Talk:James Heilman/Archive 1

2584:

In the same vein how do you justify/prove that the first part of this sentence (from the lead) is correct: "He is an active contributor to WikiProject Medicine, was the president of Wikimedia Canada between 2010 and 2013, and has been the president of Wiki Project Med Foundation since 2012." Note that reference number 4 is the linked-in page of James. So if on his linked-in page he mentioned his involvement with the WikiProject Sanitation would that be an OK source to cite for the statement that "James is involved with the WikiProject Sanitation"? I am just trying to understand. This particular article is not getting so many views yet, so it's probably not worth spending too much time arguing backwards and forwards if it's worth mentioning that he's interested in sanitation topics on Knowledge or not.

2292:"While editing Knowledge, an editor's primary role is to be a Wikipedian. Any external relationship (any secondary role) may undermine that primary role, and when it does undermine it, or could reasonably be said to undermine it, that person has a conflict of interest. A judge's primary role as an impartial adjudicator would be undermined by her secondary role as the defendant's wife. A journalist's primary role as a disinterested investigator would be undermined by his secondary role as business partner of the subject of his investigation... Any external relationship – personal, religious, political, academic, financial, and legal – can trigger a conflict of interest. How close the relationship needs to be before it becomes a concern on Knowledge is governed by common sense." 482:: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reliably published may be used in Knowledge; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Knowledge to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. 215:

involved extensive debate, anger, disagreement, and public discussion. The very fact that the media covered the debate indicates its controversial nature, but especially in combination with the focus in the sources on anger and disagreement. So what the sources describe is by definition, a controversy. We need the text to be backed up by a reliable source, but as writers we sometimes substitute words which summarize what the sources are saying. In this case, the word controversy, as defined, is consistent with the sources, and thus passes verification. Cheers,

2613:). Forums in particular, however, are especially suspect because there is little to no way to actually determine who wrote them. That is different than a verified twitter account or an established blog with a clear link to identity. Finally, forums are almost always considered a very low quality source because of there extremely fleeting and unmoderated nature. We want more substantive mentions from secondary sources with only BLPSPS to 'illustrate' them, if at all. Does that help? Jake 1226:

the topic of the BLP (yes, imo) and b) was it reported in a reliable source (yes, imo). Also, any complaint to a professional regulatory body is relevant to your job (and no matter how minor or frivolous is nerve-racking). James' ambition appears to be to bring medical knowledge to the marginalized (among others). That's what I read in the article. The fact that health professionals tried to stop it, in any manner, relates directly to that role and therefore the article.

31: 1773:? As for the complaints by the token two, yes Heilman's reaction does sound totally over-the-top, doesn't it. But if you really want sound-bites, why not go for "teach them routinely in every Psychology 110 class, which probably tens of thousands of people take every year" or "'I think they feel insecure about their profession" - both statements equally adrift from reality, I would suggest. 3935: 2605:. BLPSPS is appropriate for claims the subject makes about themself, for example their religious identification. We shouldn't use it however to describe the scope of interests/activities/accomplishments of the subject. If those are noteworthy, then we should rely on a secondary source to have written about them. 664:'s draft of this article. I'm hoping that there are other sources to justify the 'dismissed' conclusion. There is a confusing mixture of state and federal venues. I don't have knowledge of what happened to the suit but I'm arguing that we shouldn't attribute whatever action was taken to a nonexistent federal court. 2859:

An uncontroversial wikilink is not a BLP violation, and they do not serve to disproportionally promote anything. They are courtesy links, and the sources clearly discuss Heilman's involvement with them. The style question of whether they should be included in the body of the article or in a section

2569:

I reverted back again, because BLPSPS doesn't indicate that any independent, secondary source considered this activity about Sanitation to be noteworthy. I'm as much a fan of James as anyone, but this article needs to stick to high-level sourcing all the more so because he's such a great Wikipedian.

591:

Unless they have a clear consensus, I'd like to call for a moratorium on cleanup templates on this article. I applaud QuackGuru's diligence in seeking to make sure that the sources pass muster, but I think he needs to relax a bit and reread the associated policies and guidelines before applying more

114:

Does Dr. Heilman's general notability arise from his work as a emergency room doctor, from his controversial additions to a single Knowledge article, from his "improvement of Knowledge's health-related content" in general, or from the combination of all three? Does he dress, as pictured, for only one

4205:

and find the WikiProject for Medicine. Alas, fallacious thinking on my part. I did a similar search for WikiProject Plants (as I know that that is a well established WikiProject) and the extent of my fuzzy thinking became -- well, even more confused -- as that search comes up blank. When it comes

2651:

being used to reference the "President of Wiki Project Medicine since 2012" fact. All of the other facts in that statement can be sourced elsewhere. In this case, I'd let it stand as is because it's a fairly one-dimensional 'date of service'. It's not ideal, but it's less of a problem than a more

2583:

says "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below).". So as he has written on that forum/blog himself it counts as a source, doens't it?

2197:

But the New York Times didn't think it was frivolous to report on it. I think the complaint was dumb and ill conceived, but the RS we use should decide if it was frivolous, and the merit of the complaint is not why it's worth reporting. We're not giving merit to the complaint by covering it here.

1030:

I disagree with your characterization that it is undue coverage; the number of citations in that paragraph clearly indicates that he achieved substantial notability from this event. Nonetheless, I have summarized the key points and reduced the word count. I did not remove the template, as I figure

961:

The current text in the article is not fully supported by the secondary source and there remains a primary source. The word "English" may or may not be true. I was unable to verify that word. Translators Without Borders may be translating articles from other languages other than English. The current

3711:

Should Jimbo's response, cited by motherboard in the same article, to this subject's "indication", be included for NPOV purposes? I have no opinion, maybe because I embrace free speech so much that the language does not bother me at all, but what do others think? And would it be too abrasive toward

1469:

So you're suggesting that "other" is somehow less vague than "some"? and/or that "other" suggests original research to show that the two groups of psychologists may, in some way, overlap? Surely "some psychologists said the test had previously lost its popularity and usefulness" is too close to the

1225:

The way I read it, the article is not about his role as an ER physician, but about a physician that is trying to bring reliable medical knowledge to people who would normally not have access to it. The information channel just happens to be Knowledge. The issues are; a) was an incident related to

214:

with requiring an exact semantic match. I don't mean to sound pedantic here, but I'm just going to cite you the definition of controversy: "disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated." If you examine the sources, CBC and NY Times specifically, you'll see that this series of events

4209:

Simply stated, this redirect is disingenuous and crazy-making. Doc James has done lots of good stuff for WP, don't get me wrong. But I was not trying to break the fourth wall of Knowledge by this search, would have much preferred to not be distracted by this WP version of a puff piece. A search

2631:

Thanks for the detailed explanation, much appreciated (I am still quite new here). Just one last thing, like I asked above: So if on his linked-in page he mentioned his involvement with the WikiProject Sanitation would that be an OK source to cite for the statement that "James is involved with the

2121:

I disagree over deletion. These weren't just "people", they were professional psychologists. The issue was not just "editing Knowledge", it was about potentially spoiling psychological test material. Furthermore, and more relevant here, the exchange, and it's reporting in national media, is one of

2053:

Well, I think we can agree there that it had nothing whatever to do with him being doctor. But we still have this article here, after the recent RfD. About your objection to the use of the word "other", that started this thread, however.... ? I'm really not sure that I understand what you meant.

2253:

I was absolutely puzzled as to why Guy Macon would propose this as there has not been a big disruption here..yes some reverts but no real edit wars. However after looking at QuackGuru history I can see why some have reservations about him in general. I dont know QuackGuru so will let others talk

3238:

I realize that we probably need to tread carefully around Knowledge drama, and perhaps potential legal issues for the WMF, but why was he removed from the WMF board? The article says he was removed once, and then again, that it "generated controversy". Why was he dismissed and how did it create

1193:

The issue here is if the complaint had any merit or is it related to his job. No evidence has been given that the complaint had any merit. A frivolous complaint is not encyclopedic for an encyclopedia, especially for a BLP page. His job and editing Knowledge are two separate things. RS does not

2360:

I am not accusing anyone of misbehaving, but I am questioning whether QuackGuru can be impartial and maintain a neutral point of view while editing the James Heilman page. Note the word "questioning". It was chosen deliberately and is not synonymous with "saying" or claiming". I am raising a

1134:

Because the College of Physicians and Surgeons in Saskatchewan is the body that allows him to work in the real-world. The fact that an editorial decision on Knowledge resulted in a real-world complaint to his professional body creates a chilling effect on anybody else who contributes. As a

2202:

it attacked a Knowledge editor for the sharing of information; that attempt at censor-censure describes a noteworthy development in being a part of this project. We take risks. NY Times found that risk interesting, as do I. That the complaint was frivolous has little to do with it.

1045:

I agree with Zad about the quotes and thanks Ninja for the more summary encyclopedic style. I've removed the tag as the sources indeed cover this incident and Heilman's role in it extensively compared to other subjects. It's not a WEIGHT violation when the sources cover it more too.

623:(not to be confused with the other federal court in California, which is the Northern District). So I suggest that we replace the name of the court in the text with 'a federal court in California', which could if necessary be wikilinked to the full name of the Central District court. 3289:

The source says the subject "hinted" that his push for Knowledge Engine transparency was a factor in his dismissal. QuackGuru changed the word as it had been put into this Blp to "suggested" and wishes to push that particular word. There does not appear to be a synonym for "hinted"

1241:

I'll endorse this view. As far as I can tell, it's neither undue nor a BLP violation. If the article slanted coverage of the event, then it might be a BLP violation, but it's all rather neutral. Consensus here seems to be that this be included. If you still disagree, QuackGuru,

2021:? The issue wasn't "for editing Knowledge" it was the widespread and irreversible release of psychological test materials, and explanations of their interpretation, into the public domain. Your description of that one part of that whole drama as "frivolous" is wholly misleading. 2505: 547:

Eh, no. Ordinary journalistic work in the form of a journalist interviewing people, attending events they report from etc. is not primary sources. This is not what is meant by "close to an event" as long as the journalist is independent of the people he interviews etc.

2860:

dedicated to external links is valid. If these were external websites unassociated with Knowledge, I'd say they should be moved to an external links section. Because they are Knowledge/Wikimedia-associated projects, it seems legit to keep them linked in the body.

2390:. If there's a problem with a specific edit, this would be place to challenge it. For what it's worth, I think this article is perfectly fine, and I don't like the efforts to chip away at it. If people want to delete masses of unsourced original research, try 2503:

I added something about James' engagement with sanitation. I was told to find a source. Would it be suitable to refer to this forum discussion thread where he has posted a few times and has been engaging with sanitation experts on the topic of Knowledge:

2762:

The first statement was already sourced in the article. The second statement is also sourced. There is no original research at all in this article. The links out of mainspace are courtesy links and are not being used to source any of the statements.

1952:

The first change made no grammatical sense. But I was waiting for your fuller explanation about the dreadful "other" word. And I don't accept that because only two Canadian psychologists made that local complaint, it was therefore a "minority view".

1715:

I'm not convinced that "lost its popularity and usefulness" means exactly the same as "is no longer relevant or practical", especially when the subject described is a projective psychological test. But I really don't see it's a big issue either way.

2601:, thanks for your engagement here and curiosity. The lead of an article doesn't always have references because it summarizes the body of the text that does. I don't think there is anything in the lead not cited by an independent reliable source 2513: 2478:

The specific degrees earned should definitely be listed. However, the source used to support the statement about his degrees doesn't list the actual degree received. Although I've looked for sources that have more detail, I haven't found them.

1396:

That is what I mean to do, convert to the citation template "cite journal" (being a big fan of citation templates, I think they could lead to advanced meta data analysis, increased uniformity and completeness of refs, etc.). Anyone object? - -

4609:

Hello. I apologize if I interfered. I do not know where to write, no one answers on the discussion page, I decided here. I created a profile, it has authoritative links, I want you to direct the page to the main space. I hope you will respond

1650:

As noted above did not see this talk before editing a clear copy vio. As for meaning the words are just synonyms dont think to much has changed. That said perhaps best we just quote the thing. The New York times reported "quoted statement".--

361:. I'm sorry you disagree, but I can't really have a discussion with you if you don't respond to the points I made in each edit summary along with the sources and changes. You'll have to get some others to weigh in at this point. Cheers, 566:

articles are clearly secondary sources. They draw from primary sources, including quotations from involved parties, but that does not make them primary sources. An account written by Heilman of his experiences would be a primary source.

3498:

Its not notable, that's for sure. This subject's life has a lot more important stuff to it than to include some vague reference to a "factor" in why he was removed from a volunteer position. Its only insiders who think that is important.

2506:

http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/166-definitions-wikis-wikipedia-glossaries-dictionaries-mapping-tools/10174-health-information-on-wikipedia-is-going-from-strength-to-strength-can-we-do-the-same-for-sanitation-together-with-others

1870:

Not sure about the "two Canadian" - it may be a minority view but the point is that they filed the complaints. The complaints is what is relevant to the statement even if a minority view .....it took place and was reported on. --

2878:

says "He was a founding member of Wikimedia Canada (an NGO that promotes Knowledge in Canada) and is an active contributor to WikiProject Medicine, which works to broaden the scope and improve the quality of medical articles on

3268:

NRP is right in that there is little to say here because little has been reported in reliable sources, but I recently added stuff about this subject using an article in the Register as a source, for what that's worth.

2509: 714:. To be clear, in coming up with that version you linked to, I only copyedited what was there and I didn't add any sources. I don't know how that primary source court document got in there. But looks better now. 2122:

the few things that makes Mr Heilman generally notable and thus deserving of a Knowledge article. If we keep "chipping away", because individual items seem to be "frivolous" I'm afraid we might have nothing left.

3531:. What is your argument that it is not notable that Heilman was forced off the Board because he pushed for transparency when at the same time Jimmy Wales and Lila Tretikov pushed to keep the KE project a secret. 2514:

http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/166-definitions-wikis-wikipedia-glossaries-dictionaries-mapping-tools/11301-the-difference-between-open-access-and-free-access-explained-open-access-policies-cc-by-licence

4577:

See "Ebola (Ebola virus disease)". Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. August 3, 2018. This and other sources do not mention Heilman. If the tag remains on the article for over week it would be deleted.

620: 2785:), but they should not normally be placed in the body of an article". Seeing as Wiki Project Med Foundation is not notable yet for its own article, I disagree that it should still be linked, even for courtesy. 4226:

internal link). Anyway, after a ludicrous meander away from my target search, I'm adding a message at the top of the good doctor's page to inform other wanderers of options beyond the doc's toothy grin.

857:

The who source says "As mentioned, we are working on a collaborative effort with Translators Without Borders to translate 80 priority English-language articles into as many other languages as possible."

1115:

The frivolous complaint does not belong in an encyclopedia. Adding images to Knowledge is not relevant to his profession of being a doctor. I don't understand what is the point to including this text.

956:

From the source: "The articles are being prepared so they can be translated — with the help of Translators Without Borders — into as many languages as possible, particularly in the developing world."

2991:

This is getting incredibly tedious. Stop blanking the article, or I'll request page protection. This is well-sourced, and your complaints are baseless. "News articles are inadequate"? No. Read

1167:

Heilman is notable for being a doctor who edits Knowledge's medical content. It couldn't be more related that he was targeted at his job as a doctor for something he did while editing Knowledge.

494:

add unsourced material from your personal experience, because that would make Knowledge a primary source of that material. Use extra caution when handling primary sources about living people; see

431:

Something published by the University of British Columbia is in fact reliable, and I've seen lots of other reliable sources in the article like New York Times, National Post, CBC or The Guardian.

2882:

This one says "James Heilman is one of the primary editors of Knowledge’s health and medical content, who – like all the online encyclopedia’s collaborators – contributes on a voluntary basis."

2217:

too. I'm seeing a lot of minimizing the controversies surrounding Heilman by QuackGuru and it seems that it's a continual pattern. Even though he is an WP ambassador, his BLP musn't fall into

4611: 3850: 3020:@96.52.0.249: Would you declare why you are so interested in hacking bits out of this article? The issue is absurd and attempts to involve WP:EL + WP:BLP + kitchen sink will achieve nothing. 1985:

Why do you think it was "frivolous"? Mr Heilman didn't seem to see it as such. I don't think he's objected to its inclusion here. But we seem to be drifting away from where this all started.

4218:, while a WP search for Wiki Project Med Foundation comes up with the message "There is a page named "Wiki Project Med Foundation" on Knowledge" -- and there is not, only a redirect to 370:

You have not removed the unreliable sources such the Wikimediafoundation.org and translatorswithoutborders.org sources and there is still text in this article that fails verification.

2510:

http://forum.susana.org/forum/categories/166-definitions-wikis-wikipedia-glossaries-dictionaries-mapping-tools/12204-when-is-susana-going-to-move-to-open-access-for-its-publications

3513:

I removed the sentence because after our discussion, I am sure it is not notable enough to be in his Blp. If you are sure it belongs, you may put it back and I will not revert.

2647:

I think the LinkedIn citation is borderline. I have more trust that this is actually James Heilman's profile than a random forum post. Importantly, I suspect this citation is

4154:...Like history, jurisprudence, philosophy, theology, canon law, and vestibular disorders? Coursework, degrees, credentials programs, or academic journals? (Or is this just 1198:, if we cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. The complaint or incident is really not applicable to his job. 1367:

Shouldn't the titles of his publications be in quotes and the names of the journals be in italics? Any objection to converting the articles to the cite journal template? - -

455:

The notion that the New York Times is somehow a primary source is risible. I've taken the tags off of those citations until a credible argument is made for their inclusion.

2974: 2071:

When it had nothing to do with him being a doctor and then two people file a complaint to his local doctors' organization for editing Knowledge it is indeed frivolous.

1149:

As an editor who edits Knowledge how is this complaint relevant to his job. Editing Knowledge is not related to being a doctor. So it was indeed a frivolous complaint.

1112:"In August 2009, two Canadian psychologists filed complaints about Heilman to his local doctors' organization; Heilman called the complaints "intimidation tactics." " 2398:, both of which need a determined editor to come in and clean up. This article is well-sourced, conforms to all policies and guidelines, and frankly does not need a 1748:"In August 2009, two Canadian psychologists filed complaints about Heilman to his local doctors' organization; Heilman called the complaints "intimidation tactics"." 2239:

I am just going to throw this out there without advocating it until I see what other folks think. How about a topic ban for QuackGuru on the James Heilman page? --

2268:

I did not propose it. I brought it up for discussion. I may very well oppose the idea; I am on the fence. The issue -- if there is one -- is one of COI editing.

1683:

Quotes might be the easiest way to resolve this. But that CBC source has no author. Still not sure I fully understand the strong objection to the word "other".

1031:

there should be more discussion on the matter before it is removed. Currently, there are four sentences in that section, and I think that's quite reasonable.

855: 822: 2970:

journalist/reporter simply introduces James as a president; news articles are inadequate and unreliable when it comes to official positions of an organization

2958:

journalist/reporter simply introduces James as a president; news articles are inadequate and unreliable when it comes to official positions of an organization

2952:

journalist/reporter simply introduces James as a president; news articles are inadequate and unreliable when it comes to official positions of an organization

2685: 2198:

Instead, we are demonstrating that Heilman's actions were part of a controversy that contributes to his notability. The complaint is also quite interesting

2035:

The complaint was frivolous because it had nothing to do with being a doctor. The complaint was made because two people did not agree with Knowledge policy.

2667: 1055:

The part "involved in a controversy" and "extensive debate" is repetitive. I think the section requires further cleanup. That text must also be balanced.

1307:

What about adding the links that he's put as tabs at the top of the page (editor outreach, translation pages, etc.. from wikiproject medicine) instead.

2328: 777: 1444: 1421: 619:

The name of the court used in the text is inexact, since there is more than one district in California. The court which did the dismissing was the

1839:

I have moved on from discussing it with Martinevans123, however, I would like to know what others think of "Some" versus "Other". Here is what the

3440:

You started a discussion at the BLP noticeboard with the title "Maybe the Heilman info should be in his BLP?" It is because of you it is in here.

2461: 1514:

um, so we shouldn't paraphrase, we should copy (as in copyvio)? What did the editor who made the change think he was doing? Shouldn't we ask him?

486:

analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.

3998:"Heilman first discovered Knowledge during the three years (2000-2003) that he was a medical school student at the University of Saskatchewan." 3669:

Well, I wasn't going to comment, but... I don't see a problem with including it. For one thing, notability does not apply to article content.

2939:

I took a closer look at James Heilman's positions and found that the third party post about James being elected to the Board of Trustees can be

2810:

Criticism and praise should be included if they can be sourced to reliable secondary sources, so long as the material is presented responsibly,

2652:

extensive description of involvement. Still, if we could find a secondary source talking about the time in that position, it would be better.

1484:

The source does say "some". We should not replace sourced text with vague text. That is all I am saying. The editor who changed the wording has

957: 907: 600:

citation as having failed verification when it says almost exactly what we're reporting in the article. Enough cleanup templates for a while.

4475:

It has come to my attention that this person does not meet notability criteria for people. I request that this page be immediately deleted.

1751:

I am surprised this is in the article. Only "two Canadian psychologists" is irrelevant and a minority view. What should be done about this?

657: 4039:

This is a mistake in the Vancouver Sun. I cam across Knowledge in 2007. I had stated that WP did not exist when I was in medical school.

3204: 2136:

The issue was for his edits to Knowledge. What your really saying is that you have no argument for including a frivolous complaint in a

505:: Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. 4015: 2969: 4114: 413:

Both sources are unreliable. The tags were removed but the sources were kept. There is no reason to keep unreliable sources in a BLP.

74:

Noting the gratuitous tagging of "connected contributor", since James Heilman has not edited this article; the article was created by

4615: 4419: 3930:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

2978: 2926: 2846: 2786: 2748: 2425:

seems pretty clear. Shouldn't the degrees and professional designations be discussed in the article and omitted from the lead? - -

2089:

Thanks for telling us you've "moved on". Did you want to re-title this discussion thread or split for the new topic of discussion?

985:

Looks like this article will stay. I had trimmed down the Rorschach thing to use summaries instead of big quotes, see the version

596:

article a primary source, has argued that a small paragraph with multiple citations is undue coverage, and has now tagged another

170:

edit, which was to fix an obvious error. But in hindsight I can see that wasn't the best solution. Ocaasi beat me to fixing it (

3920: 3406:

When you think about it, anything said within the concept of "hinting" probably does not even belong in an encyclopedia; I mean,

3254:

This question is still causing drama at Jimbo's talk page. Once the drama dies down, perhaps we'll be able to answer it better.

1382:

As you see fit. I'd probably just convert it to use citation templates, personally, but I know some people dislike using them.

4366:

this is the talk page for discussing Knowledge's article about James Heilman. You're looking for Doc's personal talk page, at

4276: 4141: 4052: 3811: 3712:

the subject? And if we decide not to use it, then for NPOV purposes, perhaps we should also exclude James's "hint"/indication?

2900: 1624:" which is not found in the source was restored. I would like a quote from the source to verify the word "other". The text has 632: 85: 3791:

Article says "Heilman is a clinical instructor at the department of emergency medicine at the University of British Columbia"

2951: 375: 3108: 3058: 2834: 2736: 2732: 2460:? Shouldn't graduated from U Sas in anatomy specify the degree earned? Shouldn't certification in emergency medicine by the 3460:

Good point. Maybe that was a mistake by me. What I'm trying to say is that "hinted at" info maybe is not good enough to be

2963: 592:

cleanup templates. I find his use of cleanup templates to be perplexing and contrary to policy. For example, he called a

395: 4545: 4513:

Please do not add the tag again. The community has already had 3 deletion discussions, with votes to keep the article. ---

4480: 4107: 1194:

guarantee it is important to include in an encyclopedia. Editing Knowledge has no direct relation to his workplace. For a

3761:

There is no official response from the WMF's Board of Trustees. Other sources indicate it was a factor in his dismissal.

2668:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/wikipedia-s-medical-errors-and-one-doctor-s-fight-to-correct-them-1.2990097?cmp=rss

3972: 3039: 4280: 4145: 4056: 3815: 2904: 1697:

I'd rather leave the wording as it is rather than put quotes in a BLP. User:Moxy did say the words are just synonyms.

950: 838:

This ref does not verify the claim at all. The ref does not even mention Heilman. So why was it added to this article?

744:

The translatorswithoutborders.org website is not a reliable source and the additional sources did not verify the claim

3655:

I suggest we leave it out until other editors provide a consensus for including it. You and I can agree to disagree.

4348:

Doc James, can you join us please? I think there's a missunderstanding and I that kind of discussion does not help.

4219: 4565: 4521: 4501: 4401: 4256: 3830: 3674: 3259: 3148: 3131: 3069: 3000: 2977:

about wikiproject medicine is problematic because leading a project is not the same as being an active contributor.

2865: 2768: 2516:. Also one could see on the WikiProject Sanitation page (history) how much he has done there. Would that suffice? 2407: 1387: 1346: 1298: 1255: 1184: 1036: 953:, working to improve and translate the top importance English Knowledge medical articles into minority languages." 605: 572: 38: 3311:, the wording "hinted" is too close to the source. I think "suggested" or "indicated" is better. They are synoyms. 2709: 2456:

Since they have been removed shouldn't the text reflect them now? Does earned his medical degree adequately state

2744: 2717: 2395: 4329:

This article was very informative and helped me to understand better. It all makes perfect sense now! Thank you

3478:

He did not hint at. He asserted it. Other sources make much stronger claims. The word "asserted" can work too.

2163: 2127: 2094: 2059: 2026: 1990: 1958: 1895: 1778: 1721: 1688: 1606: 1575: 1519: 1475: 124: 4554: 4541: 4490: 4476: 3208: 3085:, "WikiProject Medicine" is neither a project page nor a Knowledge article. How do you intend to link them? 3963: 3906: 1999:

Two psychologists filing a complaint to his local doctors' organization for editing Knowledge is frivolous.

520: 3528: 3291: 2845:? Note none of the citations for either project discusses James Heilman's involvement as their main topic. 2609:

that were the case, we could then link to forum posts as support illustration of the secondary source (per

1540:

Opps sorry did not see this tlak before I reverted then fix the copy vio.. All ok with the new wording? --

1443:

The source says" Some psychologists, however, say the test has already lost its popularity and usefulness."

4070: 3752: 3717: 3694: 3660: 3594: 3560: 3518: 3504: 3469: 3431: 3373: 3339: 3298: 3273: 3220: 3176: 3115: 2743:

is not an external link and doesn't have its own article on wikipedia. It's also a wiki so wouldn't be a

2692: 2541: 2446: 1195: 104: 4558: 4537: 4514: 4494: 4394: 4371: 3947:

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with

3914: 3826: 3670: 3255: 3144: 3124: 3082: 3062: 2996: 2982: 2930: 2875: 2861: 2850: 2790: 2764: 2752: 2403: 2269: 1383: 1342: 1294: 1251: 1180: 1032: 601: 568: 174: 91: 3905:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit 2739:

is an internal link so claiming a user is active will need some standard metric. The other problem is

4252: 4540:, There is no limit to deletion discussions or voting. I will continually add the tag as I see fit. 3200: 3104: 3086: 2944: 2713: 2637: 2610: 2589: 2560: 2521: 2422: 2391: 2221:

that is minimizing the controversies themselves. I agree with Martine, Ocaasi and Moxy on this one.

701: 669: 628: 495: 460: 456: 2632:

WikiProject Sanitation"? I am just asking because his Linked-in page is given as citation number 4-

1470:

cited source and so ought to be put in quotation marks or re-written to avoid "close paraphrasing"?

4585: 4457: 4367: 4272: 4137: 4048: 3866: 3807: 3770: 3736: 3612: 3578: 3540: 3487: 3449: 3395: 3357: 3323: 3047: 2896: 2366: 2324: 2244: 2159: 2147: 2123: 2110: 2090: 2078: 2055: 2042: 2022: 2006: 1986: 1974: 1954: 1940: 1911: 1891: 1854: 1794: 1774: 1758: 1737: 1717: 1704: 1684: 1672: 1639: 1602: 1571: 1515: 1495: 1471: 1457: 1331: 1312: 1281: 1231: 1205: 1156: 1140: 1122: 1096: 1062: 1019: 969: 938: 893: 871: 763: 685: 645: 536: 420: 345: 318: 296: 262: 242:

I think you're misreading the sources, basically. Why don't we let some others chime in. Cheers,

231: 194: 154: 120: 79: 2921:, as I quote again the definition of an external link: "... links to web pages outside Knowledge ( 1012:

A summary is much better than the current version. Thanks for the link to the summarised version.

508:

The article along with the other articles were close to the event. Please find secondary sources.

4427: 4310: 4235: 4172: 3025: 2799: 2484: 2457: 2226: 1341:

Good point. It does seem a bit weird to link to Knowledge user pages, but I guess it's alright.

1086: 799: 553: 436: 47: 17: 4106:

Have you any non-WP-related publications to your name? If so, why aren't these here as well? —

490:

base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them.

4167:

Oh look, a paid editor poking Doc James. What a surprise. Please use another website for that.

3948: 4353: 4334: 4067: 3992: 3921:

https://web.archive.org/web/20141006143925/http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564

3748: 3713: 3690: 3656: 3590: 3556: 3514: 3500: 3465: 3427: 3369: 3368:

I still prefer "mused"...that is actually the perfect word..."speculated" would also be good.

3335: 3308: 3294: 3270: 3217: 3173: 3112: 2687: 2536: 2469: 2441: 2430: 1769:

Um, perhaps you could just try and explain to me again why the word "Other" is "vague" and/or

1402: 1372: 962:

text could be wrong when the source does not make this clear. We don't need a primary source.

502: 471: 224:

Again, the sources do not verify the claim. This did not rise to the level of a controversy.

95: 3689:

Thank you, ok, I see what you mean; I did not know that. So, go ahead QuackGuru if you wish.

949:

The current text: "Heilman is part of an initiative through Wiki Project Med Foundation with

338:. Having to use unreliable sources throughout the article shows the subject is not notable. 3216:

If you want to nominate this for deletion you should place the AFD template on the article.

2914: 2580: 2532: 116: 3955: 2838: 2740: 2633: 2598: 2585: 2556: 2517: 998: 812: 723: 711: 697: 665: 624: 2883: 858: 1787:

I thought the word other was vague and some was very specific but it is not a big deal.

1135:

professional who enjoys participating on Knowledge this fact is anything but frivolous.

4606: 4579: 4441: 4302: 4298: 4264: 4129: 4101: 4040: 3858: 3799: 3762: 3728: 3604: 3570: 3532: 3479: 3441: 3411: 3387: 3349: 3315: 2888: 2399: 2387: 2362: 2320: 2259: 2240: 2141: 2104: 2072: 2036: 2018: 2000: 1968: 1934: 1905: 1887: 1876: 1848: 1788: 1752: 1731: 1698: 1666: 1656: 1633: 1591: 1545: 1489: 1451: 1326: 1308: 1275: 1243: 1227: 1199: 1150: 1136: 1116: 1090: 1056: 1013: 963: 932: 887: 865: 757: 679: 639: 530: 414: 358: 339: 312: 290: 256: 225: 207: 188: 148: 75: 3954:

If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with

3924: 3239:

controversy? I'm strictly approaching this as a reader. Let's not be weaselly here. --

4423: 4306: 4260: 4248: 4231: 4215: 4168: 4020: 3898: 3383: 3244: 3040:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/08/wikipedia-editors-for-pay/393926/

3021: 2842: 2480: 2383: 2312: 2222: 2137: 1271: 1247: 549: 432: 3795: 4619: 4591: 4572: 4549: 4528: 4508: 4484: 4462: 4431: 4408: 4378: 4363: 4357: 4349: 4338: 4330: 4314: 4284: 4239: 4176: 4162: 4159: 4155: 4149: 4123: 4073: 4060: 3977: 3872: 3854: 3834: 3819: 3776: 3756: 3742: 3721: 3698: 3678: 3664: 3618: 3598: 3584: 3564: 3546: 3522: 3508: 3493: 3473: 3455: 3435: 3401: 3377: 3363: 3343: 3329: 3302: 3276: 3263: 3248: 3223: 3179: 3152: 3138: 3118: 3099: 3076: 3029: 3004: 2992: 2986: 2934: 2918: 2908: 2869: 2854: 2794: 2778: 2772: 2756: 2721: 2697: 2678: 2656: 2641: 2617: 2593: 2574: 2564: 2546: 2531:

That seems like, if James really wrote the stuff in that forum, that it would meet

2525: 2488: 2473: 2465: 2451: 2434: 2426: 2411: 2370: 2263: 2248: 2230: 2207: 2167: 2153: 2131: 2116: 2098: 2084: 2063: 2048: 2030: 2012: 1994: 1980: 1962: 1946: 1917: 1899: 1880: 1860: 1800: 1782: 1770: 1764: 1743: 1725: 1710: 1692: 1678: 1660: 1645: 1610: 1595: 1579: 1549: 1523: 1501: 1479: 1463: 1406: 1398: 1391: 1376: 1368: 1350: 1336: 1316: 1302: 1287: 1259: 1235: 1211: 1188: 1171: 1162: 1144: 1128: 1102: 1068: 1050: 1040: 1025: 1006: 975: 944: 899: 877: 769: 731: 705: 691: 673: 651: 609: 576: 557: 542: 464: 440: 426: 365: 351: 324: 302: 268: 246: 237: 219: 200: 181: 160: 128: 108: 2341:

in ways that put James Heilman in a good light. Jmh649 gives QuackGuru a barnstar.

2254:

about this... but think if hes talking and not editwaring all should be fine. --

1904:

Because it is a minority view the whole sentence should be deleted from here too.

678:

I replaced the text with "In February 2013 the parties settled their litigation."

1570:...well that's certainly a re-write. I think you've totally changed the meaning! 4415: 3747:

I do not get your point. James's "hint" is directed towards the other trustees.

3044: 2940: 2675: 2653: 2614: 2571: 2316: 2204: 1322: 1168: 1047: 362: 243: 216: 211: 46:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

2735:," is not sourced and is, frankly, original research and subjective. Besides, 4414:

There is no policy because there are few cases. To not link seems rather coy.

2218: 991: 716: 661: 2833:(own emphasis). How is including Knowledge and Wikimedia internal projects ( 1179:

wrote an article about the event. A brief summary of the article is proper.

2255: 1872: 1652: 1587: 1541: 3312: 2957: 187:

In 2009, he was involved in a "controversy"? The source does not say that.

1270:

I'm not sure if it is appropriate to link to a userpage on Knowledge. See

3240: 2555:

OK, I will add that in now. And yes, he really did write this stuff. :-)

1426: 3418:, is an encyclopedia the place for curating and reporting what someone, 2781:: "Knowledge articles may include links to web pages outside Knowledge ( 2684:

It looks very similar to the story they ran about Heilman last August.

3942:

An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

2947:. But the following citations about the med foundation have problems: 2214: 3915:

http://www.westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=1618&start=0

3569:

It has been repeated in multiple sources, including other languages.

2876:

http://www.dailytownsman.com/breaking_news/283351351.html?mobile=true

3527:

Text that is not notable would be to say the Board tried to replace

4016:"B.C. physician writes — and fixes — Knowledge medical information" 621:

United States District Court for the Central District of California

4440:. Seems an external link for me; it is outside the article space. 2964:

this one doesn't even mention that he is the president of anything

281:

The Wikimediafoundation.org website is also not a reliable source

4393:. Do we really link to user pages within Knowledge articles? --- 3107:

I think he means the way it's linked now in the lead like this:

1422:"Sask. MD's Knowledge posting of ink blots angers psychologists" 25: 396:"Knowledge and Higher Education – The Infinite Possibilities" 4222:. (Don't ask how embarrassingly long it took to figure out 4082:

Irrelevant--belongs on James' personal talk page, not here.

1488:

my comment. But I would like an explanation for the change.

908:"Book That Plagiarized From Knowledge Is Pulled From Market" 376:"Medical Students Can Now Earn Credit for Editing Knowledge" 3851:

Knowledge:Featured article candidates/Dengue fever/archive1

3061:, which is a project page, and not a Knowledge article? --- 817:

This is a primary source. What is it doing in this article?

3909:

for additional information. I made the following changes:

2386:, and I'd suggest that insinuations of such take place in 3551:

QuackGuru, what is your argument that this insider stuff

2017:

Are you familiar with the content of the 2009 archive at

1085:

This is too many sources at the end of one sentence. See

614: 4607:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Draft:Ilnitsky_Evgeny_Yurievich

4437: 4390: 4210:

for a WikiProject is absurdly complicated -- searching

3902: 3846: 2704:

Discussion at biographies of living persons noticeboard

2342: 2339: 2336: 2334: 2332: 1930: 1926: 1844: 1840: 1629: 1625: 1621: 1620:

my comment from his talk page. Now Moxy restored word "

1617: 1485: 1447: 986: 928: 883: 851: 843: 753: 749: 335: 308: 286: 252: 171: 167: 144: 140: 94:) and to this point, has only been edited by him/her. 4557:, I suggest not adding back the deletion template. --- 3035:

Long read from the Atlantic on Heilman's anti-COI work

2884:

http://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/91/1/13-030113.pdf

2579:

I don't understand the discrepancy here. This section

1886:

Quite agree. I see it's now also been removed over at

1415:

The word Other is vague and possibly original research

251:

You still have not provided verification but you have

4066:

OK, I've removed it. Thanks for alerting me to this.

2943:

due to the fact that it was published by an agent of

923:

This source does not verify the claim in the article.

3165:

Dude Is Not Noteworthy Enough to Have a Wiki Article

3057:

Is it appropriate to link "WikiProject Medicine" to

2213:I've been following this page from afar. There is 4418:has a link, albeit to the wrong user page (it is a 3925:

http://www.openmedicine.ca/article/viewFile/562/564

1601:.. will await a reply here from QG first, I think. 4206:to WikiProjects, you can't get there from here. 1730:It is fine with me if you want to tweak the text. 2319:, otherwise known as "Doc James". Jmh649 defends 307:Again, the Wikimedia Foundation website is not a 4128:No. My academic area of interest is Knowledge. 3727:This is not an official response from the WMF. 823:"Editing Knowledge Pages for Med School Credit" 638:Which source says "The suit was dismissed...? 1967:A frivolous complaint is irrelevant to a BLP. 1628:and the whole sentence lost its meanings. The 4493:, I've already removed the tag you added. --- 3589:So your opinion is repetition =s notability? 2777:Good, you've sourced it. I am going to cite 886:that does not mention James Heilman at all. 778:"Medical translations for minority languages" 8: 3995:I am not sure were they got this idea from: 2917:on "courtesy links". Both these links fail 2382:I seriously doubt anyone here has an actual 2158:I'm saying the complaint was not frivolous. 1665:Quotes are usually unencyclopedic in a BLP. 615:'United States District Court of California' 3794:Ref now says "Clinical Assistant Professor" 2068:I have moved on from "other" versus "some". 562:I agree with Roccodrift and Iselilja. The 4087:The following discussion has been closed. 4078: 3882: 3314:Do you prefer "suggested" or "indicated"? 3198: 3186:The following discussion has been closed. 3168: 3897:I have just modified 2 external links on 3603:Yes, when sources continue to repeat it. 2731:The phrase " is an active contributor to 2331:). QuackGuru edits the James Heilman page 2329:Knowledge:Requests for comment/QuackGuru2 1866:Frivolous complaint for editing Knowledge 4344:Health and Appearance of Michael Jackson 2499:Reference for his sanitation engagement? 4006: 3885: 3707:For discussion: Include Wales response? 1630:previous version was close paraphrasing 776:Teigen, Sarah (October/November 2012). 512: 4214:offers up this unexpected redirect to 808: 797: 400:University of British Columbia website 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4612:2A02:2698:22:55B7:B563:F3E9:56BD:6BD3 7: 4201:that I could "Search Knowledge" for 3293:so I think "hinted" should be kept. 1089:. Let's keep the top three sources. 519:Any exceptional claim would require 394:Trujillo, Maria (25 November 2011). 3867: 3771: 3737: 3613: 3579: 3541: 3488: 3450: 3396: 3358: 3324: 4305:for making the redirect changes. 4263:the second should go to meta IMO. 3859: 3763: 3729: 3605: 3571: 3533: 3480: 3442: 3412: 3388: 3350: 3316: 2440:I agree and so have removed them. 1293:It strikes me as a bad idea, too. 989:. It might be useful, feel free. 852:removed without fixing the probems 24: 4602:Help with the problem on the site 3901:. Please take a moment to review 1250:would probably be the next step. 850:verify the claim but the tag was 821:Cohen, Noam (29 September 2013). 4255:should redirect here nor should 3933: 3197:Article nominated for deletion. 2421:What is with the post nominals? 1933:for discussion first. Thoughts. 166:I added "gained recognition" in 29: 4014:Fayerman, Pamela (2017-08-08). 3913:Corrected formatting/usage for 2822:space to particular viewpoints; 4220:Knowledge/WikiProject Medicine 3123:That is what I meant, yes. --- 3059:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 2737:Knowledge:WikiProject Medicine 2688: 2537: 2442: 752:the claim and the addition of 696:Yes, that solves the problem. 656:It's a primary court document 1: 4620:12:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC) 4325:Oh now everything makes sense 3334:"indicated" is good, thanks. 3034: 2693: 2542: 2489:23:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC) 2474:11:36, 19 December 2014 (UTC) 2452:00:21, 19 December 2014 (UTC) 2447: 2435:04:01, 18 December 2014 (UTC) 1351:14:04, 17 February 2014 (UTC) 1337:16:55, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 1317:13:30, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 1303:11:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC) 1288:19:19, 15 February 2014 (UTC) 864:verify the entire sentence. 754:another source did not verify 330:Both sources are not reliable 210:. I think you are mistaking 119:? I think we should be told. 4592:22:33, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4573:22:29, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4550:22:18, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4529:22:09, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4509:22:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4485:22:05, 3 February 2020 (UTC) 4463:15:52, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 4436:I'm sorry, I only read this 4177:02:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC) 4163:23:26, 17 October 2017 (UTC) 4150:06:33, 13 October 2017 (UTC) 4124:12:29, 12 October 2017 (UTC) 3873:17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC) 3348:I still prefer "suggested". 3277:22:08, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 3264:22:05, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 3249:16:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC) 3224:20:28, 6 December 2015 (UTC) 1616:I did try to ask him but he 1272:James Heilman#External links 1260:05:31, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 1236:04:49, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 1212:03:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC) 1189:21:31, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1172:20:33, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1163:19:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1145:11:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC) 1129:17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 1103:17:56, 22 January 2014 (UTC) 1069:05:40, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 1051:13:27, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 1041:05:13, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 1026:03:15, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 1007:03:09, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 981:Trim down of Rorschach thing 976:19:26, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 945:02:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC) 906:Cohen, Noam (12 June 2012). 900:21:44, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 878:19:26, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 770:18:54, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 732:13:56, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 706:13:41, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 692:07:09, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 674:06:45, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 652:06:12, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 633:05:06, 19 January 2014 (UTC) 610:09:16, 20 January 2014 (UTC) 577:23:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 558:22:49, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 543:22:25, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 465:22:15, 13 January 2014 (UTC) 441:21:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 427:20:47, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 366:20:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 352:19:13, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 325:19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 303:19:10, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 269:19:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 247:18:53, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 238:18:41, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 220:06:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 201:05:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 182:00:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC) 161:19:41, 11 January 2014 (UTC) 129:00:57, 10 January 2014 (UTC) 4379:12:48, 30 August 2018 (UTC) 4358:08:59, 30 August 2018 (UTC) 4074:15:42, 12 August 2017 (UTC) 4061:15:22, 12 August 2017 (UTC) 3180:12:55, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 3153:02:09, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 3139:00:16, 7 January 2016 (UTC) 3119:23:51, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 3100:23:21, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 3077:21:55, 6 January 2016 (UTC) 3048:13:51, 11 August 2015 (UTC) 2841:respectively) in line with 2839:Wiki Project Med Foundation 2741:Wiki Project Med Foundation 2142: 2105: 2073: 2037: 2001: 1969: 1935: 1906: 1849: 1789: 1753: 1732: 1699: 1667: 1634: 1490: 1452: 1325:'s page, why not here too? 1276: 1200: 1151: 1117: 1091: 1057: 1014: 964: 951:Translators Without Borders 933: 927:This recently added source 888: 866: 758: 680: 640: 531: 415: 340: 313: 291: 257: 226: 189: 149: 109:18:46, 9 January 2014 (UTC) 4635: 4432:21:57, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 4409:18:03, 30 March 2018 (UTC) 4257:WikiProject Med Foundation 4212:WikiProject Med Foundation 3978:04:41, 18 April 2017 (UTC) 3894:Hello fellow Wikipedians, 3853:. The page view stats are 3835:17:29, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 3820:10:03, 19 April 2016 (UTC) 2698:14:58, 18 March 2015 (UTC) 2679:23:13, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2657:23:48, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2642:23:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2618:23:07, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2594:21:19, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2575:17:33, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2565:07:44, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2547:00:41, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 2526:22:25, 10 March 2015 (UTC) 1407:09:34, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 1392:08:20, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 1377:03:02, 20 March 2014 (UTC) 1108:Two Canadian psychologists 660:, which was only cited in 147:also failed verification. 4339:23:43, 13 June 2018 (UTC) 4259:. The first should go to 3777:02:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 3757:02:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC) 3743:18:42, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 3722:17:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC) 3699:20:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 3679:16:04, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 3665:15:18, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 3619:03:22, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 3599:03:10, 3 March 2016 (UTC) 3585:22:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 3565:22:13, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 3547:20:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 3523:04:45, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 3509:04:37, 2 March 2016 (UTC) 3494:21:05, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3474:21:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3456:20:00, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3436:19:57, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3402:19:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3378:19:39, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3364:19:37, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3344:19:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3330:19:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3303:19:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC) 3211:) 17:44, 6 December 2015‎ 3030:23:37, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 3005:19:43, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 2987:18:47, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 2935:16:33, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 2909:07:03, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 2870:00:42, 14 June 2015 (UTC) 2855:21:54, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 2795:21:40, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 2773:18:18, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 2757:15:50, 13 June 2015 (UTC) 2722:23:10, 15 June 2015 (UTC) 2672:Anything to incorporate? 2402:debate on the talk page. 2396:Incest in popular culture 1586:Pls take shoot at it. -- 750:new source did not verify 4315:05:32, 16 May 2018 (UTC) 4285:18:44, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4240:16:29, 15 May 2018 (UTC) 4090:Please do not modify it. 3285:Hinted or something else 3189:Please do not modify it. 2535:, so it seems reliable. 2412:19:49, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 2371:12:40, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 2264:05:13, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 2249:04:25, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 2231:03:08, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 2208:02:23, 9 June 2014 (UTC) 2168:21:01, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2154:20:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2132:20:47, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2117:20:38, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2099:20:31, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2085:20:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2064:20:23, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2049:20:14, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2031:20:08, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 2013:20:02, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1995:19:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1981:19:55, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1963:19:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1947:19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1918:19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1900:19:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1881:19:33, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1861:22:04, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1801:19:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1783:19:29, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1765:19:22, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1744:19:18, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1726:19:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1711:19:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1693:19:06, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1679:19:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1661:19:00, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1646:18:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1611:18:49, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1596:18:46, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1580:18:44, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1550:18:41, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1524:18:37, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1502:18:35, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1480:18:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1464:18:10, 8 June 2014 (UTC) 1450:was not an improvement. 3878:External links modified 3382:Both of the words are 3234:Removal from WMF board 2824: 2663:New profile of the Dr. 2103:I added a subsection. 1363:Format of publications 807:Check date values in: 4301:for your comment and 2805: 2388:the appropriate venue 42:of past discussions. 4420:blocked impersonator 4416:Jimmy Wales#See also 3529:Heilman with Geshuri 3464:in an encyclopedia. 3109:WikiProject Medicine 3053:WikiProject Medicine 2945:Wikimedia Foundation 2835:WikiProject Medicine 2733:WikiProject Medicine 2727:wikiproject medicine 2392:Babylon 5 influences 2384:conflict of interest 710:Thanks for the ping 289:with this article. 143:the claim. The part 4555:Psychiatrist MD2020 4542:Psychiatrist MD2020 4491:Psychiatrist MD2020 4477:Psychiatrist MD2020 4368:User talk:Doc James 3143:I think it's fine. 2708:BLPN discussion is 2325:User talk:QuackGuru 929:failed verification 521:exceptional sources 374:Berko, Lex (2013). 135:Failed verification 4385:Link to user page? 3988:Error in the press 3966:InternetArchiveBot 2818:tone. Do not give 2745:WP:reliable source 2464:be mentioned? - - 2458:Doctor of Medicine 2215:this potential COI 1177:The New York Times 498:, which is policy. 145:gained recognition 139:This edit did not 18:Talk:James Heilman 4461: 4438:after changing it 4251:. I do not think 4193:Misdirect grumble 4190: 4189: 3993:User:Everymorning 3984: 3983: 3841:Incorrect content 3309:User:Nocturnalnow 3231: 3230: 3212: 3203:comment added by 1925:Proposal. I made 1847:for my proposal. 1835:Some versus Other 1613: 1081:Citation overkill 844:NY York Times ref 587:Cleanup templates 287:multiple problems 67: 66: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 4626: 4588: 4568: 4561: 4560:Another Believer 4538:Another Believer 4524: 4517: 4516:Another Believer 4504: 4497: 4496:Another Believer 4471:Deletion Request 4455: 4404: 4397: 4396:Another Believer 4269: 4253:Wiki Project Med 4134: 4121: 4112: 4105: 4092: 4079: 4045: 4032: 4031: 4029: 4028: 4011: 3976: 3967: 3940: 3937: 3936: 3887:Extended content 3883: 3869: 3863: 3827:NinjaRobotPirate 3804: 3773: 3767: 3739: 3733: 3671:NinjaRobotPirate 3615: 3609: 3581: 3575: 3543: 3537: 3490: 3484: 3452: 3446: 3416: 3398: 3392: 3360: 3354: 3326: 3320: 3256:NinjaRobotPirate 3191: 3169: 3145:NinjaRobotPirate 3134: 3127: 3126:Another Believer 3083:Another Believer 3072: 3065: 3064:Another Believer 2997:NinjaRobotPirate 2893: 2862:NinjaRobotPirate 2820:disproportionate 2765:NinjaRobotPirate 2695: 2690: 2544: 2539: 2449: 2444: 2404:NinjaRobotPirate 2150: 2144: 2113: 2107: 2081: 2075: 2045: 2039: 2009: 2003: 1977: 1971: 1943: 1937: 1914: 1908: 1857: 1851: 1797: 1791: 1761: 1755: 1740: 1734: 1707: 1701: 1675: 1669: 1642: 1636: 1600: 1498: 1492: 1460: 1454: 1439: 1437: 1435: 1384:NinjaRobotPirate 1343:NinjaRobotPirate 1334: 1329: 1295:NinjaRobotPirate 1284: 1278: 1252:NinjaRobotPirate 1208: 1202: 1181:NinjaRobotPirate 1159: 1153: 1125: 1119: 1099: 1093: 1065: 1059: 1033:NinjaRobotPirate 1022: 1016: 1005: 1003: 996: 972: 966: 941: 935: 922: 920: 918: 896: 890: 874: 868: 837: 835: 833: 816: 810: 805: 803: 795: 793: 791: 782: 766: 760: 730: 728: 721: 688: 682: 648: 642: 602:NinjaRobotPirate 569:NinjaRobotPirate 539: 533: 524: 517: 481: 423: 417: 410: 408: 406: 390: 388: 386: 348: 342: 321: 315: 299: 293: 265: 259: 234: 228: 197: 191: 157: 151: 101: 63: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 4634: 4633: 4629: 4628: 4627: 4625: 4624: 4623: 4604: 4586: 4571: 4566: 4559: 4527: 4522: 4515: 4507: 4502: 4495: 4473: 4407: 4402: 4395: 4387: 4346: 4327: 4265: 4203:WikiProject Med 4195: 4130: 4115: 4108: 4099: 4088: 4041: 4037: 4036: 4035: 4026: 4024: 4013: 4012: 4008: 3990: 3985: 3970: 3965: 3938: 3934: 3907:this simple FaQ 3888: 3880: 3843: 3800: 3789: 3709: 3287: 3236: 3187: 3167: 3137: 3132: 3125: 3075: 3070: 3063: 3055: 3037: 2889: 2729: 2714:Anythingyouwant 2706: 2665: 2501: 2419: 2148: 2111: 2079: 2043: 2007: 1975: 1941: 1912: 1868: 1855: 1837: 1795: 1759: 1738: 1705: 1673: 1640: 1496: 1458: 1433: 1431: 1430:. July 31, 2009 1420: 1417: 1365: 1332: 1327: 1282: 1268: 1206: 1196:WP:PUBLICFIGURE 1157: 1123: 1110: 1097: 1083: 1063: 1020: 999: 992: 990: 983: 970: 939: 916: 914: 905: 894: 872: 831: 829: 820: 806: 796: 789: 787: 780: 775: 764: 746: 724: 717: 715: 686: 646: 617: 589: 537: 527: 518: 514: 475: 453: 421: 404: 402: 393: 384: 382: 373: 346: 332: 319: 309:reliable source 297: 283: 263: 253:removed the tag 232: 195: 155: 137: 117:important roles 99: 72: 59: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4632: 4630: 4603: 4600: 4599: 4598: 4597: 4596: 4595: 4594: 4563: 4534: 4533: 4532: 4531: 4519: 4499: 4472: 4469: 4468: 4467: 4466: 4465: 4399: 4386: 4383: 4382: 4381: 4345: 4342: 4326: 4323: 4322: 4321: 4320: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4303:User:QuackGuru 4299:User:Doc James 4290: 4289: 4288: 4287: 4194: 4191: 4188: 4187: 4186: 4185: 4184: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4094: 4093: 4084: 4083: 4077: 4076: 4034: 4033: 4005: 4004: 4000: 3989: 3986: 3982: 3981: 3960: 3959: 3952: 3928: 3927: 3919:Added archive 3917: 3890: 3889: 3886: 3881: 3879: 3876: 3842: 3839: 3838: 3837: 3788: 3785: 3784: 3783: 3782: 3781: 3780: 3779: 3708: 3705: 3704: 3703: 3702: 3701: 3684: 3683: 3682: 3681: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3649: 3648: 3647: 3646: 3645: 3644: 3643: 3642: 3641: 3640: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3634: 3633: 3632: 3631: 3630: 3629: 3628: 3627: 3626: 3625: 3624: 3623: 3622: 3621: 3286: 3283: 3282: 3281: 3280: 3279: 3235: 3232: 3229: 3228: 3227: 3226: 3193: 3192: 3183: 3182: 3166: 3163: 3162: 3161: 3160: 3159: 3158: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3129: 3067: 3054: 3051: 3036: 3033: 3018: 3017: 3016: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 3009: 3008: 3007: 2972: 2966: 2960: 2954: 2948: 2937: 2923:external links 2913:I don't see a 2886: 2880: 2828: 2827: 2826: 2825: 2812:conservatively 2809: 2808: 2803: 2797: 2783:external links 2728: 2725: 2705: 2702: 2701: 2700: 2664: 2661: 2660: 2659: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2622: 2621: 2620: 2550: 2549: 2500: 2497: 2496: 2495: 2494: 2493: 2492: 2491: 2418: 2417:Post-nominals? 2415: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2351: 2350: 2349: 2348: 2347: 2346: 2345: 2344: 2338:and talk page. 2321:User:QuackGuru 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2280: 2279: 2278: 2277: 2276: 2275: 2274: 2273: 2270:WP:EXTERNALREL 2234: 2233: 2195: 2194: 2193: 2192: 2191: 2190: 2189: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2185: 2184: 2183: 2182: 2181: 2180: 2179: 2178: 2177: 2176: 2175: 2174: 2173: 2172: 2171: 2170: 2160:Martinevans123 2124:Martinevans123 2091:Martinevans123 2069: 2056:Martinevans123 2023:Martinevans123 2019:Rorschach test 1987:Martinevans123 1955:Martinevans123 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1892:Martinevans123 1888:Rorschach test 1867: 1864: 1836: 1833: 1832: 1831: 1830: 1829: 1828: 1827: 1826: 1825: 1824: 1823: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1819: 1818: 1817: 1816: 1815: 1814: 1813: 1812: 1811: 1810: 1809: 1808: 1807: 1806: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1775:Martinevans123 1749: 1746: 1718:Martinevans123 1685:Martinevans123 1681: 1632:and accurate. 1603:Martinevans123 1598: 1572:Martinevans123 1559: 1558: 1557: 1556: 1555: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1526: 1516:Martinevans123 1507: 1506: 1505: 1504: 1472:Martinevans123 1441: 1440: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1411: 1410: 1409: 1364: 1361: 1360: 1359: 1358: 1357: 1356: 1355: 1354: 1353: 1267: 1266:External links 1264: 1263: 1262: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1109: 1106: 1082: 1079: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1074: 1073: 1072: 1071: 982: 979: 925: 924: 912:New York Times 882:I removed the 840: 839: 827:New York Times 818: 745: 742: 741: 740: 739: 738: 737: 736: 735: 734: 708: 616: 613: 598:New York Times 594:New York Times 588: 585: 584: 583: 582: 581: 580: 579: 564:New York Times 526: 525: 511: 510: 509: 506: 499: 452: 449: 448: 447: 446: 445: 444: 443: 411: 391: 371: 331: 328: 282: 279: 278: 277: 276: 275: 274: 273: 272: 271: 185: 184: 136: 133: 132: 131: 121:Martinevans123 71: 68: 65: 64: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4631: 4622: 4621: 4617: 4613: 4608: 4601: 4593: 4589: 4583: 4582: 4576: 4575: 4574: 4569: 4562: 4556: 4553: 4552: 4551: 4547: 4543: 4539: 4536: 4535: 4530: 4525: 4518: 4512: 4511: 4510: 4505: 4498: 4492: 4489: 4488: 4487: 4486: 4482: 4478: 4470: 4464: 4459: 4454: 4452: 4448: 4444: 4439: 4435: 4434: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4421: 4417: 4413: 4412: 4411: 4410: 4405: 4398: 4392: 4384: 4380: 4377: 4375: 4369: 4365: 4362: 4361: 4360: 4359: 4355: 4351: 4343: 4341: 4340: 4336: 4332: 4324: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4295: 4294: 4293: 4292: 4291: 4286: 4282: 4278: 4274: 4270: 4268: 4262: 4258: 4254: 4250: 4249:User:GeeBee60 4246: 4245: 4244: 4243: 4242: 4241: 4237: 4233: 4228: 4225: 4221: 4217: 4216:James Heilman 4213: 4207: 4204: 4200: 4192: 4178: 4174: 4170: 4166: 4165: 4164: 4161: 4157: 4153: 4152: 4151: 4147: 4143: 4139: 4135: 4133: 4127: 4126: 4125: 4122: 4120: 4119: 4113: 4111: 4103: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4095: 4091: 4086: 4085: 4081: 4080: 4075: 4072: 4069: 4065: 4064: 4063: 4062: 4058: 4054: 4050: 4046: 4044: 4023: 4022: 4021:Vancouver Sun 4017: 4010: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3996: 3994: 3987: 3980: 3979: 3974: 3969: 3968: 3957: 3953: 3950: 3946: 3945: 3944: 3943: 3931: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3916: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3908: 3904: 3900: 3899:James Heilman 3895: 3892: 3891: 3884: 3877: 3875: 3874: 3870: 3864: 3862: 3856: 3852: 3848: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3824: 3823: 3822: 3821: 3817: 3813: 3809: 3805: 3803: 3797: 3796: 3792: 3786: 3778: 3774: 3768: 3766: 3760: 3759: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3740: 3734: 3732: 3726: 3725: 3724: 3723: 3719: 3715: 3706: 3700: 3696: 3692: 3688: 3687: 3686: 3685: 3680: 3676: 3672: 3668: 3667: 3666: 3662: 3658: 3654: 3653: 3620: 3616: 3610: 3608: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3596: 3592: 3588: 3587: 3586: 3582: 3576: 3574: 3568: 3567: 3566: 3562: 3558: 3554: 3550: 3549: 3548: 3544: 3538: 3536: 3530: 3526: 3525: 3524: 3520: 3516: 3512: 3511: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3497: 3496: 3495: 3491: 3485: 3483: 3477: 3476: 3475: 3471: 3467: 3463: 3459: 3458: 3457: 3453: 3447: 3445: 3439: 3438: 3437: 3433: 3429: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3415: 3409: 3405: 3404: 3403: 3399: 3393: 3391: 3385: 3381: 3380: 3379: 3375: 3371: 3367: 3366: 3365: 3361: 3355: 3353: 3347: 3346: 3345: 3341: 3337: 3333: 3332: 3331: 3327: 3321: 3319: 3313: 3310: 3307: 3306: 3305: 3304: 3300: 3296: 3292: 3284: 3278: 3275: 3272: 3267: 3266: 3265: 3261: 3257: 3253: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3246: 3242: 3233: 3225: 3222: 3219: 3215: 3214: 3213: 3210: 3206: 3205:72.44.100.220 3202: 3195: 3194: 3190: 3185: 3184: 3181: 3178: 3175: 3171: 3170: 3164: 3154: 3150: 3146: 3142: 3141: 3140: 3135: 3128: 3122: 3121: 3120: 3117: 3114: 3110: 3106: 3103: 3102: 3101: 3098: 3097: 3093: 3089: 3084: 3081: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3073: 3066: 3060: 3052: 3050: 3049: 3046: 3042: 3041: 3032: 3031: 3027: 3023: 3006: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2990: 2989: 2988: 2984: 2980: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2967: 2965: 2961: 2959: 2955: 2953: 2949: 2946: 2942: 2938: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2894: 2892: 2887: 2885: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872: 2871: 2867: 2863: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2836: 2832: 2831: 2830: 2829: 2823: 2821: 2817: 2816:disinterested 2813: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2796: 2792: 2788: 2784: 2780: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2770: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2758: 2754: 2750: 2746: 2742: 2738: 2734: 2726: 2724: 2723: 2719: 2715: 2711: 2703: 2699: 2696: 2691: 2686: 2683: 2682: 2681: 2680: 2677: 2673: 2670: 2669: 2662: 2658: 2655: 2650: 2646: 2645: 2644: 2643: 2639: 2635: 2619: 2616: 2612: 2611:WP:BLPPRIMARY 2608: 2604: 2600: 2597: 2596: 2595: 2591: 2587: 2582: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2573: 2568: 2567: 2566: 2562: 2558: 2554: 2553: 2552: 2551: 2548: 2545: 2540: 2534: 2530: 2529: 2528: 2527: 2523: 2519: 2515: 2511: 2508:? Also here: 2507: 2498: 2490: 2486: 2482: 2477: 2476: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2454: 2453: 2450: 2445: 2439: 2438: 2437: 2436: 2432: 2428: 2424: 2423:WP:CREDENTIAL 2416: 2414: 2413: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2385: 2372: 2368: 2364: 2359: 2358: 2357: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2353: 2352: 2343: 2340: 2337: 2335: 2333: 2330: 2326: 2322: 2318: 2314: 2313:James Heilman 2311: 2310: 2309: 2308: 2307: 2306: 2305: 2304: 2293: 2290: 2289: 2288: 2287: 2286: 2285: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2281: 2271: 2267: 2266: 2265: 2261: 2257: 2252: 2251: 2250: 2246: 2242: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2232: 2228: 2224: 2220: 2216: 2212: 2211: 2210: 2209: 2206: 2201: 2169: 2165: 2161: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2151: 2145: 2139: 2135: 2134: 2133: 2129: 2125: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2114: 2108: 2102: 2101: 2100: 2096: 2092: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2082: 2076: 2070: 2067: 2066: 2065: 2061: 2057: 2052: 2051: 2050: 2046: 2040: 2034: 2033: 2032: 2028: 2024: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2014: 2010: 2004: 1998: 1997: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1983: 1982: 1978: 1972: 1966: 1965: 1964: 1960: 1956: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1944: 1938: 1932: 1928: 1919: 1915: 1909: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1885: 1884: 1883: 1882: 1878: 1874: 1865: 1863: 1862: 1858: 1852: 1846: 1842: 1834: 1802: 1798: 1792: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1780: 1776: 1772: 1768: 1767: 1766: 1762: 1756: 1750: 1747: 1745: 1741: 1735: 1729: 1728: 1727: 1723: 1719: 1714: 1713: 1712: 1708: 1702: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1680: 1676: 1670: 1664: 1663: 1662: 1658: 1654: 1649: 1648: 1647: 1643: 1637: 1631: 1627: 1623: 1619: 1615: 1614: 1612: 1608: 1604: 1599: 1597: 1593: 1589: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1569: 1568: 1567: 1566: 1565: 1564: 1563: 1562: 1561: 1560: 1551: 1547: 1543: 1539: 1538: 1537: 1536: 1535: 1534: 1533: 1532: 1525: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1512: 1511: 1510: 1509: 1508: 1503: 1499: 1493: 1487: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1465: 1461: 1455: 1449: 1445: 1429: 1428: 1423: 1419: 1418: 1414: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1395: 1394: 1393: 1389: 1385: 1381: 1380: 1379: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1362: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1340: 1339: 1338: 1335: 1330: 1324: 1320: 1319: 1318: 1314: 1310: 1306: 1305: 1304: 1300: 1296: 1292: 1291: 1290: 1289: 1285: 1279: 1273: 1265: 1261: 1257: 1253: 1249: 1245: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1233: 1229: 1213: 1209: 1203: 1197: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1170: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1160: 1154: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1142: 1138: 1133: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1126: 1120: 1113: 1107: 1105: 1104: 1100: 1094: 1088: 1080: 1070: 1066: 1060: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1038: 1034: 1029: 1028: 1027: 1023: 1017: 1011: 1010: 1009: 1008: 1004: 1002: 997: 995: 988: 980: 978: 977: 973: 967: 959: 958: 954: 952: 947: 946: 942: 936: 930: 913: 909: 904: 903: 902: 901: 897: 891: 885: 880: 879: 875: 869: 863: 859: 856: 853: 849: 845: 828: 824: 819: 814: 801: 786: 779: 774: 773: 772: 771: 767: 761: 755: 751: 743: 733: 729: 727: 722: 720: 713: 709: 707: 703: 699: 695: 694: 693: 689: 683: 677: 676: 675: 671: 667: 663: 659: 655: 654: 653: 649: 643: 637: 636: 635: 634: 630: 626: 622: 612: 611: 607: 603: 599: 595: 586: 578: 574: 570: 565: 561: 560: 559: 555: 551: 546: 545: 544: 540: 534: 529: 528: 522: 516: 513: 507: 504: 500: 497: 496:WP:BLPPRIMARY 493: 489: 485: 480: 479: 473: 469: 468: 467: 466: 462: 458: 450: 442: 438: 434: 430: 429: 428: 424: 418: 412: 401: 397: 392: 381: 377: 372: 369: 368: 367: 364: 360: 356: 355: 354: 353: 349: 343: 337: 329: 327: 326: 322: 316: 310: 305: 304: 300: 294: 288: 280: 270: 266: 260: 254: 250: 249: 248: 245: 241: 240: 239: 235: 229: 223: 222: 221: 218: 213: 212:Verifiability 209: 205: 204: 203: 202: 198: 192: 183: 180: 178: 172: 169: 165: 164: 163: 162: 158: 152: 146: 142: 134: 130: 126: 122: 118: 113: 112: 111: 110: 106: 102: 98: 93: 90: 87: 84: 81: 77: 69: 62: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 4605: 4580: 4474: 4450: 4446: 4442: 4388: 4373: 4347: 4328: 4266: 4229: 4223: 4211: 4208: 4202: 4198: 4196: 4156:navel-gazing 4131: 4117: 4116: 4109: 4089: 4068:Everymorning 4042: 4038: 4025:. Retrieved 4019: 4009: 4001: 3997: 3991: 3964: 3961: 3941: 3932: 3929: 3896: 3893: 3860: 3844: 3801: 3798: 3793: 3790: 3764: 3749:Nocturnalnow 3730: 3714:Nocturnalnow 3710: 3691:Nocturnalnow 3657:Nocturnalnow 3606: 3591:Nocturnalnow 3572: 3557:Nocturnalnow 3552: 3534: 3515:Nocturnalnow 3501:Nocturnalnow 3481: 3466:Nocturnalnow 3461: 3443: 3428:Nocturnalnow 3423: 3419: 3413: 3407: 3389: 3370:Nocturnalnow 3351: 3336:Nocturnalnow 3317: 3295:Nocturnalnow 3288: 3271:Everymorning 3237: 3218:Everymorning 3199:— Preceding 3196: 3188: 3174:Everymorning 3113:Everymorning 3095: 3091: 3087: 3056: 3043: 3038: 3019: 2922: 2890: 2819: 2815: 2811: 2806: 2782: 2730: 2707: 2689:Everymorning 2674: 2671: 2666: 2648: 2630: 2606: 2602: 2570:Best, Jake 2538:Everymorning 2502: 2443:Everymorning 2420: 2381: 2361:question. -- 2291: 2199: 2196: 1924: 1869: 1838: 1626:been changed 1442: 1432:. Retrieved 1425: 1366: 1321:We do it on 1269: 1224: 1176: 1114: 1111: 1084: 1000: 993: 984: 960: 955: 948: 926: 915:. Retrieved 911: 881: 861: 847: 841: 830:. Retrieved 826: 788:. Retrieved 785:Multilingual 784: 756:the claim. 747: 725: 718: 618: 597: 593: 590: 563: 515: 491: 487: 483: 477: 476: 454: 403:. Retrieved 399: 383:. Retrieved 379: 333: 306: 284: 186: 176: 138: 96: 88: 82: 73: 60: 43: 37: 4199:erroneously 3849:. Then see 2979:96.52.0.249 2927:96.52.0.249 2879:Knowledge." 2874:A ref here 2847:96.52.0.249 2814:, and in a 2800:WP:BLPSTYLE 2787:96.52.0.249 2749:96.52.0.249 2603:in the body 2317:User:Jmh649 1927:this change 1841:source says 1323:Jimmy Wales 1087:WP:OVERCITE 70:Just saying 36:This is an 4197:I assumed 4118:velut luna 4027:2017-08-10 4002:References 3973:Report bug 3410:about it, 3384:inaccurate 3172:Trolling. 3105:Wikicology 2634:EvM-Susana 2599:EvM-Susana 2586:EvM-Susana 2557:EvM-Susana 2518:EvM-Susana 2512:and here: 2219:half truth 1434:January 9, 1333:talk to me 917:14 January 860:This does 832:12 January 790:12 January 698:EdJohnston 666:EdJohnston 662:User:Zad68 625:EdJohnston 503:WP:PRIMARY 472:WP:PRIMARY 457:Roccodrift 451:WP:PRIMARY 385:12 January 4581:QuackGuru 4391:this diff 4267:Doc James 4132:Doc James 4102:Doc James 4043:Doc James 3956:this tool 3949:this tool 3861:QuackGuru 3847:this diff 3825:Updated. 3802:Doc James 3765:QuackGuru 3731:QuackGuru 3607:QuackGuru 3573:QuackGuru 3555:notable? 3535:QuackGuru 3482:QuackGuru 3444:QuackGuru 3414:QuackGuru 3390:QuackGuru 3352:QuackGuru 3318:QuackGuru 2891:Doc James 2581:WP:BLPSPS 2533:WP:BLPSPS 2363:Guy Macon 2241:Guy Macon 2143:QuackGuru 2106:QuackGuru 2074:QuackGuru 2038:QuackGuru 2002:QuackGuru 1970:QuackGuru 1936:QuackGuru 1907:QuackGuru 1850:QuackGuru 1790:QuackGuru 1754:QuackGuru 1733:QuackGuru 1700:QuackGuru 1668:QuackGuru 1635:QuackGuru 1491:QuackGuru 1453:QuackGuru 1328:Jinkinson 1309:Ian Furst 1277:QuackGuru 1228:Ian Furst 1201:QuackGuru 1152:QuackGuru 1137:Ian Furst 1118:QuackGuru 1092:QuackGuru 1058:QuackGuru 1015:QuackGuru 965:QuackGuru 934:QuackGuru 889:QuackGuru 867:QuackGuru 800:cite news 759:QuackGuru 681:QuackGuru 641:QuackGuru 532:QuackGuru 416:QuackGuru 405:9 January 359:QuackGuru 341:QuackGuru 334:See this 314:QuackGuru 292:QuackGuru 258:QuackGuru 227:QuackGuru 208:QuackGuru 190:QuackGuru 150:QuackGuru 115:of these 76:Jinkinson 61:Archive 1 4424:Johnuniq 4307:GeeBee60 4277:contribs 4247:I agree 4232:GeeBee60 4169:Johnuniq 4142:contribs 4053:contribs 3962:Cheers.— 3812:contribs 3462:anywhere 3201:unsigned 3022:Johnuniq 2975:This one 2915:protocol 2901:contribs 2481:Ca2james 2223:Neuraxis 1931:reverted 1618:reverted 1427:CBC News 550:Iselilja 433:De728631 285:The are 86:contribs 4372:Adrian 4364:Quaffel 4350:Quaffel 4331:Urstadt 4297:Thanks 4230:Thanks 4160:KDS4444 4158:...?) 4110:fortuna 3903:my edit 3424:hinting 2807:Balance 2466:MrBill3 2427:MrBill3 2200:because 1399:MrBill3 1369:MrBill3 1244:WP:BLPN 884:article 175:Adrian 100:Georgia 39:archive 4376:Hunter 4261:WP:MED 4071:(talk) 3787:Update 3420:anyone 3274:(talk) 3221:(talk) 3177:(talk) 3116:(talk) 3045:Ocaasi 2941:vetted 2843:WP:BLP 2676:Ocaasi 2654:Ocaasi 2615:Ocaasi 2572:Ocaasi 2205:Ocaasi 2138:WP:BLP 1843:. See 1246:or an 1169:Ocaasi 1048:Ocaasi 809:|date= 492:Do not 488:Do not 484:Do not 478:Policy 363:Ocaasi 244:Ocaasi 217:Ocaasi 179:Hunter 141:verify 4281:email 4146:email 4057:email 3816:email 3422:, is 3408:think 2993:WP:RS 2919:WP:EL 2905:email 2779:WP:EL 2400:tl;dr 2323:(See 1771:WP:OR 1622:other 1486:noted 1446:This 846:does 781:(PDF) 97:Sandy 16:< 4616:talk 4587:talk 4567:Talk 4546:talk 4523:Talk 4503:Talk 4481:talk 4458:talk 4428:talk 4403:Talk 4389:Re: 4354:talk 4335:talk 4311:talk 4273:talk 4236:talk 4224:that 4173:talk 4138:talk 4049:talk 3868:talk 3845:See 3831:talk 3808:talk 3772:talk 3753:talk 3738:talk 3718:talk 3695:talk 3675:talk 3661:talk 3614:talk 3595:talk 3580:talk 3561:talk 3542:talk 3519:talk 3505:talk 3489:talk 3470:talk 3451:talk 3432:talk 3397:talk 3374:talk 3359:talk 3340:talk 3325:talk 3299:talk 3260:talk 3245:talk 3209:talk 3149:talk 3133:Talk 3071:Talk 3026:talk 3001:talk 2983:talk 2931:talk 2897:talk 2866:talk 2851:talk 2837:and 2791:talk 2769:talk 2753:talk 2718:talk 2710:here 2694:talk 2649:only 2638:talk 2590:talk 2561:talk 2543:talk 2522:talk 2485:talk 2470:talk 2462:CFPC 2448:talk 2431:talk 2408:talk 2367:talk 2327:and 2272:says 2260:talk 2256:Moxy 2245:talk 2227:talk 2164:talk 2149:talk 2128:talk 2112:talk 2095:talk 2080:talk 2060:talk 2044:talk 2027:talk 2008:talk 1991:talk 1976:talk 1959:talk 1942:talk 1929:but 1913:talk 1896:talk 1877:talk 1873:Moxy 1856:talk 1845:diff 1796:talk 1779:talk 1760:talk 1739:talk 1722:talk 1706:talk 1689:talk 1674:talk 1657:talk 1653:Moxy 1641:talk 1607:talk 1592:talk 1588:Moxy 1576:talk 1546:talk 1542:Moxy 1520:talk 1497:talk 1476:talk 1459:talk 1448:edit 1436:2014 1403:talk 1388:talk 1373:talk 1347:talk 1313:talk 1299:talk 1283:talk 1256:talk 1232:talk 1207:talk 1185:talk 1158:talk 1141:talk 1124:talk 1098:talk 1064:talk 1037:talk 1021:talk 987:here 971:talk 940:talk 919:2014 895:talk 873:talk 842:The 834:2014 813:help 792:2014 765:talk 748:The 702:talk 687:talk 670:talk 658:here 647:talk 629:talk 606:talk 573:talk 554:talk 538:talk 501:See 470:See 461:talk 437:talk 422:talk 407:2014 387:2014 380:Vice 347:talk 336:diff 320:talk 298:talk 264:talk 233:talk 196:talk 168:this 156:talk 125:talk 105:Talk 92:logs 80:talk 4422:). 3923:to 3241:BDD 2925:)". 2394:or 2315:is 1248:RfC 994:Zad 862:not 848:not 719:Zad 357:Hi 311:. 255:. 206:Hi 173:). 4618:) 4590:) 4548:) 4483:) 4451:oo 4449:cl 4445:nc 4430:) 4374:J. 4370:. 4356:) 4337:) 4313:) 4283:) 4279:· 4275:· 4238:) 4175:) 4148:) 4144:· 4140:· 4059:) 4055:· 4051:· 4018:. 3871:) 3857:. 3855:up 3833:) 3818:) 3814:· 3810:· 3775:) 3755:) 3741:) 3720:) 3697:) 3677:) 3663:) 3617:) 3597:) 3583:) 3563:) 3553:is 3545:) 3521:) 3507:) 3492:) 3472:) 3454:) 3434:) 3426:? 3400:) 3386:. 3376:) 3362:) 3342:) 3328:) 3301:) 3262:) 3247:) 3151:) 3111:. 3096:gy 3094:l¤ 3092:c¤ 3090:ki 3088:Wi 3028:) 3003:) 2995:. 2985:) 2968:8 2962:7 2956:6 2950:5 2933:) 2907:) 2903:· 2899:· 2868:) 2853:) 2793:) 2771:) 2755:) 2720:) 2640:) 2607:If 2592:) 2563:) 2524:) 2487:) 2472:) 2433:) 2410:) 2369:) 2262:) 2247:) 2229:) 2166:) 2152:) 2140:. 2130:) 2115:) 2097:) 2083:) 2062:) 2047:) 2029:) 2011:) 1993:) 1979:) 1961:) 1945:) 1916:) 1898:) 1890:. 1879:) 1859:) 1799:) 1781:) 1763:) 1742:) 1724:) 1709:) 1691:) 1677:) 1659:) 1644:) 1609:) 1594:) 1578:) 1548:) 1522:) 1500:) 1478:) 1462:) 1424:. 1405:) 1390:) 1375:) 1349:) 1315:) 1301:) 1286:) 1274:. 1258:) 1234:) 1210:) 1187:) 1161:) 1143:) 1127:) 1101:) 1067:) 1039:) 1024:) 1001:68 974:) 943:) 931:. 910:. 898:) 876:) 825:. 804:: 802:}} 798:{{ 783:. 768:) 726:68 712:Ed 704:) 690:) 672:) 650:) 631:) 608:) 575:) 556:) 541:) 474:: 463:) 439:) 425:) 398:. 378:. 350:) 323:) 301:) 267:) 236:) 199:) 177:J. 159:) 127:) 107:) 4614:( 4584:( 4570:) 4564:( 4544:( 4526:) 4520:( 4506:) 4500:( 4479:( 4460:) 4456:( 4453:n 4447:y 4443:E 4426:( 4406:) 4400:( 4352:( 4333:( 4309:( 4271:( 4234:( 4171:( 4136:( 4104:: 4100:@ 4047:( 4030:. 3975:) 3971:( 3958:. 3951:. 3939:Y 3865:( 3829:( 3806:( 3769:( 3751:( 3735:( 3716:( 3693:( 3673:( 3659:( 3611:( 3593:( 3577:( 3559:( 3539:( 3517:( 3503:( 3486:( 3468:( 3448:( 3430:( 3394:( 3372:( 3356:( 3338:( 3322:( 3297:( 3258:( 3243:( 3207:( 3147:( 3136:) 3130:( 3074:) 3068:( 3024:( 2999:( 2981:( 2929:( 2895:( 2864:( 2849:( 2802:: 2789:( 2767:( 2751:( 2747:. 2716:( 2712:. 2636:( 2588:( 2559:( 2520:( 2483:( 2468:( 2429:( 2406:( 2365:( 2258:( 2243:( 2225:( 2162:( 2146:( 2126:( 2109:( 2093:( 2077:( 2058:( 2041:( 2025:( 2005:( 1989:( 1973:( 1957:( 1939:( 1910:( 1894:( 1875:( 1853:( 1793:( 1777:( 1757:( 1736:( 1720:( 1703:( 1687:( 1671:( 1655:( 1638:( 1605:( 1590:( 1574:( 1544:( 1518:( 1494:( 1474:( 1456:( 1438:. 1401:( 1386:( 1371:( 1345:( 1311:( 1297:( 1280:( 1254:( 1230:( 1204:( 1183:( 1155:( 1139:( 1121:( 1095:( 1061:( 1035:( 1018:( 968:( 937:( 921:. 892:( 870:( 854:. 836:. 815:) 811:( 794:. 762:( 700:( 684:( 668:( 644:( 627:( 604:( 571:( 552:( 535:( 523:. 459:( 435:( 419:( 409:. 389:. 344:( 317:( 295:( 261:( 230:( 193:( 153:( 123:( 103:( 89:· 83:· 78:( 50:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index