User talk:Owain.davies/Discussion Archive

Lustleigh edits

OK - you don't agree with some of my editing. However have you looked at Wikipedia:Manual of Style? In general articles of this type focus on the historic and then come up to date in that sequence which was the format I was adopting. Equally you may wish to check out WP:NOT - articles very rarely have such a focus on local current events. Wiki is an international encyclopedia - for example a band local to Lustleigh will be interesting within the area - however if I were a Lustleigh resident looking at a wider audience I'd prefer the page to look a little less informal and "folksy" and more like an encyclopedia. You may find it useful to look at Guide to layout, Guide to writing better articles and Avoid trivia sections in articles.

Whatever you feel about this I will at least place relevant Wiki links within the article in order to bring it in line with so many other well written and researched articles --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:16, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

OK & apologies if I was a little harsh too and particularly if my edits left the article not making sense. I doubt two Wiki editors will ever see eye to eye completely over an article. In my view the POV aspect could be reduced. I confess I do not see the village amenities as being encyclopedic or in line with most of the other village articles which I have looked at.

As to the bells (a signficant feature given their history and provenance) - why do you feel they should be further down the article? Certainly in time as the page develops they may well warrant their own page but for now maybe not.

As and when I get a chance I will try and get some more Wikilinks in but I assure you I will not radically alter the article without posting on the article talk page first - hope this is ok - regards --Herby ^{talk thyme} 17:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Re: Ambulance edits

Very impressive work, well written. --Badger151 02:00, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

And I heard some talk about that RDS thing, but never saw anything solid on it - i don't suppose you have a reference? --Badger151 04:38, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to see ambulance as a featured article, eventually. Toward that, I wrote out most of the history section, and cut large portions of the USA section, turing them into their own page (Emergency Medical Services in the United States, which presently needs a lot of work, but one thing at a time). Next on my personal to do list are to add a bit to the "design and construction" section, and to add a section about the motorcycle/donkey-pulled/etc ambulances seen in lesser developed areas, but if you have the time, feel free to get started, if those topics intrest you. Other things I see that could use work are the US section, which needs to be repolished, and the section on France might be able to be spun off in its own article. The "costs" section is also lacking, but I really don't know much about that subject. And one of the difficulties, of course, if the length of the page; I haven't come across a solution for that, yet.

Incidentally, I didn't see your replies until just now - if you leave messages on my talk page, via the 'discussion' tab up top, the system will let me know that I have a message waiting. Best --Badger151 03:31, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi again. I saw that you did work on the "Intermediate technology" section of the ambulance article (under Design and construction). I appriciate the nature of what you added, but in doing so you changed the purpose of that section, which was about ambulances designed and built under the principles of intermediate technology. By all means be bold, but at the same time, please be careful about what you remove. Many thanks, --Badger151 02:51, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:NOT

I know WP isn't a social networking site but I thought it might be nice to say hi seeing as I haven't seen or heard of you in over ten years. If you like, come join the Portal:Kent and WP:KENT as we are just starting up. Take Care. KevinCarmody 19:40, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

It's

I'll be picky - "It's" is short for "It is" as such the awb correction was good --Herby ^{talk thyme} 12:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance

Hi, Owain - I do agree that there has been a slow creep over the past several months in the style of English used on the Ambulance page, however, I think that if you reflect, and take a look at the page history, you will find that:

1. from the begining, the page has been written in US English. Armor appeared before armour, -ize has consistently appeared, but I have rarely found -ise, truck appears instead of lorry, &c.
2. If you take a look at the page as it existed at the time of your first edit:[1] you will see that, where there are differences between US and UK English, most of the page uses US conventions.
   • All of "History" was written in US English (I know because I wrote it, and I wrote it that way in keeping with the rest of the page).
   • "Design and construction" is in US English: note the use of the word gasoline, not petrol.
   • "Appearance and markings": note the word favor, not favour.
   • "Private ambulance companies": I don't see much that falls specifically into only one variant of the language, but I do see that perhaps half of the section is about US phenomena, and I see the mention of a Commercial driver's license, which according to the Wikipedia page is a US phenomenon (I gather that UK’s PCV license is somewhat equivalent, but the point remains that the US term is used).
   • "Military ambulances" has something of a split personality, using armor but armoured - if you look back through the history, however, you will see that the US spelling appeared in the article first.
   • What follows is the discussion of services in different countries - sections you quite appropriately removed and spun into their own pages. Looking at them nevertheless, I see that the US section (whose height takes up 2 and 1/2 screens on my monitor - almost twice as much as any other country’s) appears to be written in US English - I note the use of color rather than colour. France's section doesn't appear to use anything that isn't used by both variants of the language, though I admit that my knowledge of the intricacies of the differences has its limits. The section on the UK is written in UK English: I note the use of recognised rather than recognized. The section on Germany uses therefore, with the e at the end - I honestly don't remember which style this falls into, though I think it is US. Norway's section uses organizations, which I also take to be US spelling.
3. There appears to be some confusion regarding the type of English to be used on Wikipedia, so I cut and paste from Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ#General (you'll have to scroll down to section 3.10)

   • Should I use American English or British English? - People contribute to the English language Wikipedia in every possible variety and dialect of formal written English. The English language Wikipedia particularly welcomes contributions from editors whose first language is neither American English nor Commonwealth English. Still, it is generally good form to keep usage consistent within a given article. The official policy is to use British (AKA "Commonwealth") spelling when writing about British (or Commonwealth) topics, and American for topics relating to the United States. General topics can use any one of the variants, but should generally strive to be consistent within an article. See Wikipedia's Manual of Style for a more detailed explanation.

     (Emphasis is mine)
   • I also note:

     Disputes over style issues - In June 2005, the Arbitration Committee ruled that, when either of two styles is acceptable, it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change. For example, with respect to British spelling as opposed to American spelling, it would only be acceptable to change from American spelling to British spelling if the article concerned a British topic. Revert warring over optional styles is unacceptable; if the article uses colour rather than color, it would be wrong to switch simply to change styles, although editors should ensure that articles are internally consistent. If it has been stable in a given style, do not change it without some style-independent reason. If in doubt, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

     which you may find at Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Disputes over style issues The first major contribution was probably that made by User:Cdang in several edits between 19 August 2004 and 30 Septermber of the same year; Cdang added much of the section on French EMS, which as I have already said, is difficult to assign to any one type of English. The first moderately sized addition that chooses between UK and US English that I can find is User:Mathknight's addition of "Military ambulances" on 13 January 2005; Mathknight clearly and consistently uses armor, not armour.
4. Because of this, I have consistently used US English, as far as my understanding of it allows: I wrote the entire "History" section in US English, The work I did on "Design and construction" was written the same way, as was the work I did on “Appearance and markings,” (which you expanded on quite nicely, as I believe I commented at the time – as I look in more detail, though, I note that you overlooked the presence of colored in that section, not to mention the style of the bulk of the rest of the article, and used UK spellings in your additions. As this added a sizeable block to the article, this may be why you thought of the article as being largely UK English.)

If you look at the edits that I have done on the Ambulance article, I believe that you will find that, where I have changed between one style of English and another, I have done so only for consistancy, and generally only as I came across the discrepincies; I made the last series of edits upon first discovering that some sections had drifted, and later in determining that many of them had done so.

I also wish to point out that in your haste to attend to UK English, you undid User:GunnarRene's edit of 27 March, and my edit regarding civilian vehicles, which is necessary if the reference to Dean King's book is to be valid.

Finally, I must object to your statement that you wrote or rewrote 75% of the article. You have added about as much as I have, and I know that I haven’t written half of that article. I find your proposal otherwise to be highly insulting. Yours very sincerely, --Badger151 05:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Owain. I'm sorry it's taken me some time to get back to you. I gather that it is important to you that the ambulance page be written in UK English, in spite of the history of the page and the policies of Wikipedia. Your actions in following this desire have caused and will continue to cause me minor inconveniences, and I am left with something of the feeling that you hijacked the page in changing it over to UK English, but I will not engage in an edit war with you over this. There are some users who do take the versions of English very seriously, though (too seriously, in my opinion), so in the hopes of enabling you to avoid future difficulties, I hope you will allow me to offer some advice. Please do review the Wikipedia policies on the use of UK and US English. I think you will find them to be as I have described above, which is different than what you proposed on my talk page. Please also be careful to consider the entire page when determining which style of English it is in. Best,--Badger151 04:22, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Lustleigh edits

This is what you wrote on my Talk Page:
Thanks for your clean up on Lustleigh article, but i think a couple of your cuts were a little harsh. I've put a couple of them back in, because i think their removal got rid of some useful information and background. Being absolutely succinct is not always desirable! Thanks.

In reply to those comments I’ll talk about just two paragraphs.
EXAMPLE 1
You changed this paragraph (containing my edits):
The graveyard contains the remains of Lustleigh residents, although the graveyard is now full. With the exception of those with family plots, new burials take place at the graveyard on Mill Lane.
back to this:
The church graveyard contains the remains of former Lustleigh residents, although the graveyard is now full, and with the exception of those with family plots, new burials take place out at the new cemetery on Mill Lane.

Comment 1. The paras are headed The Church so ‘’’church’’’ graveyard is redundant so I removed the word “church” as any good editor would.
Comment 2. I don’t object to “former” going back in.
Comment 3. The word “new” was there twice in the final phrase which is regarded as bad writing. So I stand by 2 out of 3 of my edits in that para.

EXAMPLE 2:
You changed this paragraph (containing my edits):
The line grew in popularity from 1860 to the 1930s and thereafter went in to decline. This led to diffculties with finances and, despite a significant summer tourist trade, usage was not sufficient to cover costs. This coincided with the rise of the private motor car.
back to this:
The line grew in popularity from 1860 to the 1930s and thereafter went in to decline. This led to financial difficulties (with no initial business plan having been undertaken) and despite a significant summer tourist trade (and featuring in many contemporary guide books to the region), the local usage through the year was not sufficient to cover rising costs. This also co-incided with the rise of the private motor car, leading to a decline in passenger number, and the branch railway consequently saw a decline in fares.

So now that para is wrecked by wordiness, rambling and bad sentence construction. I could go on and on about your other reversions but I haven’t the time. I hope you can realise that your writing skills need polishing by someone else (which is what I was doing). Best Wishes - Adrian Pingstone 20:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Police Car

Hi Owain, thanks for asking for a new assessment for the police car article, however the article is already a B class, and higher ratings (Good Article Class is what you should aim for next) are handled here. Articles can't be rated as GA by the wikiproject alone.

The article is shaping up nicely though! Might I suggest some in-line citations/footnotes for references? Also perhaps move some of those pictures from the very top of the article and indsperse them amongst the main prose? Let me know if you have any questions about nominating an article for GA, there are instructions on the GA pages that hopefully will be clear enough :) thanks. SGGH 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

Greetings! Thanks for the contact. The Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom isn't too bad' in the wider scheme of things; it's mainly cosmetics and formatting that need addressing.

For example, it could do with an infobox pegged to the right outlining key data and statistics, the Ambulance Trusts of England need to be put into tabular format (say like as found here), the images are poor quality (I know this is sometimes difficult to amend), there is nothing on the history of the services, and most importantly, there are no references throughout the entire article.

I'd be inclined to help, given that this article is now linked via every settlement of the UK that has an infobox, but I'm afraid the topic is not one I'm familliar with.

Does that help at all? Jhamez84 14:03, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Newport infobox

Does anyone know how to edit the infobox? Ambulance services here are provided by Isle of Wight Primary Care Trust, not South Central Ambulance Service.Owain.davies 21:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I can't fathom it either. Presumably it's some kind of autogenerate setup - too clever for its own good. I've asked at Template talk:Infobox UK place. Tearlach 23:54, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Defibrillation

You're welcome. With regard to the medulla oblongata, I think it's an esoteric point in the context of a discussion about defibrillation. Yes, the sinus node is influenced by the autonomic nervous system, but I think you overstate the case when you say the sinus node is paced by the medulla oblongata. Just my opinion. I also have a comment about the manner in which your sandbox version defines defibrillation. I prefer this definition (and not because I wrote it but because I think it's correct and I can source it with an authoritative reference)

Defibrillation works by delivering a therapeutic dose of electrical current to the heart of the patient, thereby depolarizing a critical mass of the heart muscle, which terminates the life threatening arrhythmia, and allows a coordinated heart rhythm to return.

Generally speaking, 'stunning' the myocardium is not a good thing, and has ramifications beyond using electric current to depolarize the many isolated wavelets involved in VF. A 'stunned' myocardium may have wall motion abnormalities, for example. So the idea is to terminate the arrhythmia, with as little myocardial stunning as possible. As for ICD v. AICD, I know that AICD (automated implantable cardiac defibrillator) was first, and old habits die hard, but ICD (implantable cardioverter-defibrillator) is more descriptive of modern devices. In addition, the "Big 3" device makers (Medtronic, Guidant, and St. Jude Medical) all use the modern term ICD (even though the URL for Guidant ICDs contains the letters aicd). So AICD is somewhat of an anachronism. It's not a big deal, but that's the reason I prefer to use ICD. The trivia? Yeah, it's widespread on the Wikipedia. I just think the idea that everything has a use "in popular culture" is a strange way to look at the world! :) Best, MoodyGroove 21:05, 29 April 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Just noticed that you reverted the spam on AED, been there, done that. What is it about this article that attracts so much spam? Its not just one company either. Weird, huh? By the way (I saw the above comment), re: sinus node pacing/rate, the WP article, Electrical conduction system of the heart is really well-written and undertandable, even for non-professionals. I was an ICU nurse for 12 years and cardiac stuff is really cool. Perkinge fibers, bundle of His, etc. all made me wish I was a nineteenth century anatomist so I could have some obscure body part named after me! --killing sparrows ^(chirp!) 06:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Emergency

I see you are planning on replacing Emergency with an article. Just to let you know, I have been doing an admin coaching assignment on Emergency too, and just thought you could grab some more information out of mine to include in your final copy. You can find it at User:Extranet/Admin coaching/Assignments/Emergency (also posted on Emergency's talk page). Extranet ^talk 02:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Emerlight.gif

Hello, Owain.davies. An automated process has found and removed an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that was in your userspace. The image (Image:Emerlight.gif) was found at the following location: User:Owain.davies. This image or media was attempted to be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media was replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 03:08, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Abdominal thrusts and choking

Just a quick note to say that i have added my support to the merge!

Regards

Dep. Garcia ( Talk + | Help Desk | Complaints ) 17:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

You deserve this...

		The Barnstar of Life
		The barnstar of life is hereby awarded to Owain.davies for a particularly fine job of creating and editing the article emergency. The Transhumanist    20:03, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

How about taking it all the way?

You've done such a good job on emergency, I think it has the makings of a Featured article. If you are interested in improving the article to the Wikipedia's highest standards, please read Dweller, on Featured Article Candidates.

I look forward to watching you take this article all the way to the top. The next step is Wikipedia:Peer review. Good luck. The Transhumanist    22:45, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Hazard, Vulnerability, Risk and Disasters

Owain, I am basically OK with your edit of the intro to natural disasters. There is, however, still confusion of terminology between Hazards, Vulnerability and Risk. When you are writing about "the degree of potential loss" your are referring to the what the literature defines as Risk (see emergency management). For instance, an impact hazard on an uninhabited planet is not a disaster nor is an impact hazard a disaster if it can be counteracted before it develops into a disaster, by relocating the population at risk or by reducing the risk through the use of, for instance, technology. Consequently, the article should be renamed to Natural hazards as it deals with hazards and not disasters. I might be splitting hairs here, but it is relevant in order to achieve the encyclopedic tone that we are aiming for. --rxnd ( t | € | c ) 08:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Ironic?

Quoting your userbox, it says that you'll view extraneous apostrophe's with "extreme prejudice": so whats' this?

It is one of 13 Ambulance Trusts providing England with Emergency medical services, and is part of the National Health Service, receiving direct government funding for it's role.

You might have copied the same text a few times I believe. Poojean 19:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Choking

Doesn't look as though we're going to get this user to see sense. I've added merge tags to both articles, left a message on DXRAW's user talk and the wikiproject talk, and proposed on the abdo thrusts talk page that we leave it another week to see what happens. Hopefully that should keep everyone happy! --John24601 08:46, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Finally managed to get this done with some help from a friendly admin! We now need to work on getting the abdominal thrusts section in Choking up to scratch. --John24601 09:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Template:Med-stub

The image that you have added is called caduceus and is the symbol of trade, not medicine. The medical symbol is called Rod of Asclepius (only one snake). Please find a more suitable image. Until then, I'll revert to the Star of life. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Come on! This image is just too big (and unaesthetic). --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:38, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I've temporarily replaced it with a smaller and similar image (just nicer) till consensus is formed. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 16:47, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Preview

Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. Regarding your edit(s) to Ambulance, it is recommended that you use the preview button before you save; this helps you find any errors you have made, and prevents clogging up recent changes and the page history. If you're worried about losing your edits, do what I do. I copy the entire contents of the edit window to my clipboard just before I click preview (or save for that matter). Your edits the article are really good, by the way. Thanks for making Wikipedia better! —Elipongo (Talk|contribs) 19:25, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

AWP

While I don't disagree with the "How to" removal of large parts of the AWP article, I do disagree strongly with you deleting the cherry-picker article and replacing it with a redirect. Wikipedia is not paper - when a good subarticle exists, it should not be deleted just to be integrated into the general article. That would only apply for rather trivial subjects. Cheers. MadMaxDog 07:04, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Answered your comment on my page. Cheers.MadMaxDog 07:28, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance photo

I'm curious why you felt the need to remove my picture of an air ambulance (Image:Helimed5.jpg) and replace it with another that does not appear to add anything to the article or to be of superior quality to my photo. My pictures been on the Ambulance page for quite a while now and I rather liked it being there! Unless you can give me a good reason for replacing it, could you put it back please.scancoaches 14:53, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

No problem

I like to tidy up things. IPSOS (talk) 12:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

Thanks for the barnstar. It's my first. :-) IPSOS (talk) 17:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

You deserve it Owain.davies 21:19, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

British Association for Immediate Care

You recreated the article even before I had finished deleting it (the talk page was still there)! That was fast! :D I had to run some errands, so couldnt reply earlier, sorry about that.

Anyways, coming back to the article, even though it is in a much better shape now, it still does not assert notability, not at least the way it is expected here. As I already mentioned, it has to show multiple (at least two) instances of coverage by mainstream media (a non-blog, non-forum, non-wiki website or even magazine or newspaper will do). The BBC article is fine, a couple of more should get you on the safe side. Plus, it would be best if you can provide any claim to fame that distinguishes it from other similar organizations.

Apart from that, the article still reads like a promotional material for the organization. Sentences like "BASICS members are used to provide extra skills at the scene of major incidents, or for particularly difficult patients" and "The ambulance service trusts provides a high standard of care", appear to be vaunting and thus not neutral. These little details are what diminishes the quality of an article.

Since it does assert partial notability, and because it is under development, I am not slapping any ugly tags on the article. But it clearly needs a lot of work, I will be keeping an eye out. Feel free to contact me for any assistance you might require. All the best, both of you. --soum ^talk 17:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Queensland Ambulance and Australian EMS

I think I might do both as suggested. I could write an article on the Australian EMS in a day but it would take me a week to research the citations!

--Sunray Major 10:54, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Fire device image

I answered you on my talk page. – Quadell ^{(talk) (random)} 17:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Branston Pickle

Hi, I reverted your cut and paste move of Branston Pickle. Please see Wikipedia:How to rename (move) a page. Ask on my talk page if you need any help. Edward 16:52, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

No worries, fixed it. The important thing is to maintain the revision history. Edward 18:50, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Just out of curiosity, did you attend Chatham House Grammar School? Ryan(^talk/_contribs) 19:49, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Suman gol

What's wrong with it? I stated the source in the edit summary when I created the article, and I doubt you'll find anything better out there. Yaan 11:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

{{cleanup}} and {{citations missing}} are not meant for perfectly valid stubs about geographical features, which would be trivial to verify on a decent map. The only appropriate thing to add there would have been {{Mongolia-geo-stub}}, which I've just done. --Latebird 13:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Emergency tourniquet

Hi Owain,

I was looking through the archives of the emergency bleeding control article and it appears that you blanked the Emergency tourniquet article. I think that's probably the correct choice, since wikipedia should not be hosting howtos on tourniquet use, but do you think the content might be helpful somewhere else, like wikibooks? Just curious about what you think.

St.isaac 13:33, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that Emergency bleeding control is a better place to the put the articles -- in fact, I suggested it awhile ago on the first aid wikiproject. I'm looking over the removed content again, and its not really suitable for anything. Thanks!

St.isaac 16:38, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance page

Just had a look at the "Ambulance" page - very impressive. --Badger151 21:44, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I've been thinking about spinning off the history section into its own page, because you're quite correct: it's very big. What's stopped me has been the idea that it seems a peculiar subject for a page, but now that you've suggested it, I'm now thinking that it might not be too peculiar. Perhaps more importantly, I'm not sure what should be cut - the section (like most of the article) contains little that is extraneous. Perhaps the biggest difficulty would be in coming up with a condensed version to keep on the main Ambulance page. Thoughts?

Also, so far I've only been able to find safety data on US ambulances - if you happen to stumble across non-US info, and don't feel like adding it yourself, could you pass the web-site/article title/etc along to me? --Badger151 18:31, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Looking very quickly, I think the section on the EMS page looks good - but what really excites me is the short note you put at its top, directing the reader to the Hx of Ambulance Care on the Ambulance page. Perhaps that's the answer: a page on the history of Ambulance care, not just the ambulance itself, which would cover the history of both the ambulances and the care their crews provided. Of course, it's also almost 3am here, so this could just be sleep-deprived, blathering idiocy on my part; I'll have to look at it again tomorrow. --Badger151 06:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

FAR notifications

Hi, Owain.davies. Please follow instruction #6 at the top of WP:FAR, using {{subst:FARMessage|Gray Wolf}} to notify relevant parties and Projects. Please leave a note at the top of Wikipedia:Featured article review/Gray Wolf indicating parties notified; you can see examples at other articles at WP:FAR. Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Citations on Ambulance article

Hi - I'm a bit confused as to why you've changed over the citation format on the "Ambulance" article. I noticed this earlier; since both your format and the page's format appear the same to the reader, I said nothing - but then the retrieved date for citation #11, on bicycle ambulances, got lost when you converted it. What's going on? --Badger151 15:05, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Certainly that's a laudable goal, to have all of the citations in the same format. But what was wrong with the original format (the one whose template is still in the "References" section, if you click edit)? --Badger151 02:58, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hello, Owain. I see you haven't responded to my earlier question. I'm not sure how to interpret that. More importantly, though, I see that there continues to be a discrepancy between the instructions for leaving references on the Ambulance page and the citation format that you have chosen to change all of the references over to. I had hoped that, since I mentioned this in my last message to you, you would attend to this - it is, after all, a discrepancy that you have created - but in spite of your having made several contributions to Wikipedia over the last week, attending to this has not been one of them. I am not familiar with this new format, and don't think I can create as clear a set of instructions as you might have.

More generally, I am faced with a strong sensation of deja vu'. I am strongly reminded of your actions in changing the page over from one style of English to another: once again, in contradiction to Wikipedia policies, you have taken it upon yourself to make unnecessary changes to the format of an article. You have done so without consulting others on the talk page, and without even leaving notice that you have done so, which also makes your changes disruptive - editors used to working in the old style will continue to do so until your clandestine changes are brought to their attention.

Finally, I did not say this when you changed the article's style of English over, because I hoped we were dealing with an isolated incident: the product of being new and inexperienced in how Wikipedia works; but now that a pattern appears to be developing, I will add this personal note - your changes appear to display a blatant disregard for the work done by other editors, and to do so in a way that, though I can speak for no one but myself, I find to be insulting and discouraging. I have never been a daily, or even a weekly contributer to Wikipedia, but since these changes I have found Wikipedia to be less rewarding, and less of a community, and I am less inclined to contribute.

As I believe I said last time, I propose that in the future, you take great care to discuss changes of these types on the Talk page, so that other editors may have their say.

Yours sincerely, Badger151 20:18, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Green electricity in the United Kingdom

Hi Owain. Thanks for taking an interest in this topic; I understand your view that no energy is 'green'. The article is focused on electricity retailing, a market in which the term 'green electricity' is, however, very widely used. Much of the article content does talk about this incongruity. 'Renewable energy', on the other hand, is a much larger topic, covering other forms of energy, and including renewable energy production, government policy, etc., which would be out of place in a 'renewable electricity retailing' article. Consequently I've moved the article back and added some notes of explanation to the discussion page here. If you have further thoughts on the subject perhaps you could comment on the same page. Regards Gralo 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

MOS

Well, it was in no way apparent that birds were being excluded from the discussion. we were discussing animals (not birds), is a curious statement to me seeing as how birds are animals. Any rules made about animals in general would be applied to birds. That birds were discussed at lenghth without our input strongly suggested changes were to be made without seeking our opinions. As for personal attacks, well, when I'm sick in bed and am described as a couple of very opinionated people with no justification other than "that's how we serious people do it", a grammar-ignoring renegade and if I came out swinging a little strongly then I'm sorry but I resent the work I do being categorised that way and our poistions being categorised through strawmen and misrepresnetation (especially when we aren't invited to correct it). Sabine's Sunbird talk 20:18, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Care

Greetings,

Thank you for bringing some things to my attention. I have reduced much of the listing as you suggested, only placing rough categories instead.

I have also initiated a discussion regarding the merge on the EMS page.

Please continue to assess the quality of the EMC article, much appreciated. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Princeattractive (talk • contribs) 22:20, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:BITE

I'm not really too chuffed at being directed to WP:BITE. The user commented themselves that it was copied from an article, so that's a copyright violation, and can't stay. The main reason I don't like being directed to bite is because it's a rather sore point, as I feel I do quite a bit to help newbies. Take a look at the second barnstar on my userpage, for example. _TheIslander 09:33, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

"I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user if they are new or apparently new..."

Actually, I think it's good wikiquette to always give a reason for reversion to the user regardless of whether they're new or old. For that reason I did, though this seems to have escaped you completely (my comment above, which is now in bold?). "interesting, though if it's copied, it can't go here. Original work only (with references)" [2] means "No, you can't just say "copied from a defib article", as that violates WP:C". Further evidence to back up the fact that it was copied can be found in the form of this users submission to the defib article, which was identical. Another thing I didn't bother to mention was that it was written with a slight POV slant - suggesting that using an AED is bad full-stop, when in fact in the absence of a normal defib, it's priceless. Regardless, contrary to your comments, I reverted a) with good reason, and b) with good comments.

I also have to agree with MoodyGroove below: this comment is completely out of order. "...i'll tell them off for that in a minute" - 'scuse me? Who do you think you are? The most you can do is re-revert our reverts, with good reasoning, but beyond that, nothing. Please do not assume that you can "tell us off" unless you completely and fully understand our reasons for reverting, and they are undoubtably wrong! _TheIslander 22:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Defibrillation

I removed the edit to Defibrillation because it's wrong. Removing it isn't biting. It's improving the encyclopedia. The burden of evidence is on the editor who restores disputed content, not the editor who removes it. The {{fact}} tag should not be used to restore disputed content, and while I appreciate the work you did on the merge of defibrillation and defibrillator, you do not own the article. That's two of my edits you've reverted without discussion in 24 hours, and comments like this are a bit righteous. I'm 99% sure I know who User:67.161.99.124 is, and if I'm right, we've discussed this topic extensively in personal correspondence. This is a novel interpretation of the AHA/ILCOR guidelines and will not be substantiated by any references (with the exception of the part about the delay between stopping CPR and shocking reducing shock efficacy). Most of the research that has been critical of AEDs and the analysis period refers to the old practice of stack shocking, which resulted in unacceptable delays for little added benefit, especially considering the high first shock efficacy of modern biphasic defibrillators. It had nothing to do with the studies showing improved survival with 2 minutes of CPR prior to defib with down times > 4 minutes. MoodyGroove 12:04, 19 August 2007 (UTC)MoodyGroove

Mets/Choking

Aww, c'mon. Have a little fun. Couldn't you at least allow the Mets addition to remain until after the playoff race was over? The Mets are on the verge of the biggest choking incident in history--14 games this late in the season!! That's bigger than any chunk of sausage lodged in someone's airway. Don't worry, I won't toy with your prized entry any more. God forbid that I end up blacklisted from editing Wikipedia entries. Whatever would I do with my free time? Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.83.177.12 (talk) 21:15, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success of fire suppression in northern forests

Per your contributions to fire apparatus, please comment at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Success of fire suppression in northern forests. Thanks. -- Jreferee t/c 06:12, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

RDS and ambulances?

I continued the discussion on my talk page. Squidfryerchef 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Rod of Asclepius

Thank you for leaving a message on my talk page. I've left a comment on the talk page of the above article. --Pixelface (talk) 14:54, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

EMS

Agency specific references do not belong in this article. Book references are made according to the Chicago manual of style.Demantos (talk) 18:41, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME?!

HOW ACTUAL DARE YOU REFER TO MY WORK AS VANDALISM!

I AM ACTUALLY BEING DEADLY SERIOUS!

I AM REALLY VERY VERY ANNOYED BY THAT BECAUSE IT TOOK ME QUITE A WHILE TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO MAKE A PAGE REDIRECT AND THEN YOU JUST COME ALONG AND CALL IT VANDALISM!!!!!!!!

WELL PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME HOW REDIRECTING 'Chaz' TO 'Chatham House Grammar School' IS VANDALISM, CONSIDERING THAT IS THE ACTUAL COLLOQUIAL TERM THAT MOST PEOPLE KNOW THE SCHOOL BY, AND SINCE ONE OF BRITAINS PRIME MINISERS (EDWARD HEATH) WENT TO THE SCHOOL, I WOULD SAY THAT IT IS RATHER IMPORTANT! AND I DO ACTUALLY GO TO THE SCHOOL BY THE WAY SO I HAVE FIRST HAND REFERENCE!

IM SORRY THAT THIS MAY SOUND SO RUDE BUT I ACTUALLY PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THAT!

PLEASE DO NOT DELETE IT AGAIN...

thank you x —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

WELL...

since hardly anyone actually knows them by the terms 'chatham house grammar school' and 'clarendon house grammar school' anymore since like the 20th century, i thought it might be helpful for the MAJORITY of people who reffered to them by those names!

so thank you for trying to help wikipedia, but i am also trying to help here, and that is why i would like you to leave the terms there, which i must add i spent a lot of time researching how to do them!

p —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

!!!!!!

PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME WHERE EXACTLY I 'DELETED' ANYONE ELSE'S WORK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AND IF I DID IT WAS SHEERLY BY ACCIDENT!!!!!!!!!!!

AND I SSSSSTTTTTIIIILLLLL GO TO THE SCHOOL!!!!!!!! SO I THINK I WOULD REALLY KNOW MORE ABOUT IT THAN YOU! AND HOW EXACTLY AM I SUPPOSED TO 'PROVE' THAT THE COLLOQUIAL TERM IS 'CHAZ'... BY GOING UP TO PEOPLE IN THE STREET AND CONDUCTING A SURVEY OF WHAT IT IS MOST COMMONLY REFERRED TO?!

AND TO BE HONEST IF YOU HAVE GONE TO THE SCHOOL AND NEVER HEARD THE TERMS CHAZ AND CLAZ USED THEN EITHER YOU MUST BE VERY OLD, OR YOU MUST NOT BE VERY ATTENTIVE!

IM SORRY ABOUT THIS! BUT YOU ARE BEING TOTALLY UNREASONABLE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

well fine

leave the chaz there for the moment and i will actually search all available resources to see if ANY eligible stakeholder in the school uses this term.

after this, then what do i do with the evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

its unusual for short lived slang terms to be posted here?!

first, it is not short lived... as the refering to this has now spread to a numerous number of teachers... including Mr. Fergusson, a maths teacher at the school

and secondly, there is a WHOLE PAGE HERE ON 'lol'!

and you want to disallow an abbreviation to be redirected to its full page?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:32, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

and... putting more energy into the article?!

i was the one that actually created the whole 'clarendon house grammar school' page!

which i must add was my first page creation, and as such i found it very difficult... altho i hav struggled to put it all together, only to be told i must go and find records of Mr Matthews using the terminology written down on paper before i am allowed to make a very well informed edit.

well can the reference be from any pupil? or a pupil or authority? or does it have to be a teacher?!

and does it have to be written or just recorded that they have said it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 22:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Chatham House problems

I see there is a rather nasty edit war going on between you and User:Iamandrewrice. I can see that you are clearly on the right side of the debate - but both you and User:Iamandrewrice are breaking the 'three revert rule' (WP:3RR). In your case, this may simply be because you are unaware of the rule - I doubt Iamandrewrice would care. If you were to avoid breaking that rule - then asking one of the admins to put a block onto User:Iamandrewrice for breaking the rule would be reasonable. I'd be inclined to do so myself because this is an especially annoying person - but since you are also (currently) breaking the rule, that would likely get you in trouble too and I'd prefer that didn't happen. I'll paste a similar complaint on Iamandrewrice's talk page. Either way, the warring has to stop. SteveBaker (talk) 02:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

i cant believe you!

i thort you were actually trying to help me set up on wikipedia

but all you care about is aggreeing with your 'friend' Steve on slagging me off! well thanks so much for all your help!!!!!!!

i certainly know what kind of person you are! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamandrewrice (talk • contribs) 18:31, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

however

what i have a problem with is that 'Steve' has very overtly and blatently slagged me off and you took no apparent action to stop this! meaning that you are in exactly the same position as him!

and well im sorry i dont understand... if clarendon house grammar school is allowed to have a page even though i cant prove it just because you have personally heard of it, while the colliquial terming 'claz' which like the school itself, currently has no evidence for it, is deleted just because you havnt heard of it yourself?! are you saying therefore that you are only deleting things which you are not personally aware of? i thought that contradicts the whole point. Iamandrewrice (talk) 18:52, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

that is not the point i am making

i am saying that you in no way objected when 'Steve' went against the kind of behaviour that would be expected from a wikipedian, and slandered me, implying that i have no respect for the system's rules, and that i am an 'annoying person,' which is a personal attack and is CERTAINLY most not allowed on here. In not objectifying, and in face agreeing with him, you have therefore misused your position in much the same way as he has.

If this is the kind of treatment i am going to receive for attempting to add to wikipedia then do not expect 'kind' additions from me next time. And interpret that as you will, but either you use my skills to the sites prevalence, or on the contrary.

And I think you will find that you are in fact wrong... you and 'Steve' are not to decide whether a school or a colloquilistic term are more verifiable than one another without having solid 'evidence' of either of them. Therefore according to this rule, I would like you to delete the article I created on Clarendon House Grammar School, as I certainly do not support hypocracy, and i am not going to let one thing pass under the same rule that another thing, through personal discretion, is allowed not to.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 22:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

well thanks...

but regardless of that, I would like to make a formal complaint to a high wikipedian authority about 'Steve' Could you please explain how i am able to do this, or give me the link to a user that can help me.

thank you.

Iamandrewrice (talk) 11:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll give you the link myself: Wikipedia:Requests for administrator attention. You aren't going to like what happens when you complain though - they'll hand you back a longer ban almost for sure. A better place to take your outrage might be Wikipedia:Dispute resolution - but you might want to read the sage advice on that page before you start in on this. SteveBaker (talk) 15:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Replaceable fair use Image:Bronto lifts.jpg

Replaceable fair use

Thanks for uploading Image:Bronto lifts.jpg. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. |EPO| ^da: 18:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

fox hunting

Wow. You're fast. You beat me by a nose to kill the dumb Ireland edit. Just wanted to mention that I'm very impressed by the hard work you've put in cleaning up the foxhunting article and adding citations. The article was a messy POV war when I first read it about a year ago. It is becoming very solid and more resistant to mangling by either end of the POV spectrum. David A. Flory (talk) 07:51, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Image replacement

I fail to understand your replacement of my image of Rod of Asclepius. The SVG format is superior for simple forms and detail removed was unnecessary. Scienceman123 talk 01:55, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi there, sorry for not leaving a message, but there were two main reasons. One is aesthetics, where the svg version is clearly of inferior quality, with a blocky look, and looks much worse! This is informed by a lengthy discussion on the best snake to use at Wikiproject Medicine here. Hope this helps. Owain.davies (talk) 18:04, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Ambulance

Hi, Owain. I haven't been ignoring you, but because this came up after I entered my initial comments, I'd like to leave the review to others. There is still a lot of MOS cleanup needed; perhaps you can round up another editor who will help you go through the items I mentioned? Editors I know of who are good at that sort of work are Outriggr (talk · contribs), Colin (talk · contribs), Pagrashtak (talk · contribs) and Fvasconcellos (talk · contribs); I know they are all busy, so perhaps first you could post to WP:MED for help on the MOS cleanup? There are still incorrect dashes throughout, bolding that is not part of lists, and the article seems very listy to me; additional input from others is needed, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Meiji Period: Use of Japanese era name in identifying disastrous events

Would you consider making a contribution to an exchange of views at either of the following:

• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disaster management#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Japan#Renaming 1703 Genroku earthquake?

As you know, Wikipedia:WikiProject Disaster management came up with entirely reasonable guidelines for naming articles about earthquakes, fires, typhoons, etc. However, the <<year>><<place> <<event>> format leaves no opportunity for conventional nengō which have been used in Japan since the eighth century (701-1945) -- as in "the Great Fire of Meireki" (1657) or for "the Hōei eruption of Mount Fuji" (1707).

In a purely intellectual sense, I do look forward to discovering how this exchange of views will develop; but I also have an ulterior motive. I hope to learn something about how better to argue in favor of a non-standard exception to conventional, consensus-driven, and ordinarily helpful wiki-standards such as this one. In my view, there does need to be some modest variation in the conventional paradigms for historical terms which have evolved in non-Western cultures -- no less in Wikipedia than elsewhere. I'm persuaded that, at least in the context of Japanese history before the reign of Emperor Meiji (1868-1912), some non-standard variations seem essential; but I'm not sure how best to present my reasoning to those who don't already agree with me. I know these first steps are inevitably awkward; but there you have it.

The newly-created 1703 Genroku earthquake article pushed just the right buttons for me. Obviously, these are questions that I'd been pondering for some time; and this became a convenient opportunity to move forward in a process of building a new kind of evolving consensus. --Ooperhoofd (talk) 18:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Hello

Oh, thank you

Would it not be possible to find out if the Clarendon Website allowed us to use the image though? I know I'm new, but I thought there was something about if you get permission

Well thank you anyway

Pollypenhouse (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh ok, well i live near the school actually so I'll try do that Also, thank you for the adoption link. Is it free?

Pollypenhouse (talk) 11:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Is it free then? And oh... someone was quite mean to me on my page. Are they a vandal?

Pollypenhouse (talk) 12:05, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite sorry, I was just having a bad morning and just thought it was a bit silly that a user as inexperienced as myself was giving me advice, I shall apologise strait away. Listsvery (talk) 14:20, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

owain davies

something just struck my thoughts. You were one of the first people, if not the first, that 'Iamandrewrice' had links with, were you not? Therefore, according to your analysis of the fact that because I and Listsvery are online friends, that we must be sockpuppets, then surely you and 'Iamandrewrice' would be sockpuppets under the same rules? I am not saying that you are, I am simply pointing out to you how ridiculous this analysis is. And in addition to the point of which 'Iamandrewrice' having this early connection with you, surely you of all people will recognise his writing style, and recognise it not to be shared in common with that of mine? Pollypenhouse (talk) 12:32, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

As I said on the discussion, i'm not sure. The information you've posted makes it seem likely that you could be the same person (as per the duck test), but i lack the technical ability to check it. I never suggested that your conversation with the other user was evidence. Personally, if you contribute positively, it makes very little difference to me either way, so I hope the admins will sort it out for you. Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:26, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Owen Davis

My name's Owen Davis!!!! Very similar.....--Hammerandclaw (talk) 21:22, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Emergency Medical Technician

Thanks for the edit. A few of us are slowly/painfully trying to bring that page up to spec for a WikiMedicine reassessment. JPINFV (talk) 22:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Reply

In response to your comment left on my talk page, I did re-word the contribution somewhat, and sourced it properly as always. Please check more carefully before leaving such comments. Thanks. -AeronM (talk) 01:47, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Again, I must ask that you read the history before leaving erroneous comments on my talk page. You are incorrectly attributing text to me that I did not contribute. Also, the text I did contribute was reworded from the original, just as yours was, only your contribution has lost some of the original meaning. --AeronM (talk) 14:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

New WikiProject

A New WikiProject has been proposed as a sub-project of Medicine. Your opinion would be appreciated as you are listed as a "intrested User" on the Project page. Please take part in the discussion, located here. Exit2DOS2000^•T•C• 03:28, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

reference (authority) for HAZARD definition

Dear Owain,

Thank you very much for a lucid distinction between "hazard" and "event".

I am working with the Safety Department of a very large governmental organization and they interchange the two without regard.

You and I make sense. How can I force it down their thrats? What is the reference or authority behind your/our definition?

Tom Mason ThosMason@yahoo.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.225.82.236 (talk) 16:43, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Devonshire

Not that I'm bothered, but I think you'll find that there is such a place. It's officially called Devon (now), so I see no problem with your change (and it matches their ads). Thanks. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 14:37, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

It's pretty certain that it's never officially been called Devonshire, although there may have been some use of Defanscir some centuries ago. Modern usage is certainly 'incorrect', and even if it was ever called that, it has about as much modern relevance as 'Ye Olde Tea Shoppe" - just a twee tourist trick! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Tourniquets

Good afternoon. You edited my input on tourniquets. I believe that the goal of Wikipedia should be to provide the most accurate and up to date information....that is one of the reasons I contributed. I can assure that the info I submitted is accurate, it can be verified by the references I included. As far as mention of the CAT tourniquet, in an independent study by the US Army Institute of Surgical Research and the Committee on Tactical combat Casualty Care , the CAT TQ was the recommended prehospital tourniquet. That is why it is mentioned. This information can be potentially beneficial, as many people use Wikipedia as a reference. Please verify info before making changes. (INDNAM (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2008 (UTC))

Wikipedia is designed to be collaborative and neutral (see WP:N). Your edits read like advertisements for that one product. If there is a study, then it can be mentioned and appropriately cited, but the copy style needs to reflect a neutral point of view and not contain advertising. I am happy to help you will copy writing in the appropriate style if you would like. Regards OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:24, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

The CAT is the RECOMMENDED prehospital tourniquet.This is not advertisement this is accurate info to give people who may someday need this.I gave reference to two of several studies that exist to support this statement. This is not the opinion of myself or a company this is a neutral party attempting to find adjuncts that may save people's lives. It is one thing to remain neutral and another to give inaccurate information using neutrality as an excuse for being wrong. If there are certain names or sentences that you feel are too much like an advertisement than first assess if the information is truly that and then edit as needed but, you are editing the entire contribution and removing current medical fact and reverting it back to BAD information. Tourniquets do not necessarily mean limb loss. There have been cases where TQ's have been in place for hours without ischemic injury. That being said the CAT is mentioned because it is important that an appropiate tourniquet be used to greatly reduce the risk of injury and increase the effectiveness of the device. Please follow up on the references provided before you edit inaccurately. This is not an advertisement, this is, as I said before, accurate information supported by evidence based medicicne and case studies. What you have on there now is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by INDNAM (talk • contribs) 12:13, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

OK, I have had a chance to look at your latest edits in more details, and I have made some significant changes to it. The main reasons for me making changes are because you are pushing a single point of view, to the exclusion of others, which is not what Wikipedia is about. It is important to present all sides of any argument, and there are many good sources to show that tourniquets can be damaging to limbs. I appreciate the journal articles you've posted and i've looked at them, although they are all military. For this reason, I have written this specifically in the articles, with your citation. I've also made fixes in style, related to your placement of pictures, use of references etc., but they are fairly minor.

I think the important thing to remember is that people from all over the world and of many different opinions use Wikipedia and presenting only one view is not helpful. I hope you agree with the edits i've made, but feel free to contact me again and we can talk about how to work any other information in to the articles.

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:11, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry to say that once again the information you are putting in is WRONG. Even the reference you are citing to support the information on the tourniquet page is wrong. For example, you site an article out of Maine ( Ref.1) that states " a dressing should be placed directly over the wound and a belt or hankerchief fastened around it." Firstly most major hemorrhage comes from arterial damage or dissection, in this case it is common for the vessel to retract into the extremity. By placing a dressing directly over the wound and applying a belt or rag, it is not likely bleeding will be controlled. In addition it may prevent the provider from being able to tell whether or not bleeding continues. By cinching a constricting band on top of the wound, there is also potential for bleeding to continue inside the extremity above the site. Another study you reference from the Navy places the CAT tourniquet as being one of two tourniquets recommended (2006) since that time more studies have been done and place the CAT as the recommended prehospital tourniquet ( I included those studies in my refrences). In the See Also section you include a tourniquet test which has nothing to do with tourniquets. You state that a tourniquet may be useful in MAJOR limb trauma or when an artery is torn along its LENGTH. This is also incorrect a .22 caliber bullet creates a very small wound pattern but, is more than capable of injuring or severing an artery. If bleeding is not controlled in a short amount of time there is a high potential for death. This is an instance where a recommended tourniquet is an excellent prehospital option. A motorcyclist who has an open femur fracture which damages the femoral artery is in an extremly critical situation if bleeding is not quickly and efeectively controlled. This another example where a recommended prehospital tourniquet may be indicated.The studies I included are miltary based however penetrating injuries do not only occur in the military setting. Other than the study out of Maine (which has alot of inaccuracies) I did not see any other material to support limb loss in tourniquet use. I agree that using wire or some other exremely narrow constricting band may cause damage or be ineffective, which is why I keep refering to the CAT tourniquet.I included studies (and you refrenced them in your edit under military) that there was no relation found between morbidity and tourniquet use in the study conducted. Wikipedia is a global source of information. However hemorrhage in Iraq, Italy, UK, US, China wherever is for the most part the same. If we dont stop bleeding we die. The information I contributed is correct. It is not one sided it is factual, evidence based, supported medicine. The studies I reference are the latest (2008) not outdated information or dogma. Please stop from editing the tourniquet page with information that is not only wrong but can potentially be dangerous.

Best regards {INDNAM (talk) 14:53, 17 August 2008 (UTC)}

Owain,

Once again you have undone my contribution. Unfortunately you keep reverting to a contribution that is wrong. 

As I stated above the information you keep reverting to is wrong and has several inaccuracies. If there is a problem with the formatting then lets fix the format but, lets not replace accurate, evidence based information with information that is incorrect. I have provided independent studies, I have given the source of the picture included, I have pointed out the material in the reverted article that is incorrect. Please stop editing the tourniquet page's content. The info you are providing, as I said above, is inaccurate. Many of the references you site are from 2006 or prior. There is much more up to date information available. However even in the 2006 studies the CAT tourniquet is indicated for prehospital use. The information is NPOV. I have included INDEPENDENT studies to support this. It is stated as the recommended prehospital tourniquet. Any assistance with the formatting would be greatly appreciated.

Best regards {INDNAM —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:49, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi Indam, I have undone your contribution, but i would contest that the version i reverted to is wrong - in fact it seems both factually accurate and well sourced. I have included your reference and facts in the contested paragraph, in the correct style. You keep removing information about tourniquets being a last resort in civilian applications where most countries don't teach it at all, and all those that do treat it as a last resort - i know you mentioned in one edit about good samaritan laws, but these would not cover anyone who hadn't been trained in trauma use in most jurisdictions. You also remove information about tourniquets causing tissue death below the constriction, which is true and sourced. I have read the study you've inserted (and its cited in the very next paragraph!) and this has a limited application as it is based on military use by people trained to apply them, followed by quick CASEVAC and expert treatment by trauma surgeons experienced in tourniquets - this does not translate automatically to the civilian environment. And lastly on this, in the study you've given, the CAT tourniquet is NOT preferred, and an alternative type/brand is!

Would you agree that:

(1) Tourniquets can cause limb damage or death is used wrongly or for too long?

(2) The current version accurately reflects the journal you've cited - albeit with the possibility of expansion?

Format wise - your picture is almost certain to be deleted, as it appears to be a catalogue shot, and therefore not free use. As for the reference, if you look at the current version, have a look at how i've used it in the current version, which makes it appear correctly in the article.

Hope this helps, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:22, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Hi, INDNAM asked for my help at User talk:Delldot#Tourniquet. I've made several suggestions to them, but I thought I'd let you know so you could weigh in if you like. Peace, delldot talk 02:39, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Ali Marchant

Hi, I hate to bother you, but do you have any references to prove this person is notable? Bearian (talk) 19:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey request

Hi, Owain I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.

Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!

The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions. Thank You, BCproject (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Duly replied. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:31, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

CCR

Replied on my talk page.

Vengeance is mine, saith the Prime ♥ 16:38, 2 Aug 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the hard work

		The Medicine Barnstar
		For your hard work improving the quality of EMS and fire-related aritcles, I hereby award you this medicine barnstar. Thanks also for taking time to work with and provide guidance to new users while ensuring quality content. delldot talk 19:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Oxford Wikimania 2010 and Wikimedia UK v2.0 Notice

Hi,

As a regularly contributing UK Wikipedian, we were wondering if you wanted to contribute to the Oxford bid to host the 2010 Wikimania conference. Please see here for details of how to get involved, we need all the help we can get if we are to put in a compelling bid.

We are also in the process of forming a new UK Wikimedia chapter to replace the soon to be folded old one. If you are interested in helping shape our plans, showing your support or becoming a future member or board member, please head over to the Wikimedia UK v2.0 page and let us know. We plan on holding an election in the next month to find the initial board, who will oversee the process of founding the company and accepting membership applications. They will then call an AGM to formally elect a new board who after obtaining charitable status will start the fund raising, promotion and active support for the UK Wikimedian community for which the chapter is being founded.

You may also wish to attend the next London meet-up at which both of these issues will be discussed. If you can't attend this meetup, you may want to watch Wikipedia:Meetup, for updates on future meets.

We look forward to hearing from you soon, and we send our apologies for this automated intrusion onto your talk page!

Addbot (talk) 23:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom

Hi there! You've just re-edited some information that I had just organised on the Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom page. Those of us on the EMS Task Force are attempting to provide a standardized format for all of the country pages flowing from the main Emergency Medical Service page, including both EMS pages and also Paramedic pages by country. We're attempting to alter the format in order to make the information more accessible and easy to find, to create some consistency and raise the standard for the areas under the Task Force, without damaging the content. If you have a look at "Emergency medical service in Canada" and "Emergency medical service in France", you'll see what I mean. The other pages aren't done yet, but are being worked on. Could you please undo your changes and return the format to the way that it was found? Thanks a million! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment, but i'm afraid the new format you introduced is not in line with several wikipedia standards in terms of hierarchy structure. The single =Title= should not be used, and by structuring it in the way you did, lost the cadence of how the information related together. For instance, the targeting of ambulance services relates only to the NHS trusts, not to private or voluntary services. Similarly, the repetition of Wikilinks (and the creation of a link farm) is well outside of wikipedia best practice. I have already contributed to the task force, but wasn't aware of the new project. I'll take a look, and see what I can add to the main thrust of work. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:55, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Shock

Okay. I don't object to leave shock (psychological) at acute stress reaction. —Lowellian (reply) 21:47, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Paramedic

Owain, thanks for the catch on the Paramedic page in the History section. Not only didn't the change read well, it was factually inaccurate. Both the Miami and Seattle based research projects operated WITHIN the fire departments, NOT with private ambulance companies, as the editor was suggesting. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 10:23, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Is that what he meant? I couldn't even get the sense of what he was trying to say, i just took the easy justification for reverting! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:28, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Strangely enough, that's how it reads! By the way, Owain, I'd like to ask you for a favour. If you have a look at the various EMS by country articles, you will see that I've been busy, and that I've been getting quite a bit better at following the MoS! (Practice makes perfect!) There are two things that you can help with, if you have the time. The first, is that I would appreciate your opinion on the new format, which I think makes infomation much easier to find, and much easier for a student or other researcher to compare, and I think this time I've managed to get it all down within Wikipedia standards, and managed to get everything evaluated at a 'B' level, instead of the 'stubs' that were there before. Let me know what you think. Also, the article on the UK is the last of the existing articles in this series that has not been done. I've been setting it aside and hoping to speak to you about it. I may be wrong, but when you look at the existing article, it is really mostly just lists and links. I would like to get this article transitioned to the new format and reevaluated upward from its' existing 'stub' classification. Either I can do it (and I have the time) or you can do it. Whoever does it, my thought is that the other would assist where possible, and that the intent would be to bring it stylistically in line with the other EMS by country articles. I know that you work in the British system, and I am not exactly ignorant of it (went to Grad School at UHerts), so between us, I feel that we could turn it into something amazing! Please let me know your thoughts on the subject. Cheers! Emrgmgmtca (talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Fox Hunting

Hello, please do not just undo without a discussion. Lets try and be fair and balanced here. It would seem that what you are removing is making the article disturbingly pro-hunting and not balanced at all. I am trying to put a moderated point of view to counter the apparent bias. Lets start from there shall we please? Captainclegg (talk) 19:10, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

The discussion is already on your talk page. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:11, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of fox hunting, but unrelated, this edit summary pretty much has my reasoning - deer stalking isn't a separate page anymore, I was tidying the redirects. It's not really an undo, it's basically a replacement of "stalking" with "hunting". WLU (t) (c) ^{(rules - simple rules)} 18:30, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

Gift Baskets

Gift Baskets; before db-tagging, please check other spellings. May be it is nlot nonsense after all. `'Míkka>t 07:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

You might find this fun

Hey Owain, There is a high school student who did an upgrade of Banker Horse for a class project, collaborating with other wikipedia editors (like me). It is now listed at Peer review and because apparently the entire class flooded PR with about 20 simultaneous requests, they asked if WikiProject Equine would help review this particular article. Myself, and some of the other most active horse article editors helped a bit so are sort of COI on doing a neutral review, so I'm asking some of the other horse article editors if they'd like to take a look-see at the article and comment at the peer review page. This was a great kid to work with and a neat thing for a school to do as an assignment. So if you can help out, Thanks in advance! Montanabw^(talk) 20:14, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

ABC

Owain, this has come along famously! Let me know when you think you're done, and I have a copyeditor waiting to give the article the once over. You've added a whole dimension to this article, and it just shows how well collaboration can work! Cheers!Emrgmgmtca (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! I'm quite pleased at how the article is shaping up. I just need to find a few more references! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:12, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

Your work on this has been terrific. I've just added five references to the one section that didn't have any! I've asked our resident copyeditor, Chaoticfluffy, (who happens to be not only a fine copyeditor, but also an American EMT, to do a thorough copyedit on the article. If all works out, we may be able to nominate for GA review early in the New Year. In the meantime, Sir...Happy Christmas to you and yours, and have a wonderful holiday season! Regards...Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

Greetings from WikiProject Medicine!

Welcome to WikiProject Medicine!

I noticed you recently added yourself to our Participants' list, and I wanted to welcome you to our project. Our goal is to facilitate collaboration on medicine-related articles, and everyone is welcome to join (regardless of medical qualifications!). Here are some suggested activities:

• Read our Manual of Style for medical articles and guide to Reliable medical sources
• Join in editing our collaboration of the week (the current one is Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease)
• Discuss with other members in the doctor's mess
• Have a look at some related WikiProjects
• Have a look at the collaboration dashboard

If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask at the project talk page, or feel free to ask me on my talk page.

Again, welcome!  --Steven Fruitsmaak (Reply) 14:58, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

File:Single battenburg.jpg listed for deletion

An image or media file that you uploaded or altered, File:Single battenburg.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 00:41, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

response

I apologize, I was out of line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ronmedicine (talk • contribs) 20:51, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Hi Owain (or should it be bore da?) The above editor has been uploading masses of copyright images from the Los Angeles County Lifeguards website, and I've deleted most of the article itself since it virtually all copied from that "all rights reserved" site. Could you please take a look and let me know (or just change the text) if what I've left doesn't make sense or has other problems? I'll protect the page if necessary, but I'll let it go for a couple of days to see if this guy will play by the rules, thanks jimfbleak (talk) 15:53, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

re: First Aid Kit Edits

I appreciate your constructive feedback, most of which I agree with. However regarding the space blanket issue, I beg to differ. I do take issue with these because I take issue with false information. I worked on an ambulence crew for years, am certified as a wilderness first responder, and studied survival extensively.

While mylar blankets are somewhat useful as a lightweight, compact, barrier to rain and wind for a survival kit, they have no use in a first aid kit(despite their common inclusion in them). They have no insulative value, and only 5% of body heat loss is radiant, in other words they do not make patients any warmer. In the sheltered environment of a residential building, ambulance, or hospital they are useless, and if a patient is lying outside somewhere they will lose a lot of heat to the ground and the air, and the blanket will only reduce convective heat loss(If a patient cannot be moved to the ambulance quickly then they will need actual insulation, as in real blankets, to reduce heat loss). They are included in commercial first aid kits for the simple reason that they are cheap. Likewise some ambulance agencies may like them becuase they are cheap, disposable, and look modern.

Regardless this is an artical about First Aid Kits, not ambulance equipment or survival kits, and I feel that the goal of wikipedia is to share facts, not myths or rumors. And while wikipedia is not exactly a how-to guide, I feel that an artical on First aid kits should include practical information on what should be included in first aid kits and for what purposes.

I'm going to delete the space blanked again in a seperate edit, but if you feel strongly that it should be included you can revert it and I'l let it be. Outdoorvegan (talk) 17:48, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force is looking for editors to help build and maintain comprehensive, informative, balanced articles related to Cardiology on Wikipedia. Start by adding your name to the list of participants at Cardiology task force Participants. ECG Unit (Welcome!)

-- MifterBot I ^{(Talk • Contribs • Owner)} 21:07, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

T.F.AlHammouri (talk) 08:36, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:SPlogo.gif)

⚠

Thanks for uploading Image:SPlogo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk) 05:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Copy + Paste Moves

I don't want to template a regular, but unfortunately I'm too tired to re-write what has already been written well, so I'll point you in the direction of this template regarding copy and paste moves. Also, please discuss this (ill conceived, in my opinion) move over at the Entonox talk page - a move to such an unwieldy title should never have been made without consent. Thanks, _TalkIslander 23:09, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

emergency service

Hi, thanks for taking the time to respond to my comments, it's appreciated. The Coast Guard v coastguard thing was getting a little undue prominence on the talk page so I thought I'd express a view with the example of HMCG. As for other and secondary, the IP user was getting very het up about it! Anyway, I think the article could use a little touch up. Perhaps it should be divided into sections by country or specific reference given that certain services are country specific- such as the National Guard, which is very specific to the US and it certainly needs more global examples if it is to represent emergency services across the world, rather than those specific to the UK and US. Gendarmerie (such as those in France and Italy) might be worth a mention, though they fulfil a very similar role to the police most of the time, and what about air ambulances? I believe I'm right in saying all air ambulances in the UK are privately or charitably run and are not part of ambulance services. Finally, it lacks citations so no-one can verify the information, this makes it look shabby and unreliable- though most of the info seems factually accurate- and it makes it useless as a research tool which, after all, is kind of the point of putting it there in the first place! I'll copy the middle paragraph onto the talk page of the article so that my suggestions are visible to anyone with an interest in the article. Meanwhile, I'll add it to my watchlist and see if I can't tidy it up a little and add in some references. Let me know via my talk page if I can be of any assistance- I'd like to help since I have some knowledge and interest of the subject. Kind regards, HJ Mitchell (talk) 15:26, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Devon Air Ambulance

I see you're a member of the EMS task force and this article seems within its scope, so I wondered if you might lend some pointers and advice- I'm in the process of basically re- writing the article, though I must admit I'm struggling a little to find reliable third party sources. Thanks, HJ Mitchell (talk) 12:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks for your help here! It's looking a lot more organised. It seems to have been abandoned by the original author and was in a bit of a sorry state so it's good to have someone else look at it. Thanks for your help- if you'd consider keeping an eye on it for the next few days and contributing where you feel you can, it would be appreciated. I'll remove the {underconstruction} tag when I'm done. HJ Mitchell (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

No problems. I'll add some more stuff if i can help. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:00, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Entonox

I've replied over on the Entonox talk page - sorry for the delay, I've been awol for the past few days... _TalkIslander 16:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Owain.davies. You have new messages at Verbal's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Verbal chat 10:39, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(ping) I added a bit. Verbal chat 10:52, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

There was already a case filed against two of the accounts, yet I've found more and added here: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Dr._Tariq_Nayfeh. Oh I left off the one you asked me about... Verbal chat 11:18, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Surrey and Sussex Air Ambulance

Hi Owain. Whilst starting an article on Maidstone Hospital (far from complete!), I noticed that there was no article on the Kent Air Ambulance, so I've done a bit of research and written an article on it. However given that it's the sister operation of the Surrey and Sussex air ambulance, there's obviously a huge amount of overlap with your article. At first I thought about publishing my Kent article and then a separate Kent Air Ambulance Trust article linking down to the articles on the two different areas of operation, but on further consideration, a top level article that's about three lines long and little more than a bridge to the other articles which are inevitably going to be pretty similar seems messy and pointless. I propose one article entitled Kent Air Ambulance Trust with a bit of detail on the trust and then sections on the KAA and the SSAA operations with any searches for the KAA and SSAA redirected into the new "parent" article. A copy of my provisional KAA article is currently on my user page. Would love to hear your opinion and hope to work on this together in future (I have no clue as to how to go about combining and deleting existing articles so will need help!) Danno uk (talk) 19:53, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I think that in this case we would be better with separate articles for the two, simply because they operate different helicopters, and use separate trading names. I'm happy to help create a Kent air ambulance page, and it is in fact on my list of things to do, but certainly for the time being, I think we should keep them separate. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:59, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I have to disagree as I think that the overlaps are too great and so a recommendation to combine the two articles (by a third party editor) is fairly inevitable, but as the creator of the original article, I abide by your view. I will create separate KAA and KAAT articles linking to yours. By the way, your start up date for the service is erroneous. If you check your notes, the fund-raising began in 2005 but the service was not operational until 2007. Danno uk (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your input to the KAA article, greatly appreciated.Danno uk (talk) 19:59, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem at all. Now that they are developing, i think it shows that the two services do warrant articles of their own, especially with detail around the Kent air crash etc. Thanks OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 21:15, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:Gsr logo.gif)

Thanks for uploading File:Gsr logo.gif. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:30, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Gas Safe Register

Ok what happened here was that I saw a red link on the CORGI page for Gas Safe Register and created the page with fresh content, there was no copy and pate from your content, I have only recently found your version. Also as I understand it the capitalisation of the page I created is correct since it is the name of an organisation, pages such as Child Support Agency have all capitals as does United Nations and Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency showing a clear precedent for this. Fraggle81 (talk) 21:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

copied & replied on your talk. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:11, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Star of Life

I've replied to your reply over at talk:ambulance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Frmatt (talk • contribs) 04:40, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

---

MD 902 Helicopter

In response to your your message and a brief look at the MD 902 Wikipedia page and a telephone call to a 902 pilot the i know i have a few items to put to you.

1. The aircraft has a regular cruise speed of between 125 to 130 knots - which if you convert the lower on of the speed range of 125 (knots) times 1.15 (mph) gives you a cruise speed of 143 mph which is slower than the 150 indicated in the article.

2. The VNE is listed at 140 knots which i, as an rotary aircraft engineer know that from flying in helicopters for 20 years is the top speed of that type of helicopter and it physically cannot go any faster - unless the blades came off and it turned into a projectile!

3. The cruise speed of the helicopter is not 139 knots as a regular cruise speed like that instead of the 125 to 130 range consideably raises the fuel burn between the two engines and due to the natural vibrations of the aircraft causes premature wear of many moving parts - main rotor pitch links or airframe cracking etc. so a safe, smooth economical cruise is used.

4. Most 902's have apendages adding drag with items such as FLIR turrets, Skyshout systems and external steps and these item on Police and Air Ambulances slow the aircraft down by a good few knots.

Regards

11:02, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Additional!

Your Sussex air ambulance article states the the aircraft can cruise at "Nearly" 150 mph - more of a correct statement???

Replied on your talk page for consistency. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:13, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

The two articles that you have written on the 902 contradict one another on cruise speed - so you need to pick one statement and make them both the same!

Regards

msa1701 (talk) 17:17, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Polack

I now could find Polack in Wiktionary. It was not there yesterday.

My question to you: "Is it somehow possible to make a reference to the Wiktionary article in English Wikipedia?"

Thank you, --Jazzeur (talk) 17:15, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes it is - you can make redirects and links (see Help:Interwiki linking for more information), or use one of the templates at Wikipedia:Template messages/Sister projects for a directive link. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi there,

you sent a reverted entry notice to me on Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom. But i forgot to sent you this info on St Andrew's Ambulance —Preceding unsigned comment added by Josh477 (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

ambulance lift image

Hi Owain.

Im new to this, I appoligise if this information is avalible else where. I am part of a group of paramedics looking at the redesign of the ambulances that we use in New Zealand. I was wondering were you sourced the image for the tail lift on the ambulance page. I have not seen this type of lift before and would like to find out more information about it.

Many thanksFrank.den (talk) 01:36, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frank,

No problem at all. The photos are my own work, and are taken at the back of one of our front line ambulances. The lift is made by a company called Ricon ([3]) and folds out from the back of the vehicle. The main advantage is that this ramp is very light, meaning we can keep the vehicle gross weight down, and therefore run it on a car licence in the UK (rather than requiring a light lorry licence). It is also quite quick to deploy and stow. THe main disadvantage is that you can't close the doors when the ramp is deployed, so when you unload the cot, you have to choose whether to stow the ramp again and close the doors (to keep heat or cold in, or rain out, for instance) or leave them open.

Hope that helps! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 05:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Lustleigh

Hi Owain,

You've done a terrific job on the Lustleigh page - I really couldn't fault any of what was there when I stumbled upon it. It's a village I used to know very well, where I spent some of the most important parts of my youth, so it's very close to my heart too - and what a terrific place to get married! You couldn't have picked a better setting.

You removed the following addition I made from the article:

'Since the early 1970s, a group of campers, originally associated with the visiting Exeter University Staff Cricket Team known as "the Erratics", has spent two to three weeks in the village annually, usually in July. The campers are now into their third generation, and the association with cricket is now more tenuous, and they are known for their ingenious devices using intermediate technology: showers rigged up in trees, dynamo-powered music systems and elaborate constructions made from fallen tree branches. Originally camping in the field between the cricket field and the main road into the village, they are now based on the other side of that road, further from public view.'

And you also said:

'I have several issues to be addressed here, firstly whether this is encyclopaedic at all, or whether this one group would be getting undue weight. Secondly, it would require citations as per WP:V and WP:CITE, as otherwise we cannot verify the statement. Lastly, if these things exist, would this be better at Exeter University than here? Any thoughts?'

Is it encyclopaedic? I suppose it depends on the judgement of when something turns from "occurrence" to "tradition". One could argue that in a village of just 600-700 people, the annual influx of a group of up to 30 people for a couple of weeks is a significant event, if it has happened annually for over 35 years (I love the way the May Queen title holder list is kept bang up to date - another example of an annual event!) You refer to "this one group" but I wonder if there is any other comparable temporary migrant group, of campers or otherwise, who has had comparable impact on the village - socially or economically; I'd be surprised if there was. They are now an established, if temporary, part of the Lustleigh scenery. Their tents even used to appear on the google maps pictures of the village! And I don't think there's a recognised campsite for "tourists" within 3 miles of the village - at least that's the nearest I can find from a bit of basic search engine-based research about the place - and that's something else that makes their persistent presence in the village rather noteworthy.

As for verifiability, I suppose any record of their impact has to appear somewhere first, and then be cited in future articles. Is it not possible, or acceptable, for Wikipedia to be the first such place? Could it be verified by a word with the staff of the dairy, or of the Cleave?

I think that although the annual visit of the staff cricket club of Exeter University was the impetus to this "tradition", the University itself is not sufficiently connected with the continuing tradition in Lustleigh to be the right place for this paragraph. That said, a note on the camping exploits would be an excellent sideline to explore in a wikipedia article on the Erratics Cricket Club, who have been going for over 75 years and truly deserve a page of their own - alas, I am not the person to write it! Perhaps until such a page exists, a redacted version of my text would be acceptable?

(Hanoidan (talk) 06:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC))

Ambulance

I think I've fixed everything from the GA review, and have sent it to Peer Review in the hopes of moving it up to Featured Article status...wanna help? Frmatt (talk) 01:38, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

AHA Page

I believe that while the information posted is about a U.S. initiative, the CPR subject matter is internationally relevant. Is there a middle ground that we can reach to include some information about the initiative? (Amerheartassoc (talk) 01:33, 12 December 2009 (UTC))

Cardiac arrest

Please see the talk page and read the changes. Happy to discuss things. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:57, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Office actions

WP:OFFICE actions, such as the one you reverted, are not to be reversed by editors, even if you believe they're wrong. -- Pakaran 17:06, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

DMCA Takedown of copyrighted table at Advanced Medical Priority Dispatch System

Hi Owain:

You should be advised that editors are not permitted to restore materials subject to DMCA takedown by official representatives (i.e. staff and board) of the Wikimedia Foundation. The only method of restoring DMCA takedowns is by issuing a counter-notice or Put-Back to the Foundation. Wikipedia has a good article on this here, although you may want to consult external sources in order to best assure that you do it correctly. Bastique ^demandez 17:09, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there,

thanks for that. This is a policy I was unaware of, and no real explanation was given when it was taken down (i would have normally expected to see something on the talk page, for instance). I'm still not sure I entirely understand what has happened, or how to correct it. Maybe you could give some guidance.

The information as written was taken from the UK Government publication listed as the source. Now, i'm not a copyright expert, but this is surely outside the remit of a US entity? The article you linked to (with thanks) also only covers recourse if you are American. Which I am not.

Based on that information, do you have any ideas on how to proceed?

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:31, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The only way to restore information taken down by a DMCA notice is by issuing a DMCA counter-notice, regardless of your assessment of the notice's veracity. That is the way the Digital Millennium Copyright Act works. Bastique ^demandez 17:49, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Owain, you wrote on Mike Godwin's talk page that the info was taken from a UK governmental web site and therefore was in the public domain. Please note that UK governmental material is not automatically in the public domain; it is subject to Crown Copyright. Which they state in fact at the very bottom of the pages you gave as the source.[4][5] This "government works are PD" thing applies only to the U.S. federal government. (Not even to U.S. state governments...) HTH, Lupo 08:51, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi there, i appreciate the difference in publication standards, but the linked items are published by HMSO (or subsequently OPSI), and whilst they retain copyright, I believe that you can still use them as cited sources, as you would with any other published material in the UK. Happy to be corrected, but i think that is the case? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:55, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

By "use as cite sources" you mean "reproducing literally"? You don't reproduce in full other published materials, do you? That kind of quoting only works for short passages, with clear source attribution. For instance, The UK Department of Health writes: «Over seven million calls are made to the ambulance service by dialling 999 each year for medical assistance. Not all these calls require an immediate blue lights and sirens, emergency response, in fact it is suggested that around only 10% of patients have a life-threatening emergency.»<ref name="UK_DH">UK Department of Health: ''[http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Emergencycare/DH_4136003 Ambulance Services]'', 22 September 2009. URL last accessed 2010-01-15.</ref>

But this kind of literal quoting doesn't work for reproducing a whole document. The copyright law allows this only for short excerpts. See also WP:QUOTE: quoting is a kind of "fair use"; in the UK Copyright Act, it's called "fair dealing". As the moniker implies, quoting must be "fair"; the quote must be limited to the minimum required by context, and must not make up a substantial part of the whole original.

Alternatively you can paraphrase or describe what they say, and mention them as the source of the statement. Such as In the UK, over seven million emergency calls are made each year, of which roughly one tenth concern life-threatening emergencies.<ref name="UK_DH">UK Department of Health: ''[http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/Healthcare/Emergencycare/DH_4136003 Ambulance Services]'', 22 September 2009. URL last accessed 2010-01-15.</ref>

But of course, neither is exactly possible for this whole table. So I'm afraid this table cannot be reproduced here. Besides, that doesn't make much sense anyway, as it seems to be subject to annual review and thus may change. If and when it does, we'd then present outdated information anyway. Better just state that in the UK, such a classification table exists, and then link to it. Lupo 09:34, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Dressage & Rolkur

Owain, thanks for your work on Rollkur. Feel free to do more. I think the article was originally written by a proponent, I tried to add the negative stuff, carefully, a while back but if you want to continue to refine it, please do! And thanks. Montanabw^(talk) 00:25, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I do intend on trying to improve it further until i can take those section reference tags off, but it may take some time as unbiased material on it isn't particularly easy to find. If you know of any good sources i'd be glad of the help OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

In my weird world of what I think is a cool Xmas gift, I got Tug of War: Classical Versus "Modern" Dressage by Gerg Heuschmann, which is an entire book, written by a German vet, that blasts rollkur and related hyperflexion methodology. Not NPOV, but quite credible, and when you are talking an issue like this, it's probably comparable to something out there like soring of Tennessee Walking Horses, wherein there is an apologist's school, but they are losing credibility and heading rapidly towards fringe status. I suppose maybe a less controversial example would be use of medications on racehorses. But anyway, upon request, I can probably find you citations from there for anything related to technique and health that you can't find elsewhere. Hope this will help. Montanabw^(talk) 22:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Treorchy RFC

I will be requesting to move the article back to its original title; clubs are not referenced by the full name, RFC is fine. Otherwise you should start with moving Manchester United F.C. FruitMonkey (talk) 23:16, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

British Horse Driving Trials Association

This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of British Horse Driving Trials Association, and it appears to be a substantial copy of http://www.horsedrivingtrials.co.uk. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.)

This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot (talk) 16:32, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Cd ireland.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Cd ireland.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 00:31, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Caduceus/Rod of Asclepius

Hi Owain! I'm thinking about putting together a complete treatment of the Caduceus/Rod of Asclepius issue as a separate article. You're clearly interested in the issue, and you've created more articles than I by far. I wanted to ask your thoughts on this... I'm motivated to do so because comments on both the main pages for those subjects (as you know) often reflect the assumption that there is an academic debate and multiple points of view. In fact, I've found no such academic debate, and the putative POV that the Caduceus is a symbol of medicine seems to be long-dead. That said, it is a de facto symbol of medicine. I imagine that one way to approach this would be to put together an exhaustive exploration of all attested views. Once such an article is alive and well (assuming it isn't nominated for deletion) the gathered material could be the basis for summary paragraphs on both main article pages, and we could place a "See Also" link. This would help to deal with the redundancy and provide a much more complete overview of attested and citable discussion. What do you think? --Picatrix (talk) 12:12, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I have to say that this thought had also occured to me. I think we clearly have enough sources to meet the WP:V and WP:NOTE criteria for this as its own article, and it fits the policy of creating daughter articles, so i would support it having its own article linked from both originals, and could potentially also create a separate template article which can be used as a summary in both articles (rather than having to watch both simultaneously), which is then simply inserted using the {{Template}} function, which having seen it on several articles now, seems to be a good way of replicating content between related articles. I'm with you that there doesn't appear to be any credible debate, but a good article on the subject specifically can talk about the apologist views (with citation naturally). I don't think the article is likely to be AfD nominated - i recently gained the right to create articles without new page patrol flags and in either case, articles with detailed citations are almost never removed without very good reason.

I suggest that we maybe start articles along the lines of Caduceus as a symbol of medicine and a template along the same lines, so Template:Caduceus as a symbol of medicine, which can then be inserted in to both articles as {{Caduceus as a symbol of medicine}}. That said, i think the article might be worth sandboxing first, before we start the article itself. I can do that later if i get a chance, or if you want to make a start then go ahead, just let me know the location. Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I've always just edited in an article or assembled one in a text program to get it ready in stub-fashion before posting as a new article. For this though a sandbox would probably be best. My own opinion is that we should start with a bibliography, or better still a bibliography with applicable quotes pulled and placed with each entry. That way we can get a better idea of what views are actually currently held, as well as historically held, and clearly determine what position deserves what weight in the article. I want to focus on finding something (anything) that amounts to current and reputable defense of the Caduceus as a medical symbol. We should also work through some article name options in the same place. If it's no real inconvenience for you, perhaps you could create a sandbox for this and let me know the link?--Picatrix (talk) 15:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, happy to do it, but won't be today. I just suggest sandbox, because then we can both work on it before sending live. I'll let you know. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

OK, I've created them in my userspace.

The main article we can work on at User:Owain.davies/Caduceus as a symbol of medicine

and the template to insert in to the other articles at User:Owain.davies/Caduceus summary

File:Uk battenburg markings.jpg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Uk battenburg markings.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. FASTILY ^(TALK) 16:54, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BHDTA Colour logo.JPG

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BHDTA Colour logo.JPG. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:24, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

You are now a Reviewer

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 23:58, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Caduceus Refs

Hi! The work on the new Caduceus material is great. Thanks very much for moving it forward. I'm writing because it looks like I foolishly trashed my own copy of the new references that I gathered that I had on my own machine. I can't seem to find the temporary development page where I posted them. I guess they were removed when you were working on the more developed version of the article? I couldn't find them in the history either. Perhaps I'm just not looking in the right place? I just wanted to check to see if you still had them anywhere as it will take me a while to find all the material again.--Picatrix (talk) 07:59, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

In reply to your latest: the template you suggest sounds fine, though I've not used it. If that's more to your liking and it still allows for the addition of further comments in footnotes I'm all for it. I'm not sure I understand how to make the change however... In this last round of edits I (think I) figured out how to do the quotes properly to save you the trouble of having to clean up my edits in that respect (sorry about the past occurrences!). Since you have more experience with the markup would you be willing to make the change? From then on I should be able to follow the form by cutting and pasting instances.--Picatrix (talk) 12:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

replied on your talk page. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:29, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Bjornagain.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Bjornagain.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

PLEASE NOTE:

• I am a bot, and will therefore not be able to answer your questions.
• I will remove the request for deletion if the file is used in an article once again.
• If you receive this notice after the image is deleted, and you want to restore the image, click here to file an un-delete request.
• To opt out of these bot messages, add {{bots|deny=DASHBot}} to your talk page.
• If you believe the bot has made an error, please turn it off here and leave a message on my owner's talk page.

Thank you. DASHBot (talk) 05:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Port of Ramsgate

Just wanted to say good edits to Port of Ramsgate and thanks for tidying up the refs. Well done. pgr94 (talk) 10:34, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Louise Skelton pic

Glad you like the new pic. If you need any other freely-licensed eventing pictures for Wikipedia articles, just ask - I'm happy to put any of the images I have available on Lazy Photography onto Wikimedia Commons.

Sffubs (talk) 13:45, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

Nomination of Oval Raceway for deletion

A discussion has begun about whether the article Oval Raceway, which you created or to which you contributed, should be deleted. While contributions are welcome, an article may be deleted if it is inconsistent with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for inclusion, explained in the deletion policy.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Oval Raceway until a consensus is reached, and you are welcome to contribute to the discussion.

You may edit the article during the discussion, including to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Student7 (talk) 00:39, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Rendez-vous

Hey Owain. I've noticed you around (sounds like a bad pick-up line) on different articles regarding emergency topics. And due to that I would like to draw your attention to a question I'm asking: Talk:Emergency_medical_services#Rendez-vous.

Well it's the best offer i've had today... I'll take a look for you! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:23, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

CPR

We have a meta analysis. We do not need to ref primary research or the lay press. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:40, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I disagree strongly. Extra links which meet the wp:cite criteria are always valuable, and a significant improvement on a single source (all be it a reputable one), especially when that single source is quite technical and requires registration to view in full, whereas others are more readable to the lay person and don't require registration. On that basis, i believe this group of links should stay, although if you have a specific link you'd like to look at for removal, happy to discuss. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 15:50, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

This would not be the feeling of the majority of editors at WP:MED. References from the lay press are not suitable. Neither is primary research. As per WP:MEDRSDoc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:15, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:BD logo web.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:BD logo web.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Skier Dude (talk 06:37, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

poor grammar??

No mood to get into an editing war. The subject of the sentence is "group." A group is singular, therefore it "follows" as a man follows. Men would follow. And the rest of my edits made it heck of a lot less wordy but still grammatically sound. Still, your call. Cheers! Bob98133 (talk) 21:37, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, should have left a talk note, but got distracted, for which my apologies. The subject for my money is "group of followers" and the plural on the end should lead to 'follow' as "the followers follows" doesn't really work for me. Not too unhappy about losing the 'activity' bit. The 'chase' vs 'chasing' might be personal style, but the usage matches the subject - i'm not sure anyone involved in the sport would say they were involved in chasing, but would say they were involved in a chase. Apologies again for lack of a note when I reverted. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi Owain

We have made large changes today to update the College of Paramedics wiki page. We have a higher resolution logo that we can use but as I'm a rookie wiki editor I don't seem to have the authority to upload it can you help? tony.mccolley@collageofparamedics.co.uk

Owain, Can you contact me i'm the Student Representative on the College of Paramedic National Council and I've been updating the CoP wiki page. tony.mccolley@collageofparamedics.co.uk —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.24.142.13 (talk) 14:01, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

I have already left a message for you on your original user talk page at User talk:Tonymccolley. If you log in to your account, you can see the message, and then we can converse there

Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:31, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

License tagging for File:COPlogo.png

Thanks for uploading File:COPlogo.png. You don't seem to have indicated the license status of the image. Wikipedia uses a set of image copyright tags to indicate this information; to add a tag to the image, select the appropriate tag from this list, click on this link, then click "Edit this page" and add the tag to the image's description. If there doesn't seem to be a suitable tag, the image is probably not appropriate for use on Wikipedia.

For help in choosing the correct tag, or for any other questions, leave a message on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 19:05, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Different article

Seeing as how you are no stranger to controversy over animal rights issues, would you mind watchlisting Charreada for a bit? Someone is quite upset that anyone would think there are animal abuse issues there. (two words: horse-tripping) I went in and did a very extensive bit of research and sourced the section in question. Some of the material, just like for rodeo or fox hunting, is a bit hysterical, but there is also solid stuff. I tried to put in info on both sides, however the other new folks editing got very upset and blanked the whole section. I don't really have the time or energy to devote to this, so am calling in some more eyes. (Are you an admin? Know a good reliable one if you are not?). I really don't have a huge POV on this issue, other than a general non-fanatical concern about humane treatment of animals, but when an event has been banned in seven western US states, including Texas, and on the pro rodeo circuit, that does suggest a problem. Montanabw^(talk) 07:24, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it a look over when i get a chance. The hardest bit on animal welfare stuff is reliable citations! Rollkur was a nightmare for citing. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:28, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

Charreada

Mr. Davies; About Charreada, my god the man was dead. How can he testify. If you go to the source of this statement, “The Cultural De fence”, you see that it does not support the statement that Chavez testified. It says that Chavez was against Charreria. This is based on a statement of the California Equine Council, Cathleen Doyle's group. If you look at the footnote, you see it references a piece of propaganda from that same group. That propaganda, says that Chavez and the Mexican American Political Association oppose Charreria, without any reference. That is because Chavez never said it. He did write a letter condemning the American Rodeo.

What you are saying, is that if is someone makes something up and it is misquoted on Wikipidia, it is OK. That is pretty silly.

I am told I cannot put up disputing statistics about Charreada. Yet it is OK, for Doyle's silly statistics to stay up. Doyle's statistics say that of 75 or 78, horses used in Charreada, only two did not go to slaughter. The fact is, they were going to slaughter, whether they were ever in a lienzo or not. If you go to the source, Horse tripping facts, they only one horse that was documented as being seriously injured.

The second set of statistics talk about 2 to 5 horses a week being seriously injured. When you go to the source, you find out that the source is an unnamed individual at an unnamed feed lot. I know you are from the UK, but this is the kind of thing Joe McCarthy used to do.

When it is pointed out that over 1000 manganas, 2000 colas and 600 piales were done at the National Finals in Pachuca Mexico, without any injury to the animals, it gets removed. When it is pointed out that during the five days of the State Finals in Texas, not one animal was injured, it gets removed. Both statements were supported with references.

You also let the animals rights fanatics point out that seven states have made laws against mangana, but you take out the fact that they failed in last three states where they tried to get laws passed. This was referenced to the Denver Post and the Carson City News. When it was pointed out that the PRCA and the United Horse Organization opposed the passage of the law, as stated in both the Denver and Carson City papers, the comment was removed. This did contradict the statements made by the critics, who maintains the PRCA, support the ban. The fact is the PRCA, did oppose mangana, but it has changed its mind. They finally came to the realization that if you stop the roping of one species, they you can stop the roping of all of them.

You allow a blatantly racist statement about Charreia being a “shadow Sport and akin to dog fighting. When it is pointed out that the events are widely advertised and that anyone with a video camera can go in, it gets removed. This is true, even though there were multiple citations.

One of the most ridiculous statement made in the criticism is the one about calves having a lower center of gravity. When it was pointed out that even calves in the American Rodeo are subject to Newton's law. This comment was removed even though, it was referenced to “rodeocruelty.com” which shows dozens of calves and steers being seriously injured in the America Rodeo.

If you really want to be fair, then take out the criticism, or post both sides.

(Rmj8757 (talk) 15:50, 6 June 2011 (UTC))

I've copied this to the article talk at Talk:Charreada and replied there. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 17:51, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Found more stuff. See talk and my recent edits. Feel free to refine what I did, but remember: US English, please ;-) Montanabw^(talk) 19:40, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

FYI

You may wish to have input on this RfC: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Equine#RFC:_what_units_should_be_used_for_horse_and_pony_heights.3F Montanabw^(talk) 19:12, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

St Patrick's Hove

I am parish priest of St Patrick's Hove and see that some of your revision of the St Patrick's entry is see either inaccurate or misleading.

For example, you report Fr Sharpe as being 'forced to resign' , more accurately he simply 'resigned' - rightly in my opinion. Allegations were certainly made about him. They may have been well founded, but ... none of them was proved. He remained a canon of the cathedral and continued to work in the diocese. [I believe he became a Roman Catholic in spring 2011]

The other changes I made to the document simply explain that after Alan Sharpe's departure management of the project was transferred to Riverside — and I've included a link to the only useful website reference i can find.

The information you give about the monastery leaving St Patrick's doesn't make full sense. The sentence seems incomplete. I was a member of the community when the decision was made and my correction offers useul information.

11:40, 8 July 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevencswg (talk • contribs)

copied to your talk page to keep continuity. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:16, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Oxygen and medical gas therapy

actually, the inclusion of other gas therapies are so small that they do warrant a change in the article name, with the appropriate naming convention of course. Nitric Oxide would be a single section, Helium+Oxygen (Heliox) would be one section as well as just simple Room Air therapy would be its own section. All of those pages would be 1 paragraph stubs and should be included in a comprehensive article, at least in my opinion. oh and PS, I stole your cool header :P Je.rrt (talk) 16:46, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

inre Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guy Williams, Jr.

We're not in disagreement about Guy Williams, Jr. missing on WP:ENT, being somewhat slack on WP:GNG, and not meriting an article. But as he was covered in depth by 'The New York Times and New York Daily News and is sourcable in connection with his father,[6] might you agree that a redirect to Guy Williams (actor)#First artistic steps, where he is already mentioned in just that context, would make sense? Thanks, Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 04:24, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Fine with me, his appearances for his father probably warrant a mention in the father's article, but not his own article. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:57, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 20:49, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Charreada

You took down the link horsetripping.com on the Charreada web page. You said it was the consensus. Whoes consensus was it, not mine. Let me know what the problem is. I am a reasonable person. The information on that page is more accurate, then the animal rights ranting you allow on the Charreada page, like horses with rope burns to the bone. Just because some AR person said it does not make it true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmj8757 (talk • contribs) 18:59, 1 September 2011 (UTC) First I put horsetripping.com in the link section of the Charreada page and you took it down and seemed to say, it should be a reference, then I put it as a reference and you took it down, and seemed to say it should be a link, so I put it there, then you took it down. Please explain why it should not be there. Please don't say it is propoganda, because you let the AR propoganda stay up. RMJ8757 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmj8757 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Rmj, please re-read WP:NPOV and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. You are already on very thin ice because you use what is clearly your own web site to cite the Charreada article. If we followed Wikipedia's verifiability standards to the letter, we'd have to throw out most of your stuff for that reason. Owain and I are both trying very hard to help you present the charro viewpoint here in an article that is, by its nature, very controversial (an event banned in several states is that, no matter which side you are on). But when we say that a link is inappropriate, we really DO mean it. An article titled in as blatently political a fashion as the one you want to put in is far too "political" for the section unless you really want us to go find an equally hysterically-toned screed from PETA or SHARK. "Consensus" does not have to mean "everybody," but it does mean the weight of opinion. Here at least three editors have weighed in on this topic asking the link be left out. I would encourage you to just take a deep breath and continue the excellent work you are doing on the statistics and documentation of the sport, and to help us find more outside, neutral sources on its history and traditions. Montanabw^(talk) 04:01, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Just for the record, i'm happy for it to be an inline reference, and have never removed it from that position, but it's clearly against policy for an external link (see WP:EL) OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 07:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

While I question the nutrality of the anti sourses I think the article now has a less biased view. Thank you RMJ8757 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmj8757 (talk • contribs) 13:59, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Ambu bags and use of Ambu as an acronym

Owain, Thank you. I should have checked my source more carefully even though it was an anesthesia journal. I've put an inquiry in to Ambu to see if they ever used AMBU as an acronym in relation to their BVM product, perhaps for marketing purposes since the origin of the company name is not acronym based. In the meantime thanks for reverting my hastily placed edit. --Bajutsu (talk) 08:38, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits to Veterinary Technician

Owain, I have restored the links deleted from "Veterinary Technician". I have read the article "WP:EL" and find that all of the links were in keeping with the guidelines. Where there are links to particular pages within sites it is because these are large sites that are not intuitively navigated. I can find no mention of limiting links to "one per country". Veterinary associations oversee veterinary technician/nursing associations so the relationship is relevant and both should be listed. As to why all of the "Resource" links were deleted you leave me stumped. I have been researching and editing this article for the past two and one-half years and have been careful to avoid advertorial or strictly commercial links and have made an effort to only include relevant links. As a professional veterinary technician for the last twenty-six years I think I have a good idea of what resources are relevant but I would welcome the insight of a fellow professional with similar qualifications. I'm sure your deletions of my time-consuming research were done with the best intentions and I do realize that the list appears long--but I guarantee the relevance of its contents.--Bajutsu (talk) 22:03, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I am sorry that you have chosen to take insult at my mention of you non-affiliation with the field of veterinary medicine. But as I am not a police officer, I would not deign to argue with a member of law enforcement over relevant links to an article regarding enforcement of the law. I find myself stumped at how a non-veterinary professional finds themselves more qualified to decide what is relevant to an article regarding veterinary technology.--Bajutsu (talk) 08:47, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Reply to Please Stop.

Try working out your desired changes in your sandbox first (then maybe checking with somebody actually in the field) before launching your major changes. Your actions without regard to somebody actually in the field make me feel as though the last two and a half years I've spent editing this article have been a waste. Why on Earth would we want a veterinary technician with 26 years experience editing an article on veterinary technology when an EMT in the UK who feels knowledge of the topic is irrelevant is so much more qualified?--Bajutsu (talk) 09:05, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

OK, the splits are now done. I am sorry if you are protective over "your" article, but a key plank of wikipedia policy is that any of your content may be changed by any other editor, and there is no ownership. The article as it stood was not in good shape, and I am trying to make it a better article (or in this case, articles). Again, my knowledge of tyhe subject is irrelevant - i have successfully edited many topics with varying levels of knowledge, but by sticking to citable facts and research, I am able to improve articles. Your experience is welcome, but these improvements will make it better for users in the long run. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 09:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

How is it possibly better to have to access a dozen different articles when the same information could have been gained from one? But regardless of that, I took the time to explain the relevance of each and every deletion that you made. Relevance that I actually have some expertise to judge. And yet you still chose to ignore those arguments. How can that possibly be construed as anything but arrogance? While I understand that it is not "my" article, one can still expect consideration of their background. Do you take your dog to the vet and then argue with them that your plumber gives better veterinary advice because as you said "knowledge of the subject is irrelevant"? You talk about citable facts and research but you pared that citable research from 50 references to 10. How illogical is that?--Bajutsu (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Move of veterinarian

Hello. Could you move it back and propose a discussion on it? It seems like something that should be discussed. Thanks. Jesanj (talk) 02:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Box walking and stuff

I was going over the glossary and refining some entries and saw your nice additions. I was wondering if you would want to pop your bit about Box Walking (and the ref) into the article Weaving (horse) as well. They are not precisely identical, but of a similar nature. (I've also wondered if some of these could all be merged into Stable vices too, but that's a different issue). I also moved your barrel def and ref to the Anatomy article where all the other points of the horse defs are. Montanabw^(talk) 21:56, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say we either merge them all in to stable vices, or keep them their own articles, unless we can think of a more general article title like 'movement vices' which sounds a bit clunky. As for the barrel, I only included this one, as there is another barrel definition there, to ensure clarity for two uses of the same word in the equestrian field, so I think i would restore it. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:55, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe do "barrel" as def 1 and def 2, not a separate entry. (There IS another "barrel" entry? I missed that...?) As for stable vices, I am leaning in your direction. I think (not sure) that the only other breakout is cribbing (horse), which might have enough stuff for the spinoff, but I'm not one who thinks that if one big spinoff is good, then we also need 23 stubs for every other possible subtopic (phooey to that, in fact...). Shall I just put a merge tag on weaving and then if there are more, we can also tag them and have an overall discussion? Montanabw^(talk) 21:35, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

New Page Patrol survey

New page patrol – Survey Invitation Hello Owain.davies! The WMF is currently developing new tools to make new page patrolling much easier. Whether you  have patrolled many pages or only a few, we now need to  know about your experience. The survey takes only 6 minutes, and the information you provide will not be shared with third parties other than to assist us in analyzing the results of the survey; the WMF will not use the information to identify you. If this invitation  also appears on other accounts you  may  have, please complete the  survey  once only.  If this has been sent to you in error and you have never patrolled new pages, please ignore it. Please click HERE to take part. Many thanks in advance for providing this essential feedback. You are receiving this invitation because you  have patrolled new pages. For more information, please see NPP Survey. Global message delivery 12:41, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

FYI

On terminology, if you haven't checked out Glossary of equestrian terms, I invite you there. We have people from the US, UK and Aus editing there and have been doing our damnedest to have the differences in terminology explained or cross-linked. Feel free to add/improve/clarify -- but ONLY with a footnoted source! Anal-retentiveness is our universal language over there! LOL! Montanabw^(talk) 03:29, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

Birmingham uni etc.

Hi, what would you suggest we do in relation to other universities? Because each and every one of them that is "university of X" is also "X university", and we can find innumerable citations in each case, and yes it is arguably the common name. We have, or should have, redirects in place. Itsmejudith (talk) 18:02, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

As it is common name, it needs to be mentioned - just ignoring it isn't an option. I'm not sure why its contentious. The standard format in WP is to list out the alternative names, and in this particular case, it is used more widely than places like, say UCE, which used the initialism version. In addition, the name "Birmingham University" was formally proposed to be the name during the merger discussions of 2001 with Aston, such was its prevalence. For other universities, if it is commonly used, then yes, it should be mentioned! OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Articles you might like to edit, from SuggestBot

SuggestBot predicts that you will enjoy editing some of these articles. Have fun!

Stubs SunSmart Royal Canadian Army Veterinary Corps Trauma shears Veterinary pharmacist Pat O'Brien's Bar Critical Care Emergency Medical Transport Program Avian veterinarian Resuscitator Fuller (metalworking) DCAP-BTLS Weevac 6 Ardagh, County Longford Nasopharyngeal airway University of Florida College of Veterinary Medicine Necrotizing meningoencephalitis Duncan McNab McEachran Association of Veterinary Anaesthetists Gnumeric SAMPLE history

Cleanup Basic life support Olga Uvarov Emergency medical services in South Africa Merge Veterinary specialties Wilderness Emergency Medical Technician Type system Add Sources West Bengal University of Animal and Fishery Sciences Veterinary school Veterinary pathology Wikify Emergency medical services in Portugal Lift table Veterinary Council of India Expand Advocacy journalism Iowa State University College of Veterinary Medicine La Défense

SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better — thanks for helping.

If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.

P.S. You received these suggestions because your name was listed on the SuggestBot request page. If this was in error, sorry about the confusion. -- SuggestBot (talk) 19:37, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Stallion article

Wondering if you know any other admins who can keep an eye on that article. Ace is apparently on vacation for a few days... and thanks for weighing in. Montanabw^(talk) 19:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification

Hi. When you recently edited Moretonhampstead and South Devon Railway, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Heathfield (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:26, 31 December 2011 (UTC)

MOS discussion that may be of interest

Because of your previous input on various iterations of the debate about the lower-casing vs. capitalization of the common names of animals (domestic cat, blue whale vs. Domestic Cat, Blue Whale), you may be interested in this thread proposing key points that should be addressed by the guidelines: WT:Manual of Style#Species capitalization points. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(^Õل^ō)ˀ Contribs. 05:50, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Idea

Want to add a veterinary paraprofessionals in the US article to the rest of your collection? I won't get to it, and I trust you! Montanabw^(talk) 03:35, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

It's on my list of things to do, but i'll bump it up. It will be Veterinary medicine in the United States, covering all the main aspects including veterinarians, vet techs etc. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:14, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

teeth

If you ever pursue that Equine dentistry spinoff from Horse teeth, of note: US decision on vets vs lay practitioners. Montanabw^(talk) 22:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

History of the ambulance

Hi, Owain. Are you familiar with the shift from car- to van- and truck-based ambulances? We had an edit over at History of the ambulance suggesting the the shrinking of full-sized cars in the late 1970s was part of the reason. I don't recall hearing that before, and there's no source, but do you recall hearing about this before? Since the edit was in hidden text I moved it to the talk page at Talk:History of the ambulance#Shift to truck and van based motor units. Best, Badger151 (talk) 23:31, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I saw him put it in, but as it was hidden text, i presumed he was going to come back with a source, so i was biding my time on WP:AGF to see how it pans out, but it seems unlikely to me. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:39, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

veterinary surgeons in the uk

You removed my external link to www.vetsurgeon.org I am the owner / publisher / editor (so with hindsight, I probably should have asked before adding it) But ... It is for veterinary surgeons and other members of the veterinary profession. It is free to join. It is veterinary surgeons' leading source of industry news and jobs on the Internet, and I would have thought very useful; for them to be able to find on wikipedia. Yes, it also has a forum. But the rules don't absolutely exclude a site just because it contains a forum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guthrie66 (talk • contribs) 12:15, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for posting on my talk page, and i'm happy to discuss. In this case, i'm afraid your addition falls foul of a couple of rules (and I know this isn't neceassarily obvious when you first edit, and you're by no means the first to do this, so its nothing personal). If you look at WP:ELNO (specifically points 10 and 11) you'll see that these Web 2.0 sites are generally not considered suitable external links for Wikipedia. If you also look at WP:ADV it says "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked", and this is expanded in the general WP:COI policy.

I hope this all makes sense, but if you have any questions, please do let me know, and it would be great if you had some more input on the veterinary topics generally. If you are able to help with these articles, it might also be worth reading WP:V, WP:CITE and WP:NPOV which give the most important rules for Wikipedia (basically, if you write anything on here, it must be unbiased, and you must attribute it to a third party source using an inline citation). Regards, OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:28, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Minor cleanup

Hi Owain, we need some definitions references for UK English terms at the Glossary_of_equestrian_terms -- can you help? (Stuff like "numnah" and the UK definition of "stable," that sort of thing...see what's tagged). Thanks! Montanabw^(talk) 23:42, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 6

Hi. When you recently edited Sport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:34, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

'Sport' Page

LibertyDodzo - When I wrote the information on aspects of sport on the 'Sport' article, you removed the information I gave, and said it didn't make sense. Why didn't you just ask what I meant on my talk page before you removed it? We could have come to some sort of agreement... — Preceding unsigned comment added by LibertyDodzo (talk • contribs) 21:00, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Hi there, apologies for not putting a note on your talk page, but this is part of the process for wikipedia - you can find out more by looking at the WP:BRD page. In this case, your edit had a few different problems. Firstly, it wasn't very well written in English, and didn't make grammatical sense. Secondly, you didn't define what you meant by some of the terms - specifically a "quality" sport. Lastly, you didn't have any references, as per policy (see WP:V and WP:CITE). If you've got some information on this area you'd like to add, maybe bring it to the talk page first, or post it on here and i'll see what we can work out. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 21:38, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 13

Hi. In your recent article edits, you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

Richborough Energy Park (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National grid

Richborough Power Station (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)

added a link pointing to National grid

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 10:51, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Horse PR stuff

Hey Owain, thanks so much for weighing in on the horse PR and any additional comments or help you can provide will be welcomed. We are trying to get it to FA, and any problems are best flagged now and not later! I liked some of your wording fixes on the pony section but also re-tweaked your tweaks there, probably because I'm still recovering from one of my earliest edit wars on WP; a fight over horses versus ponies. (Yeah, like five years ago, but I'm still twitchy... lol) At heart, the issue is genetics versus competition rules. The way the FEI is using cm instead of hands is also throwing a monkey wrench into tradition, even if it's logical. (But since when has the English speaking world -- US or UK version -- been logical, eh??) Competition has to have a height standard because some people think it matters, especially for jumpers (Stroller and Theodore O'Connor notwithstanding), but a competition standard exists independently of genetics. The horse breeds that fall on both sides of the 14.2 scale can have breeders who get profoundly insulted to have some of their animals dismissed as "just ponies," (and a related problem of feeding steroids to foals to force growth in excess of anatomy) and likewise some pony breeders throw a fit if they feed a horse properly and it then grows a wee bit over 14.2 and someone claims it therefore is no longer a pony. I once judged a miniature horse show, and boy! DO NOT call them "ponies" -- their owners jump down your throat with both feet and who cares if they are only a meter tall! But at the same time, phenotype and height be damned, Icelandic horses are horses! Yikes!! And, arrgh, don't get me started on the "is it a horse or a pony" fight amongst aficionados of the Chincoteague pony/Assateague horse, where a state line defines the different terms for a herd with the same genetic roots! So the caveats are all to keep the peace, it was a hard-won peace. Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

But my question: We have a whine at the PR that there's a halter on the horse used for your EXCELLENT points of a horse diagram. Can it be photoshopped out?? Just wondering. (I think it's a nitpick, but if the PR reviewer cares, someone else might too...) If it's a pain, don't bother, I'm just wondering. Montanabw^(talk) 17:19, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Not that i don't get your point, but to be honest, the writing now is choppy and hard to read. It was much better as a flowing sentence. Also, I am strongly attached to putting international governing body information as primary, in any subject, rather than "some book says". If you can't come up with a more convincing reason than the hands/metric piece, then i'm minded to change it back. This gives a position of strength for the assertion, and we can talk about phenotype and breeding after. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:29, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, I am open to further discussion, and I am also OK with improving flow and readability; I'm not attached to my prose, only to the nuance it conveys. I like discussing the issue here and then maybe once the issues are properly refined, we could move our consensus (or not) to the PR for everyone. The problem about leading with the FEI standard based on centimeters is that it is limited basically to a narrow set of specialties, while the use of hands is a tradition hundreds of years old. I don't know how many pony classes fall under FEI sponsorship, but it would ONLY be the 8-10 international events, which are a small minority of pony activity; the overwhelming majority of pony exhibition falls under local or national rules, not FEI. We've had, what, two ponies in Olympic/Pan Am Games competition? Ever? And they competed with horses. But I can point to hundreds and probably thousands of books explaining the 14.2 cutoff, maybe a few books discuss FEI rules, but if they do, they are less than 10 years old. And remember that horrible dispute we had over the use of hands at WPEQ several months ago? I just don't want to even go there. I wonder, should we bring in Pesky to this conversation? She breeds and I think also shows New Forest Ponies in the UK, so would be our resident expert on UK stuff...? Montanabw^(talk) 18:45, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

The full Monty, sort of

Thanks for doing some work on Monty Roberts. I did a little more, nice to see that one cleaned up. Montanabw^(talk) 21:36, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, my appreciation for your work on Natural Horsemanship. I think we Yanks have been unwilling to tackle that particular area due to the POV insanity that occasionally hits those pieces. Feel free to tweak at my tweaks! Montanabw^(talk) 21:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

The Horse Whisperer

Hi. When you create a dab page like The Horse Whisperer to replace an article, you need to fix the existing links which point to it, most of which in this case would need to be piped to The Horse Whisperer (film). Please read WP:FIXDABLINKS. There are several articles which you need to sort out. --Mirokado (talk) 20:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

NH Stuff

Fun to be finally working on that Natural Horsemanship article. I found that scholarly paper you cited to be very interesting, but found nothing in it to suggest the NH movement was called as such in the 70s. I know it's all OR on my end, but FYI, Buck Brannaman and I are about the same age (very early 50s) and grew up in adjacent Montana counties. We do not know one another, though our paths crossed briefly in the 80s when we both temporarily rented space in the same arena one winter. (He'd be bringing a horse in, I'd be finishing up a riding class, I'd say hi, he'd sort of grunt back, he's a lot more willing to use his words these days). At any rate, from growing up in that same general subculture (horses, southwest Montana), I can tell you that Ray Hunt was around a bunch in the 70s and quite popular, (I think the Dorrance brothers stayed closer to their home base in Northern California) but the term "natural horsemanship" was not in use, and anyone calling themselves a "horse whisperer" would have been laughed out of the state for being pretentious. Basically the modern popularity of the movement came with the Nicholas Evans book and the marketing of people like Pat Parelli and Monty Roberts, who were the first two to really jump on the promotional bandwagon. Not sure where Rashid gets his info that the term NH showed up around 1985, but that sounds about right to me. I remember first hearing people start cooing and oohing and ahhing over Parelli in the early 90s. I have the Robert Miller book, if you don't (though looks like you do?) and he's probably the best verifiable source on all this stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 20:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

My fault - it was in the other article by the same author, just mixed up the refs. I'm still convinced that the horse whispering bit needs to be in the lead - I don't think its UK focused (the hollywood film saw to that). Attempts to deprecate it down seem to be POV in favour of a few practitioners that don't like it. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Further - i don't think anyone disputes that the naming conventions (NH or HW) arose later, but it's fairly clear i think that the "movement" started earlier. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 20:14, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree the term is not only UK-focused, but the originators of the modern movement definitely did not use the term. The term "horse whisperer" only showed up about the time of Evans' book and the movie, before that, these guys most definitely didn't use the term, it was confined to old accounts of Sullivan on your side of the pond. My view is that MOST of the core practitioners don't like it much, as for one thing, it flies in the face of natural cowboy resistance to "woo" concepts. As for start of the movement, many people credit Hunt and the Dorrances, but that then takes it back to the 60s or even earlier. I guess the question is when a bunch of people doing something becomes a "movement." I'll dig out Miller and see what he says, he's sort of the guru on this stuff. Montanabw^(talk) 01:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

File:Star of life parts.svg listed for deletion

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:Star of life parts.svg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Files for deletion. Please see the discussion to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. abf /talk to me/ 14:52, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (File:RDA logo green.jpg)

Thanks for uploading File:RDA logo green.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Shoulder to whine on

Thanks for the revert of what you called "religious twaddle" over on the horse care article. We are getting hits like this all over when evolution and horses are mentioned; had trouble for a while at Mustang (horse) with the assertion that there was an Ice Age. Just wanted to whine to a sympathetic ear; this stuff drives me nuts. I think it happens because the creationists target horse evolution for particular criticism because the sequence is so well-known. But it still drives me nuts. So thanks for being part of the solution! Onward -- through the fog...Montanabw^(talk) 21:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Amen to that! ;-) OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:30, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

For you:

Do not come to this user while wearing a tinfoil hat.

Orphaned non-free media (File:Blue cross logo.png)

Thanks for uploading File:Blue cross logo.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Hazard-Bot (talk) 04:07, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for September 23

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Blood bike, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page West Midlands (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:54, 23 September 2012 (UTC)

Answer to your Blue Cross queries

Hi Owain

I have responded to your changes on the Blue Cross page in the 'talk' section of the page: [7]

In addition to this, I would like to be able to replace the old Blue Cross logo with the new one, as shown on the website [8]

It needs to be added under the following description... Description: Charity logo Source: May be obtained from Blue Cross. Article: Charity Portion used: The entire logo is used to convey the meaning intended and avoid tarnishing or misrepresenting the intended image. Low resolution? The logo is of a size and resolution sufficient to maintain the quality intended by the company or organization, without being unnecessarily high resolution. Purpose of use: The image is used to identify the charity, a subject of public interest. The significance of the logo is to help the reader identify the organization, assure the readers that they have reached the right article containing critical commentary about the organization, and illustrate the organization's intended branding message in a way that words alone could not convey. Replaceable? Because it is a logo there is almost certainly no free equivalent. Any substitute that is not a derivative work would fail to convey the meaning intended, would tarnish or misrepresent its image, or would fail its purpose of identification or commentary. Other information: Use of the logo in the article complies with Wikipedia non-free content policy, logo guidelines, and fair use under United States copyright law as described above.

Reynoldskevin (talk) 08:13, 24 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback

Hello, Owain.davies. You have new messages at Stefan2's talk page.
Message added 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Stefan2 (talk) 22:08, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Followup RFC to WP:RFC/AAT now in community feedback phase

Hello. As a participant in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion article titles, you may wish to register an opinion on its followup RFC, Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Abortion advocacy movement coverage, which is now in its community feedback phase. Please note that WP:RFC/AAMC is not simply a repeat of WP:RFC/AAT, and is attempting to achieve better results by asking a more narrowly-focused, policy-based question of the community. Assumptions based on the previous RFC should be discarded before participation, particularly the assumption that Wikipedia has or inherently needs to have articles covering generalized perspective on each side of abortion advocacy, and that what we are trying to do is come up with labels for that. Thanks! —chaos5023 20:31, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiMedicine

Hi

You may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:Wikimedia Medicine. Even if you don't want to be actively involved, any ideas you may have about our structure and aims would be very welcome on the project's talk page.

Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:37, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

meta:Wikimedia Medicine

Thank you for your interest in meta:Wikimedia Medicine. We hope to create a non profit corporation to promote the aims of the Wikimedia Movement within the topic domain of medicine. This means we plan to promote the creation and release of "health care information in all languages" under an open license. This will be done primarily via speaking and collaborating with both individuals and organizations who share our goal. We are working on a number of collaborations already and are open to more ideas. Documents of incorporation have been submitted and we hope to be officially "off the ground" by mid Dec 2012. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:31, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Electric car picture

Hi Owain.davies. In the past you participated in the discussion to select the picture that is used in the lead of the electric car article. This is to let you know that I opened a new discussion with more optionshere, just in case you want to participate. Cheers.--Mariordo (talk) 02:53, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Hand-coding

Hey all :).

I'm dropping you a note because you've been involved in dealing with feedback from the Article Feedback Tool. To get a better handle on the overall quality of comments now that the tool has become a more established part of the reader experience, we're undertaking a round of hand coding - basically, taking a sample of feedback and marking each piece as inappropriate, helpful, so on - and would like anyone interested in improving the tool to participate :).

You can code as many or as few pieces of feedback as you want: this page should explain how to use the system, and there is a demo here. Once you're comfortable with the task, just drop me an email at okeyeswikimedia.org and I'll set you up with an account :).

If you'd like to chat with us about the research, or want live tutoring on the software, there will be an office hours session on Monday 17 December at 23:00 UTC in #wikimedia-office ^connect. Hope to see some of you there! Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 23:11, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Wiki Med

Hi

I'm contacting you because, as a participant at Wikiproject Medicine, you may be interested in a new non-profit organization we're forming at m:WikiMed. Our purpose is to help improve the range and quality of free online medical content, and we'll be working with like-minded organizations, such as the World Health Organization, professional and scholarly societies, medical schools, governments and NGOs - including Translators Without Borders.

Hope to see you there! Anthonyhcole (talk) 04:20, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Article Feedback deployment

Hey Owain.davies; I'm dropping you this note because you've used the article feedback tool in the last month or so. On Thursday and Friday the tool will be down for a major deployment; it should be up by Saturday, failing anything going wrong, and by Monday if something does :). Thanks, Okeyes (WMF) (talk) 21:44, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 14

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Michael Lord-Castle, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Advertising Standards Authority (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 14:13, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

British Eventing

Hi Owain.davies,

Please could you remove the logo used on the British Eventing wiki page as it is now out of date see www.britisheventing.com.

Ideally we would like the wiki page and the facebook reference to the page removed as they contain inaccuracies and are subject to becoming dated.

Victoria Evans British Eventing victoria.evans@britisheventing.com +44 (0) 2477 087804

109.238.69.122 (talk) 13:23, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 9

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Ryan Mania, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Point-to-point (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Idocy

What the hell is that? 85.210.145.199 (talk) 17:38, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

AED

I don't know why trauma shears would be in an AED kit. No one will use them. Trauma shears are only for use on patients with spinal injuries etc. that could cause potentially permanent damage if moved.85.210.147.119 (talk) 20:59, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

You've clearly never used one. AED pads require access to the bare chest of the patient. Not everyone's clothing lends itself to easy removal (especially winter clothes, coats, wetsuits etc. etc.) so shears are essential to ensure that you can access their chest. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 06:50, 22 May 2013 (UTC)

Hyphenation of compound modifiers

Wikipedia advises hyphenation in this case ("seven-mile radius"). See WP:HYPHEN, which has the example "12-hour shift". As far as national varieties of English is concerned, I think you are imagining a difference that does not really exist. I have fixed (or broken?) many thousands of cases such as this, and this is the first complaint. If you are right and I am wrong about this, then WP:HYPHEN should be changed to show that. Chris the speller ^yack 21:41, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"erroneous use of caduceus" article

Hi, User:Owain.davies. Your top-of-the-page welcome is right on the button in this case. Please see the comment I left on the talk page there. I'd like to know your response, if you feel like it. Thanks. --Thnidu (talk) 04:46, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library now offering accounts from Cochrane Collaboration (sign up!)

The Wikipedia Library gets Wikipedia editors free access to reliable sources that are behind paywalls. Because you are signed on as a medical editor, I thought you'd want to know about our most recent donation from Cochrane Collaboration.

• Cochrane Collaboration is an independent medical nonprofit organization that conducts systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health-care interventions, which it then publishes in the Cochrane Library.
• Cochrane has generously agreed to give free, full-access accounts to 100 medical editors. Individual access would otherwise cost between $300 and $800 per account.
• If you are still active as a medical editor, come and sign up :)

Cheers, Ocaasi ^{t | c} 20:39, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

WP:INTDABLINK and hatnotes

I noticed that the Choking article links to "Choke" in one of its hatnotes. WP:INTDABLINK suggests that the link target should explicitly include "disambiguation" to express that the disambiguation is intentional, i.e. Choke (disambiguation).

However, it seems that you reverted my first attempt to change this. Why? Is there a guideline explicitly discouraging the use of {{!}} in hatnotes, or was the reversion collateral damage? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 18:09, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

TUSC token 8846065094cb025451e42450db8e9cd2

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

Appealed your block to Ed. Cybordog (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Citation needed? What? (Caduceus page)

What did you need the citation for? The material comes from a book named "Astrotheology and Shamanism: Christianity's pagan roots"

It's banned from public libraries, but you can find a copy on TPB — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.167.31.39 (talk) 14:18, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi there,

thanks for your message, and it will probably help to explain some of the policy. Firstly, wikipedia only reports on what reputable third party sources say - so that is normally academic journals or factual books (see WP:V), and we credit these sources (see WP:CITE).

What was added to the article didn't have any citation, and was written in an informal style. So, if these claims are made in book, as they also seem to be fringe theories (see WP:FRINGE) they would have be written as "Irvin and Rutajit suggest that..." if they are included, and ideally we should look for any other sources who have used their information - either confirming or denying.

I hope that all makes sense, and it is these rules which stop the encyclopaedia becoming a list of things that people once heard (but may not be true). OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 14:42, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks

Sorry I didn't know about signing 82.167.31.39 (talk) 10:35, 4 October 2013 (UTC)ThatAstrotheologydude

October 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Ham may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• [[Cathepsin D|D]], [[Cathepsin H|H]], and [[Cathepsin L1|L]], [[calpain]]s) and [[exopeptidase]]s ([[peptidase]] and [[aminopeptidase]].<ref name=toldra>{{cite journal|last1=Toldrá|first1=Fidel|

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 14:25, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Possibly unfree File:ILCOR AED sign.jpg

A file that you uploaded or altered, File:ILCOR AED sign.jpg, has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree files because its copyright status is unclear or disputed. If the file's copyright status cannot be verified, it may be deleted. You may find more information on the file description page. You are welcome to add comments to its entry at the discussion if you object to the listing for any reason. Thank you. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 22:31, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

Caduceus

I appreciate your comment under mine in the Caduceus Talk page, and wanted to address your concern that "pretty much all the reliable sources state that [the choice of the caduceus as the US Army Medical Department symbol] is an error." I would offer William K. Emerson's Encyclopedia of United States Army Insignia and Uniforms, Norman, Oklahoma:University of Oklahoma Press (1996) as an authoritative and reliable source, and one cited on the page you created, caduceus as a symbol of medicine. The quote drawn from Emerson on that page provides one example of the discussion taking place in the first three decades of the 20th Century in the US Army's medical community. The discussion was taking place for the very reason that has been used to explain the 'mistake,' doctors understood the difference between the two symbols and didn't understand the choice in favor of the caduceus.
Most of the academic examination, external to the US Army Medical Department, and particularly in the latter half of the 20th Century, has produced something of an historiographic echo chamber repeating the conclusion that the choice of the caduceus resulted from confusion between the caduceus and the staff of Aesculapius. Friedlander's The Golden Wand of Medicine (1992), is an excellent volume overall, but he, like many of his predecessors, draws the same conclusion, supported circumstantially. The argument Emerson cites is more balanced, and more representative of the discussion taking place in the US Army medical community in the early part of the 20th Century. If you haven't looked at it lately I would recommend you revisit it or even go to the sources that contain some of the discussions that took place in the 1910s-1930s.
I don't wish to seem argumentative and I don't have a particular axe to grind about this, which is why I entered the discussion on talk instead of going in to edit the main page. It is also why I chose to respond to you on your talk page rather than carrying on in a more public forum. I would be happy to continue this conversation with you if you're interested. I've actually considered preparing an article for publication on the caduceus for a few years, although I haven't been passionate enough about it to actually do it and discussion might serve to energize me. If you aren't interested or don't wish to continue on, that's fine too. Regards, Eltrace (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for the measured and appropriate engagement on this. I have read all of those sources as part of this ongoing discussion about Caduceus, and your assessment isn't bad. The main issue remains is that choosing once academic source as being the balanced one, and disregarding the others is WP:SYNTH and WP:UNDUE. We have a range of reputable books and peer reviewed journals, which all include words like 'erroneous', 'mistaken' etc. etc. and WP only reports what the sources say, rather than trying to editorialise itself. I don't think we have evidence to say that all the other sources are making the same argument, or that they haven't researched properly. On top of that you have various trade bodies who have taken the same 'error' position as part of a logo change from Caduceus to RoA. I've looked, but haven't managed to find a single reliable source (notwithstanding the discussion in Emerson) that actively supports caduceus as being "correct". When I started editing this little article group, I was in the other camp, and the reading of the literature was what swung me to this position, along with a to-the-letter adherence to wiki guidelines. In summary, I guess i'm still sticking to the point that we repeat what is in the literature, and the literature says its wrong. If the literature is fallacious, I can't do much about that because WP:V is really clear that we report what has been written, even if that isn't actually what is true. Am i making sense? Happy to hear any of your thoughts. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 18:54, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

I take your point that Wikipedia is limited to repeating the conclusions reached in published literature. Unfortunately, my life got busier than anticipated in the last few days and I don't have time to work on this further right now. Perhaps I'll be able to find the time to publish an academic article on the US Army's use of the caduceus at some point in the future (I'm a historian) but for now I'm going to have to let this rest. Thank you for your time and insight. Eltrace (talk) 13:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

August 2014

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Emergency medical services in the United Kingdom may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "()"s. If you have, don't worry: just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• '''Paramedic''' - paramedics are the core medical treatment grade, and the title is protected (meaning only those registered with the [[Health and Care Professions Council]] are entitled to use

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 18:47, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British horse society.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British horse society.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 22 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the First aid page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:29, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Medical Translation Newsletter Aug./Sept. 2014

Medical Translation Newsletter
Issue 2, Aug./Sept. 2014
by CFCF

sign up for monthly delivery

Feature – Ebola articles

Electron micrograph of an Ebola virus virion

During August we have translated Disease and it is now live in more than 60 different languages! To help us focus on African languages Rubric has donated a large number of articles in languages we haven't previously reached–so a shout out them, and Ian Henderson from Rubric who's joined us here at Wikipedia. We're very happy for our continued collaboration with both Rubric and Translators without Borders!

Just some of our over 60 translations:

• Xhosa
• Northern Sotho
• Zulu
• Tsonga
• Venda
• Hausa
• Igbo
• Yoruba
• Kinyarwanda
• Swahili
• Tigrinya

New roles and guides!

At Wikimania there were so many enthusiastic people jumping at the chance to help out the Medical Translation Project, but unfortunately not all of them knew how to get started. That is why we've been spending considerable time writing and improving guides! They are finally live, and you can find them at our home-page!

New sign up page!

We're proud to announce a new sign up page at WP:MTSIGNUP! The old page was getting cluttered and didn't allow you to speficy a role. The new page should be easier to sign up to, and easier to navigate so that we can reach you when you're needed!

Style guides for translations

Translations are of both full articles and shorter articles continues. The process where short articles are chosen for translation hasn't been fully transparent. In the coming months we hope to have a first guide, so that anyone who writes medical or health articles knows how to get their articles to a standard where they can be translated! That's why we're currently working on medical good lede criteria! The idea is to have a similar peer review process to good article nominations, but only for ledes.

Some more stats

• In July, 18 full article translations went live (WP:RTT), and an additional 6 simplified versions went live (WP:RTTS)!
• We have a number of new lead integrators into Dutch, Polish, Arabic and Bulgarian, with more to come in smaller languages! (Find them here old sign up page)
• We were mentioned in a Global Voices Online report by Subhashish Panigrahi at Doctors and translators are working together to bridge Wikipedia's medical language gap
• New medical professionals have started, dedicated to working in Odiya and Kinyarwanda!

Further reading

• Translators Without Borders
• Healthcare information for all by 2015, a global campaign

-- CFCF 🍌 (email) 13:09, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Reference Errors on 24 September

Hello, I'm ReferenceBot. I have automatically detected that an edit performed by you may have introduced errors in referencing. It is as follows:

• On the Martin McAleese page, your edit caused a URL error (help). (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, ReferenceBot (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Jaguar images on Commons

You seem to be more active here than Commons, so I thought I'd let you know about this deletion discussion. It looks like the site you found the images on wasn't using them with permission, despite their claims. Cheers, Pi.1415926535 (talk) 05:32, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for December 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Manston Airport, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Westland Whirlwind. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 08:59, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:PonyClub BW 72.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:PonyClub BW 72.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 21:47, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

In Regards to the Paramedic Article

Hello Owain.davies, I wanted to contact you to request that you or someone else provide an edit to this article that clarifies the differences in occupational status for the paramedic page. There is a strong difference of POV, I acknowledge this. As stated in the article - Paramedic formally started as a paraprofession in the United States as a replacement for what was then termed emergency medical services. In relation, other countries developed formal programs and similar titles. As noted in the talk page for this article there only specific countries are cited as having seperate licensure and 'autonomy'. From my preliminary search there is no agreement as to all countries or even most countries as licensed, professional, autonomy etc. How much autonomy and the scope of practice was not discussed in reference to occupational boundaries. Additionally, there should be a differentiation between the 'practitioner' (ie nurse vs nurse practitioner) and the normative title. The logical perspective is that paramedic is one who is a paraprofessional under the medical doctor, thus the meaning of para (meaning not professional) medic. In addition, in reference to scope of practice while certain actions are performed in the field this does not necessarily suggest autonomy as in other professions. Ultimately the role is to stabilize, then transport the patient for further treatment by doctors or secondary specialists like podiatrists, sugeons, pathologists, etc. 108.171.131.160 (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I agree it needs attention to clarify. The problem is trying to reflect the global perspective in this article, given the difference in scope of practice, but i'll see what I can do. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 10:03, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort on the Paramedic Pages

Thank you Owain, for your help in editing the Paramedic Page. While it's probably not perfect, I think you came up with a good introduction.108.171.131.160 (talk) 21:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Fire Truck Discussion

Good afternoon (at least it is afternoon here). I left you a message on the fire truck talk page but also wanted to personally reach out. I know sometimes it is very difficult to read tone of voice though just text. I've had a few bad experiences... So just wanted to reiterate that I mean zero offense by questioning your decision. Fire service is something I have studied a great deal and am passionate about. But, of course, WIkipedia is not just about Fire stuff. Anyway, The bigger point that I wanted to make was that there are about 50 redirects and external links that point to the subsections of fire engine and fire truck via {{anchor}}. Simply reverting the changes I made will break all of these links. I would request that we please discuss this further before reverting? As I said in my comments on the fire engine talk page, if a consensus is reached to merge them back (and I will confess it does appear that the conversation is leaning that way), then I will be glad to put in the work to merge the pages back and make all the links work again. Thanks for your time and all you do to make WIkipedia a better place! Respectfully, Zackmann08 (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there, and firstly my apologies - I intended to reach out to you with a personal message straight after making the changes, but was called away to do something, and have just got back to WP. Please be assured that my intentions are just to try and maintain integrity on the encyclopaedia within the rules. I think the key problem here stems from the mismatch between the the article title, and the content.

Now, the content should decide the title (rather than the other way round), but it was consensus a little while ago to change it from 'Fire apparatus' to 'Fire engine' which makes some of it read strangely (you can see that most of the copy is still talking about types of appliance - being a catch all for firefighting vehicles). Some of my key concerns about having split articles are that the distinction only seems to exist in North America, and this is a global article, so WP:GLOBAL applies, and we should talk in generalities, not about things that only happen in one place.

I'm also concerned about the reliability of sources and the verifiability (WP:V) - when looking both before and now, there aren't really any WP:RS that talk about there being a distinction - it's all individual fire department and personal sites, which don't meet the standards required. The page as was (is) does include some of this colloquial terminology, like quad/quint, but its difficult to meet the expectations of the whole world in one article.

This also doesn't mean that it couldn't do with significant improvements (because it can), or that some types of appliance couldn't do with their own article (although I think the requirement is really limited, and we should definitely avoid referencing country specific standards).

I did already perform the revert, as per WP:BRD, given that this was a very significant bold change on a previously largely stable page, which resulted in the removal of a large amount of content, but this doesn't preclude changing back again once discussion has run its course.

Again, apologies for not reaching out to you sooner, and hopefully we can improve the article significantly. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 22:00, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

You ever just want to stick your tongue out and go NO! YOU ARE WRONG!!! grrrr. -_- While I disagree with some of your analysis about differences, but you also raise some very valid points about the sources and the lack of WP:GLOBAL. I posted a proposed compromise on the fire engine talk page. Let me know your thoughts? Thanks, Zackmann08 (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

"because they are a normal civilian who calls everything red and noisy a fire engine." That made me chuckle. Thanks for that. :-p --Zackmann08 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Civility Barnstar
	For your continued good will in our discussion over fire engines and fire trucks. Zackmann08 (talk) 00:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Let me just say again, it has been very refreshing to see such a civil & mature (for lack of better words) approach to this debate. I have had way too many debates on here that have resulted to petty disagreements. While you and I do not see eye to eye, you have really helped me to appreciate a number of different things about the broader importance and for that, I sincerely thank you! Looking forward to continuing our discussion on fire engines (aka big red noisy things) and to working with you on other projects in the future. --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:02, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Fire engines and an appology.

"You're probably here because I've done something you don't like." DAMN RIGHT! (said with a HUGE smile on my face and in good fun). This fire engine page man... Its like 5 steps forward, 4 steps back every time anyone tries to improve it. First let me apologize for some of my actions. I have a super bad habit of putting all this time and energy into a page, then having my edits be reverted and taking it personally. Or at least feeling like "well that was a huge waste of time". We are all here to improve this site, I need to do a better job of remembering that. Next, let me ask you... How interested are you in this page? Is this just one of the many pages you are patrolling? I would REALLY like to find a partner to tackle this page with. Ideally someone from outside the US, who does NOT agree with me on everything. A quick look at your user page shows that you are from the UK and are a first responder. How would you like to team up on this? I have a number of ideas on how to improve these pages and make them work for all points of global/world view, but I need someone to help me! If you are interested I will share some of my thoughts. Oh and finally, thanks for your service! Not just to Wikipedia but to your community. Outside of wikipedia I work with a number of first responders as a photographer. Major respect for anyone who puts themselves out there like that. Alright, hope you are having a great day and talk soon? --Zackmann08 (talk) 18:57, 15 April 2015 (UTC)

it's one of a number of pages in my regular watch. Primarily my interest is ambulance, but I have a decent amount of knowledge on fire. My key things on wikipedia are ensuring international viewpoint, and citations. Happy to work with you - the same reason that on my revert i left a detailed note about WHY i'd reverted. Plain reverts don't help anyone. Happy to work with you. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:53, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

So my thoughts are focused on how to handle {{Infobox fire department}}. I am trying to make this template work for departments worldwide. The issue is that the terminology is insanely different. Does firefighting in the UK have any concept of a "squad" or a "heavy rescue" for example? My thought was to create sub-templates. So you would something like the following:

{{Infobox fire department}} - the main template that can be used for any page

{{Infobox fire department/US}} - A sub template for the US that uses the main template for some parts, such as the Operational Area, but is customized in the section about equipment

{{Infobox fire department/UK}} - A sub template for the UK that uses the main template for some parts, such as the Operational Area, but is customized in the section about equipment

There are some major differences between countries. This technique would allow the Infoboxes for US departments to have a section for "quints" that links to the proper page, while UK departments don't need to have that parameter. What do you think? --Zackmann08 (talk) 17:39, 16 April 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:CIM logo.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:CIM logo.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:17, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SSAA logos.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SSAA logos.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:35, 29 June 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) 13:09, 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) 13:33, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Old Ambu logo

Hi Owain I've commented on the Ambu logo. See talk here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File_talk:Ambu_logo.gif Can you help update the logo? Best regards, Mikkel M T Wagner (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hi again Owain Thank you for the extremely swift action.M T Wagner (talk) 13:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for January 27

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:16, 27 January 2016 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 25

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Fire class, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Halon. Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:SSAA logos.png

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:SSAA logos.png. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

ArbCom Elections 2016: Voting now open!

Hello, Owain.davies. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Unblock

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Owain.davies (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

original unblock reason

Decline reason:

I am declining your unblock request because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

• the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
• the block is no longer necessary because you
  1. understand what you have been blocked for,
  2. will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
  3. will make useful contributions instead.

Please read the guide to appealing blocks for more information. Yamla (talk) 13:36, 11 August 2017 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

ArbCom 2017 election voter message

Hello, Owain.davies. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom 2018 election voter message

Hello, Owain.davies. Voting in the 2018 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 3 December. All users who registered an account before Sunday, 28 October 2018, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Thursday, 1 November 2018 and are not currently blocked are eligible to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2018 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Ambu logo.gif

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Ambu logo.gif. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 18:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British Equestrian Federation.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British Equestrian Federation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Membership renewal

You have been a member of Wiki Project Med Foundation (WPMEDF) in the past. Your membership, however, appears to have expired. As such this is a friendly reminder encouraging you to officially rejoin WPMEDF. There are no associated costs. Membership gives you the right to vote in elections for the board. The current membership round ends in 2020.

ReJoin Wiki Project Med Foundation

Thanks again :-) The team at Wiki Project Med Foundation---Avicenno (talk) 05:34, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

A kitten for you!

I respect you a lot.

CheekiBreekiFox2814 (talk) 19:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Request for a permission of use of a material.

Greetings, sir. First aider volunteer Daniel is speaking, from Cyprus. I'd like to ask a permission for a use of your picture. I am making a book about civil defense and safety, I want to insert it into the chapter about medical symbols. As well, as I understood, you're an emergency medical technician? Thats awesome! May I ask you for approval of information about medicine and first aid to be clear? I need to have an approval of professional medical personnel. Its going to be a real honor for me to have an approval from a such person of community!

Thank you very much for your attention, waiting for your reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CheekiBreekiFox2814 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

Nomination for merging of Template:UKPower

Template:UKPower has been nominated for merging with Template:Energy in the United Kingdom. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Thank you. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Your access to AWB may be temporarily removed

Hello Owain.davies! This message is to inform you that due to editing inactivity, your access to AutoWikiBrowser may be temporarily removed. If you do not resume editing within the next week, your username will be removed from the CheckPage. This is purely for routine maintenance and is not indicative of wrongdoing on your part. You may regain access at any time by simply requesting it at WP:PERM/AWB. Thank you! — MusikBot II ^talk 17:08, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

Journal of Paramedic Practice

Hiya, I'd really appreciate some advice on making this draft page acceptable for publication - I'm new to creating pages, and seem stuck on this, even though I think its a better page than many other academic journal pages - would welcome another set of eyes and I saw you'd edited some related content, thanks in advance Tannim101 (talk) 22:02, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Nomination of List of South East Coast Ambulance Service stations for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article List of South East Coast Ambulance Service stations 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/List of South East Coast Ambulance Service stations until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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.

Elshad (talk) 11:54, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British Eventing.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British Eventing.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK for King Edward's Place

On 10 September 2021, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article King Edward's Place, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that King Edward's Place, once a love nest for King Edward VII, later became a children's activity centre? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/King Edward's Place. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, King Edward's Place), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 00:04, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

ArbCom 2021 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2021 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 6 December 2021. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2021 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:British Equestrian Federation.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:British Equestrian Federation.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 02:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Ashford Valley Hunt

The article Ashford Valley Hunt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Fails to meet WP:ORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 07:36, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Southdown and Eridge Hunt

The article Southdown and Eridge Hunt has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Does not meet WP:ORG.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 13:49, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Not strictly a quote?

In this edit you added a quote

"place the head in a such as position that the windpipe is kept straight, keeping the head up if the face is flushed, and in line with the body if it is pale"

As far back as 80 years ago they still had editors and so it is hard to believe the manglement occurred back then. Could you from memory or consulting the source again determine if instead they had "in such a position" ? Shenme (talk) 17:15, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 5

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Nuffield Press, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Cowley. Such links are usually incorrect, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of unrelated topics with similar titles. (Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.)

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:21, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK nomination of Nuffield Press

Hello! Your submission of Nuffield Press at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified. Please review the comment(s) at your nomination's entry and respond there at your earliest convenience. Thank you for contributing to Did You Know! DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:20, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Nuffield Press

On 10 September 2022, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Nuffield Press, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that more than 1000 tons of paper were used every year printing car literature for the British Motor Corporation by the in-house Nuffield Press? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Nuffield Press. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Nuffield Press), and if they received a combined total of at least 416.7 views per hour (i.e., 5,000 views in 12 hours or 10,000 in 24), the hook may be added to the statistics page. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

— Maile (talk) 00:02, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 12 December 2022. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:21, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK for Exeter Theatre Royal fire

On 3 January 2023, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Exeter Theatre Royal fire, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that C. J. Phipps, the leading theatre architect of the age, was found responsible for the deadliest-ever UK theatre disaster? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Exeter Theatre Royal fire. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Exeter Theatre Royal fire), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.

BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 20,296 views (845.7 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of January 2023 – nice work!

GalliumBot (talk • contribs) (he/it) 03:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for February 25

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited County Ground Stadium, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speedway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:02, 25 February 2023 (UTC)

New page reviewer granted

Hi Owain.davies. Your account has been added to the "New page reviewers" user group. Please check back at the permissions page in case your user right is time-limited or probationary. This user group allows you to review new pages through the Curation system and mark them as patrolled, tag them for maintenance issues, or nominate them for deletion. The list of articles awaiting review is located at the New Pages Feed. New page reviewing is vital to maintaining the integrity of the encyclopedia. If you have not already done so, you must read the tutorial at New Pages Review, the linked guides and essays, and fully understand the deletion policy. If you need any help or want to discuss the process, you are welcome to use the new page reviewer talk page or ask via the NPP Discord. In addition, please remember:

• Be nice to new editors. They are usually not aware that they are doing anything wrong. Do make use of the message feature when tagging pages for maintenance so that they are aware.
• You will frequently be asked by users to explain why their page is being deleted. Please be formal and polite in your approach to them – even if they are not.
• If you are not sure what to do with a page, don't review it – just leave it for another reviewer.
• Accuracy is more important than speed. Take your time to patrol each page, including checking for copyright violations using Earwig's copyright violation detector, checking for duplicate articles, and evaluating sources (both in the article, and if needed, via a Google search) for compliance with the general notability guideline.
• Please review some of our flowcharts (1, 2) to help ensure you don't forget any steps.
• Use the message feature to communicate with article creators and offer advice as much as possible.

The reviewer right does not change your status or how you can edit articles. If you no longer want this user right, you also may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. In cases of abuse or persistent inaccuracy of reviewing, or long-term inactivity, the right may be withdrawn at administrator discretion. If you can read any languages other than English, please add yourself to the list of new page reviewers with language proficiencies. Anarchyte (talk) 11:21, 19 September 2023 (UTC)

George Andrews Reserve

Congrats on becoming a NPR. However, I was curious in why you marked this unreferenced article as reviewed. Thanks. VickKiang (talk) 06:59, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

OK, so as you note I'm new at this. My thought process was that it was tagged for references, and a quick bit of searching showed me that it was real and potentially notable, so didn't seem to fit any of the speedy criteria. That, to me, seemed to be the right approach to mark it reviewed, and let the reference tag pick up the work. More than happy for feedback if people think that isn't the right approach. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 08:43, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol newsletter

Hello Owain.davies,

New Page Review article queue, March to September 2023

Backlog update: At the time of this message, there are 11,300 articles and 15,600 redirects awaiting review. This is the highest backlog in a long time. Please help out by doing additional reviews!

October backlog elimination drive: A one-month backlog drive for October will start in one week! Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Articles will earn 4x as many points compared to redirects. You can sign up here.

PageTriage code upgrades: Upgrades to the PageTriage code, initiated by the NPP open letter in 2022 and actioned by the WMF Moderator Tools Team in 2023, are ongoing. More information can be found here. As part of this work, the Special:NewPagesFeed now has a new version in beta! The update leaves the NewPagesFeed appearance and function mostly identical to the old one, but updates the underlying code, making it easier to maintain and helping make sure the extension is not decommissioned due to maintenance issues in the future. You can try out the new Special:NewPagesFeed here - it will replace the current version soon.

Notability tip: Professors can meet WP:PROF #1 by having their academic papers be widely cited by their peers. When reviewing professor articles, it is a good idea to find their Google Scholar or Scopus profile and take a look at their h-index and number of citations. As a very rough rule of thumb, for most fields, articles on people with a h-index of twenty or more, a first-authored paper with more than a thousand citations, or multiple papers each with more than a hundred citations are likely to be kept at AfD.

Reviewing tip: If you would like like a second opinion on your reviews or simply want another new page reviewer by your side when patrolling, we recommend pair reviewing! This is where two reviewers use Discord voice chat and screen sharing to communicate with each other while reviewing the same article simultaneously. This is a great way to learn and transfer knowledge.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Page Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:46, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

AFD of The Rude Gesture: A Pictorial History

You need to follow the directions at WP:AFDHOWTO to properly nominate the article for deletion. There are three steps in the howto. You have completed step I, started on step II and have not done III. It will not be discussed unless all three steps are completed. The most important are the two that you have not completed. ~ GB fan 16:25, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. I resurrected it because it never should have been deleted in the first place. I've added the relevant references that are similar to the article for the subsequent single (entitled Uranus). It's a legitimate entry. I own the 7" and all of the details in the original article are accurate. TTrentham (talk) 05:03, 4 October 2023 (UTC)

Peacock language on Zev Sebastian

Hi there. I noticed you added the {{Peacock}} tag on Zev Sebastian. However, I cannot see any promotional content. The only vaguely promotional idea I could see claimed as related to the article is its existence, which is a whole other discussion. JacobTheRox (talk) 15:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

In particular, I thought the part about the EMS piano competition gave the impression of a competition of more renown than is the case, and the details of a school concert and a performance at a club (also without its own article) also seemed to me to be overly promotional of the subject.

Overall, I think it does also play into the AfD, because I'm afraid this just doesn't seem to meet WP:V or WP:N. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 19:25, 8 October 2023 (UTC)

CS1 error on Lustleigh

Hello, I'm Qwerfjkl (bot). I have automatically detected that this edit performed by you, on the page Lustleigh, may have introduced referencing errors. They are as follows:

• A "bare URL and missing title" error. References show this error when they do not have a title. Please edit the article to add the appropriate title parameter to the reference. (Fix | Ask for help)

Please check this page and fix the errors highlighted. If you think this is a false positive, you can report it to my operator. Thanks, Qwerfjkl (bot) (talk) 15:20, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Wrt to recent tagging

Wrt to your tagging of Dignity DTRT Apparel and tagging of Thomas Fiss, I would suggest not tagging articles with more than 3 tags per the overtagging guidelines. If you feel there is a need for more than 3 tags that might be a good indicator that the article is probably running afoul of some CSD or AFD criterion. (in the case of Dignity DTRT Apparel the correct approach would be to CSD it as too promotional, which Wikishovel did). -- Sohom (talk) 14:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. This means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be although other editors disagree. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus, rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Points to note:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made;
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes and work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Bon courage (talk) 12:40, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

This is neither constructive, nor good faith.

I've made a good faith edit, with sources, which you reverted with a vague ref to guideline rather than policy, and after you re-reverted it, I've made a total rewrite of it.

OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

It is s standard template, and you are edit warring. If it continues, you risk being sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 12:50, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Again, not even slightly good faith.

On your second revert, I rewrote the whole section, and have added additional citations.

Have you maybe considered engaging with the question on the article talk page? OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:55, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Introduction to contentious topics

You have recently edited a page related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, a topic designated as contentious. This standard message is designed as an introduction to contentious topics and does not imply that there are any issues with your editing.

A special set of rules applies to certain topic areas, which are referred to as contentious topics. These are specially designated topics that tend to attract more persistent disruptive editing than the rest of the project and have been designated as contentious topics by the Arbitration Committee. When editing a contentious topic, Wikipedia’s norms and policies are more strictly enforced, and Wikipedia administrators have special powers in order to reduce disruption to the project.

Within contentious topics, editors should edit carefully and constructively, refrain from disrupting the encyclopedia, and:

• adhere to the purposes of Wikipedia;
• comply with all applicable policies and guidelines;
• follow editorial and behavioural best practice;
• comply with any page restrictions in force within the area of conflict; and
• refrain from gaming the system.

Editors are advised to err on the side of caution if unsure whether making a particular edit is consistent with these expectations. If you have any questions about contentious topics procedures you may ask them at the arbitration clerks' noticeboard or you may learn more about this contentious topic here. You may also choose to note which contentious topics you know about by using the {{Ctopics/aware}} template.

Bon courage (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

how is this even slightly helpful?

you could just talk about it on the article talk page, but instead you seem determined to make a big issue over something that could be discussed OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 12:56, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

I am discussing the matter (you did not initiate any conversation, but kept reverting, which is very far from best practice). This is to inform you about WP:CTOPs and I have nothing to add to what it says. It is mandatory to give this template to editors before they can be reported to WP:AE for doing this which do not conform to the guidance in this notice. Bon courage (talk) 13:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

you just seem determined to escalate a minor gripe about some content, rather than substantively addressing it beyond it looking (in your opinion) a bit like something in a WP essay. Threatening arbitration action seems vastly disproportionate. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Bad faith move

I note your edit summary here.[9] which violated the WP:CIVIL policy. If you do this again I shall report you to WP:AE and ask that you be sanctioned. Bon courage (talk) 11:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I think your civility has been very much lacking. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Your behaviour is very much inline with WP:POVRAILROAD, and you seem unwilling to engage in actual constructive dialogue. OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:18, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

False accusations of bad faith in a (permanent) edit summary are very bad, especially given the expectation of a WP:CTOP see above. Multiple editors are trying to improve the current situation, in good faith. Bon courage (talk) 13:26, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure there is a reasonable expectation of any CTOP involvement except what you seem to be trying to drum up. Its just an article about a notable podcast, on which some people have said some controversial things (in both political directions). OwainDavies ^(about)_(talk) edited at 13:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Triggernometry logo.jpg

⚠

Thanks for uploading File:Triggernometry logo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:45, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Francis Foster (comedian) for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Francis Foster (comedian), to which you have significantly contributed, is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or if it should be deleted.

The discussion will take place at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Francis Foster (comedian) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. 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.

To customise your preferences for automated AfD notifications for articles to which you've significantly contributed (or to opt-out entirely), please visit the configuration page. Delivered by SDZeroBot (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Owain.davies:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

October 2023 NPP backlog drive – Points award

		The Reviewer Barnstar
		This award is given to Owain.davies for collecting more than 50 points during the October 2023 NPP backlog drive. Thank you so much for taking part and contributing to the drive! Hey man im josh (talk) 01:56, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

File:Morris Owner Front Cover 1927.jpg

Now that the image is definitely in the public domain in the US, and it seems you have a physical copy:

1. Can you upload a higher-resolution version (on top of the existing image)?
2. Can you look for the name of the artist for the front cover art? (You can put this information in the "Author" field of the image description page.)

This will help make the image more useful. Thanks! Wikiacc (¶) 02:08, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

By "on top" I mean at the same filename as the existing image (using the "Upload a new version of this file" link). Wikiacc (¶) 02:36, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

New pages patrol January 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | January 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 January 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 9

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited A382 road, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page A383 road.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:10, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for March 16

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited Joe Coral, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Speedway.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 06:12, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of British Horseball Association

The article British Horseball Association has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

No secondary sources, no evidence of meeting WP:ORGCRIT.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing {{proposed deletion/dated}} will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. AusLondonder (talk) 12:50, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

New Pages Patrol newsletter April 2024

Hello Owain.davies,

New Page Review queue January to March 2024

Backlog update: The October drive reduced the article backlog from 11,626 to 7,609 and the redirect backlog from 16,985 to 6,431! Congratulations to Schminnte, who led with over 2,300 points.

Following that, New Page Patrol organized another backlog drive for articles in January 2024. The January drive started with 13,650 articles and reduced the backlog to 7,430 articles. Congratulations to JTtheOG, who achieved first place with 1,340 points in this drive.

Looking at the graph, it seems like backlog drives are one of the only things keeping the backlog under control. Another backlog drive is being planned for May. Feel free to participate in the May backlog drive planning discussion.

It's worth noting that both queues are gradually increasing again and are nearing 14,034 articles and 22,540 redirects. We encourage you to keep contributing, even if it's just a single patrol per day. Your support is greatly appreciated!

2023 Awards

Onel5969 won the 2023 cup with 17,761 article reviews last year - that's an average of nearly 50/day. There was one Platinum Award (10,000+ reviews), 2 Gold Awards (5000+ reviews), 6 Silver (2000+), 8 Bronze (1000+), 30 Iron (360+) and 70 more for the 100+ barnstar. Hey man im josh led on redirect reviews by clearing 36,175 of them. For the full details, see the Awards page and the Hall of Fame. Congratulations everyone for their efforts in reviewing!

WMF work on PageTriage: The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers deployed the rewritten NewPagesFeed in October, and then gave the NewPagesFeed a slight visual facelift in November. This concludes most major work to Special:NewPagesFeed, and most major work by the WMF Moderator Tools team, who wrapped up their major work on PageTriage in October. The WMF Moderator Tools team and volunteer software developers will continue small work on PageTriage as time permits.

Recruitment: A couple of the coordinators have been inviting editors to become reviewers, via mass-messages to their talk pages. If you know someone who you'd think would make a good reviewer, then a personal invitation to them would be great. Additionally, if there are Wikiprojects that you are active on, then you can add a post there asking participants to join NPP. Please be careful not to double invite folks that have already been invited.

Reviewing tip: Reviewers who prefer to patrol new pages within their most familiar subjects can use the regularly updated NPP Browser tool.

Reminders:

• You can access live chat with patrollers on the New Pages Patrol Discord.
• Consider adding the project discussion page to your watchlist.
• To opt out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

New page patrol May 2024 Backlog drive

New Page Patrol | May 2024 Articles Backlog Drive
On 1 May 2024, a one-month backlog drive for New Page Patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each review will earn 1 point. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:15, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

New pages patrol September 2024 Backlog drive

New pages patrol | September 2024 Backlog Drive
On 1 September 2024, a one-month backlog drive for new pages patrol will begin. Barnstars will be awarded based on the number of articles and redirects patrolled. Barnstars will also be granted for re-reviewing articles previously reviewed by other patrollers during the drive. Each article review will earn 1 point, and each redirect review will earn 0.2 points. Interested in taking part? Sign up here.
You're receiving this message because you are a new page patroller. To opt-out of future mailings, please remove yourself here.

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:10, 26 August 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Big Church Festival for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Big Church Festival 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/Big Church Festival until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, 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 until the discussion has finished.

I am notifying you because you patrolled the page and added a {{sources exist}} tag. Best, voorts (talk/contributions) 21:33, 1 September 2024 (UTC)