User talk:Presto54

No consensus for its inclusion. Please see here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:09, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You can continue the discussion at WT:MED to see if you can get consensus but Wikipedia is not a collection of external links. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Presto54, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• Quick introduction to Wikipedia
• How to write a great article
• Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLoS
• Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
• Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page.

If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to check out the Medicine Portal.
If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).

Again, welcome!  WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that as a newbie, you aren't getting enough "Warm fuzzies." I usually stay in the software-education arena, eg. mindmaps. However, I was following a contribution in the education arena by WhatamIdoing and saw that your birthing process included the sometimes abrasive world of Wikipedia peer review. Therefore, a bowl of strawberries and some warm fuzzies! — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, Talk to me! 16:37, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for finding the typo in my sig (compare the old v. new; User-talk v. User_talk).

You asked about how I found you. I cross WhatamIdoing's trail from time to time. She is always the most sensible Wikipedian involved in any conversation. When I see her name I tend to veer off my prior course to snoop into her activities, not always but often. Her recent contributions included your Welcome from her. So I looked at your recent contributions and saw that you were involved in a protracted external links debate. As you are finding out, Aristotle was right, to be persuasive you need the right mixture of logos, ethos and pathos for your audience, not necessarily in that order.

I believe that we need to nurture new editors like yourself by being a more warm and fuzzy kind of place. And I think that the whimsical nature of WikiLove is going to help. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 20:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply to my talk page. Since we first corresponded I found out that LiAnna Davis and several other WMF staff members would participate in WikiSym 2011. If you are interested in any of the proceedings (e.g. "Mentoring in Wikipedia: A Clash of Cultures" or "Don't bite the Newbies" ) you can download this zip file. — John Harvey, Wizened Web Wizard Wannabe, ^{Talk to me!} 17:15, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for asking for my opinion on this. I have given it at the talk page. Neurotip (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Presto! (Sorry). I commented on your recent thread at Project Medicine. Sorry about the excoriation. After a while here you grow asbestos skin. If someone at MedMerits decides to go to the trouble of individually linking articles at the bottom EL section, can you please make sure they fully grasp WP:EL, and ask them to make plain what the link is adding to the article. In the example I gave that would mean something like this:

External links[edit]

• [2] List of drugs used for the treatment of pain.

Cheers! --Anthonyhcole (talk) 11:02, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Presto54, please read WP:CANVASS. Posting a request on dozens of member's talk pages is discouraged. If they are interested in medical articles on WP, they will have WP:MED on their watchlist. The length of your post and the fact that it mostly repeats the earlier discussion is unlikely to encourage a favourable response. See also WP:DEADHORSE. -- Colin°^Talk 14:57, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I see that despite my warning, you have continued your alphabetical mission to spam all medical-interested users with external links to your website and links to your verbose posting at WP:MED. This is your last warning. If you continue spamming your website, I shall request a block from an administrator. This would indeed be unfortunate. You could be much more productively useful, as Doc James notes below. Colin°^Talk 18:12, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So it's alphabetical, is it? Come to the H's apparently. Well, Presto, I haven't participated but I've read the discussion(s). The only neurological disorders I have knowledge about are the 6 circadian rhythm sleep disorders. Medmerits only has articles on 2 of them. Hordaland (talk) 18:41, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Presto you are more than welcome to get involved with WP:MED and improve the content of the articles found here. If you need any help with this drop me a note. But as Colin has stated above your current activities may land you in trouble. Cheers Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:07, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I didn't know about canvassing. I stopped. Presto54 (talk) 18:51, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. There are a lot of rules :-) We of course want people to improve the content here. Thus as stated previously if you bring an article to WP:GA status ( typically they must be well referenced to review articles and well written ) I will support the addition of MedMerits to that article. We want high quality content freely available under an open source license. The problem with MedMerits is that it is not under an open source license. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:59, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Anytime you want to improve our neurology articles, I'd be happy to help in as much as I can (lay but interested). Colin°^Talk 19:03, 8 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Just to be clear, indiscriminate linking to MedMerits in medical or neurological articles would be inappropriate. There may be some (probably rare) instances where it would be appropriate to add a link to a MedMerits article containing information that is too detailed for inclusion in our article. Most of the MedMerits articles I've looked at though, only contain information that belongs in our article, so a link would be inappropriate. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 01:40, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for your suggestions. --Giovanni Camporeale (talk) 07:30, 9 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

		Civility Award
		To Presto54, for remaining polite and respectful during criticism. Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for remaining calm despite the harsh, and in some cases rude, responses. Best wishes, Axl ¤ [Talk] 01:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]