note at Talk:Wear red day saying you have done so and an administrator will move the new article into place once the issue is resolved. Thank you, and please feel welcome to continue contributing to Wikipedia. Happy editing! V. Joe (talk) 20:01, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]