User talk:Jwri7474

October 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Physician. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Just a friendly reminder in case you do not know of this policy. I have NOT reported you. I have also posted this notice on the talk page of other user(s) involved. Thanks! (EhJJ)^TALK 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC) (EhJJ)^TALK 02:49, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

EhJJ, I have cited my sources as you are aware. I have simply reverted vandalism from User:Wishuponsarah. I have reported this user for administrator attention and IP blocking for her continued vandalism. Thank for your help! Jwri7474 (talk) 02:51, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Dude...

Quit posting your request all over the place. Either put it only on WP:ANI, or only on WP:AIV. Not both, and not anywhere else. J.delanoy^gabs_adds 03:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

And the user's been blocked for 31 hours. Give it a rest. Grandmasterka 03:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, this was the first time I've requested a block. I wasn't sure where to post first. Thank for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Physician

Technically, you have violated WP:3RR as well as User:Wishuponsarah. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6). The rule is vandalism and that means "vandalism," not "we have a difference of opinion and I'm going to call his version vandalism." It doesn't matter to me if you have sources, his doesn't, whatever. Vandalism is this kind of nonsense. It's a very high bar. I'm going to be extremely generous and just let you off with a warning. Next time, let him war, revert and let other people revert, warn him per with the templates and report him to WP:AIV. Most people would block both of you, so take this as a very nice gesture. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:24, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

This "this kind of nonsense" is not my post.. it must be someone else's. If you are using that as an example of generally what vandalism consists of.. then I agree with you. You said you don't care if my additions were properly sources according to wiki guidelines?... are we not allowed to revert someone else's vandalism to an article? I did create a section to discuss the issue on the talk page of the article in question. Regardless, thank you for your help and generosity! Hopefully we can get this issue sorted in the proper way. Jwri7474 (talk) 03:40, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, I wasn't clear. I know that's vandalism and it wasn't you. My point is there is a difference between vandalism and the edit war you got into. If you want to call it vandalism, that's incorrect. Next time, assume he's being bold and follow the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. If he doesn't respond on the talk page and others are reverting, then he's going to get blocked. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:28, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't reverting you

Hi, I didn't mean you in my edit summary about vandalism. I was talking about the other editor and was reverting to the previous version before they edited. Did you mean to only do a partial revert? Please check the history of User talk:Aoso0ck‎ (they just blanked it). NJGW (talk) 05:20, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Oh ok, I was begining to wonder. Please see the talk page where I left information regarding my changes. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Image source problem with Image:SydMedSchool.jpg

Image Copyright problem

Thanks for uploading Image:SydMedSchool.jpg. I noticed that the file's description page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you did not create this file yourself, you will need to specify the owner of the copyright. If you obtained it from a website, then a link to the website from which it was taken, together with a restatement of that website's terms of use of its content, is usually sufficient information. However, if the copyright holder is different from the website's publisher, their copyright should also be acknowledged.

If you have uploaded other files, consider checking that you have specified their source and tagged them, too. You can find a list of files you have uploaded by following this link. Unsourced and untagged images may be deleted one week after they have been tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If the image is copyrighted under a non-free license (per Wikipedia:Fair use) then the image will be deleted 48 hours after 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC). If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. NrDg 23:01, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

User:Aoso0ck

Hello Jwri7474. I notice that you've begun creating a WP:RFC/U about this editor. Though he has done many things we should be concerned about, he is currently blocked for a month. Thus if an RFC/U is certified, he would not be able to respond there. May I suggest that you put your plans for an RFC/U on hold for now, and wait to see what happens when his block expires. If he continues with the same behavior as before, report it on WP:ANI. It seems possible that an administrator would be willing to issue an indef block at that time. EdJohnston (talk) 14:01, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, as soon as I saw that he had been blocked I ceased working on that submission. Jwri7474 (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Re: Template:ADADS

Adding the Au+NZ dental schools makes this template no longer ADA related, so I removed that title from the box. Good work! DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 20:20, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Re: Postgraduate training in general dentistry

You're additive edits are wonderfully detailed, but are lacking in sourcing and citations. Please do not get me wrong -- I completely admit to my shortsightedness in creating an article pretending to be about dentistry but reallt being about dentistry in America. As such, I will modify the article's opening sentences to make this point, but all additions henceforth must be cited. Wikipedia is more interested in WP:V than truth, and expanding this article by approximately 100% without adding a single citation (and removing one already existing citation) is poor editing. Again, please take this in the manner it is being stated -- your editions are more than welcome, but not without sources. I am reverting the article nearly to what it was before your edits, pending proper and adequate citations for your additions. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 16:38, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

I have left the postgrad dental education (USA) untouched. I simply replaced the Australia and Canada info to the general postgrad dental education page. I will add sources as I find them. Thank you for your help. Jwri7474 (talk) 20:44, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Yes -- I see that this can be difficult to reconcile, as North America includes Mexico as well, which is not part of the ADA. DRosenbach ^{(Talk | Contribs)} 15:18, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Nomination of University of Adelaide School of Dentistry for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article University of Adelaide School of Dentistry is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of Adelaide School of Dentistry 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 good 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 template from the top of the article. — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 18:53, 26 February 2012 (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) 17:31, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of American Dental Board of Anesthesiology for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article American Dental Board of Anesthesiology is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Dental Board of Anesthesiology 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. Sjrct (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Please claim your upload(s): File:SydMedSchool.jpg

Hi, Thank you, for uploading this file.

However, as part of ongoing efforts to ensure all media on English Wikipedia is correctly licensed and attributed it would be appreciated if you were able to confirm some details,

If it's your own work, please include {{own}}, amend the {{information}} added by a third party, and change the license to an appropriate "self" variant. You can also add |claimed=yes to the {{media by uploader}} or {{presumed_self}} tag if it is present to indicate that you've acknowledged the image, and license shown (and updated the {{information}} where appropriate).

If it's not your own work please provide as much sourcing/authorship information as you are able to.

It would also be appreciated if you could "claim" or update the source and licensing on other media you uploaded, You can find a list of files you have created in your upload log.

This will assist those reviewing the many many "free" images on commons that have not yet been transferred to Commons. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:09, 2 December 2016 (UTC)