Jump to content

User talk:Aspening: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
m Archiving 2 discussion(s) to User talk:Aspening/Archive 1) (bot
Line 67: Line 67:
I AM the reliable source, son. Now, revert your unauthorized changes. NOW.[[Special:Contributions/68.49.167.110|68.49.167.110]] ([[User talk:68.49.167.110|talk]]) 03:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
I AM the reliable source, son. Now, revert your unauthorized changes. NOW.[[Special:Contributions/68.49.167.110|68.49.167.110]] ([[User talk:68.49.167.110|talk]]) 03:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
:What you changed was [[WP:NOR|original research]], so it can't be included in Wikipedia. I also don't see how my changes are "unauthorized," since [[WP:OWN|users do not own Wikipedia content]] and can't prevent others from making changes to pages. [[User:Aspening|Aspening]] ([[User talk:Aspening#top|talk]]) 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)
:What you changed was [[WP:NOR|original research]], so it can't be included in Wikipedia. I also don't see how my changes are "unauthorized," since [[WP:OWN|users do not own Wikipedia content]] and can't prevent others from making changes to pages. [[User:Aspening|Aspening]] ([[User talk:Aspening#top|talk]]) 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

I'm NOT warning you again, son. You are KNOW NOTHING, NIT PICKING NERD and in Violation of MULTIPLE Wik Rules -Assume Good Faith, the 3edit rule. Etc. Now put that part back in before I put it in FOR YOU!! [[Special:Contributions/68.49.167.110|68.49.167.110]] ([[User talk:68.49.167.110|talk]]) 02:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)


== ''The Signpost'': 30 August 2018 ==
== ''The Signpost'': 30 August 2018 ==

Revision as of 02:40, 31 August 2018

Click here to start a new discussion.


Clinical Document Architecture

I wanted to add this: In 2016, HL7 and the ONC ran a Rendering Tool challenge, to help overcome some of the frustrations with the usability of CDA documents. The winning entry was the Backbeach Software CDA Viewer.

The availability of an open source viewer for CDA, judged by HL7 and ONC, is relevant to the article. It is also potentially useful to users who are reading the page because they have CDA files they want to view.

I acknowledge the link is to a site I control, but the demo is free for use and does not require registration and has no advertising.

Would one of these alternatives be acceptable: 1. Restore the edit as is. 2. Replace the link to the viewer to the github page of the code repository: In 2016, HL7 and the ONC ran a Rendering Tool challenge, to help overcome some of the frustrations with the usability of CDA documents. The source code of the winning entry is challenge/index.htm available on github .

3. Remove the second sentence altogether?

2 and 3 have these disadvantages: 2 requires users to go to github, download and install the Viewer. 3 requires users to go to the first link, find the link to the demo or github and then download and install. Also, not mentioning the winner in a para describing a competition just seems strange.

thanks, Bryn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brynlewis (talkcontribs) 00:12, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brynlewis: Inserting external links in that way is generally considered inappropriate for Wikipedia, because it may be seen as advertising or spam. Please do not insert those links into the article at all. Aspening (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Would the following be acceptable?:

In 2016, HL7 and the ONC ran a Rendering Tool challenge, to help overcome some of the frustrations with the usability of CDA documents. The winning entry was the Backbeach Software CDA Viewer.[citation to [1]] Brynlewis (talk) 01:02, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Brynlewis: Generally, most users would view that as promotional, because it is not critical to the understanding of what the original article topic is and appears to be advertising the tool. Aspening (talk) 01:08, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hinojosa Page

Hi Aspening - you sent me a message about the image that I wanted to update on Gina Hinojosa's page. I work for the Representative and am trying to swap out the photo to a better image than the one currently being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpardo210 (talkcontribs) 03:54, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpardo210: I sent you that message because you deleted the entire infobox. It's a common mistake people make when trying to swap out images. Additionally, if you are editing Wikipedia as part of your work, please have a look at our conflict of interest policy and our rules about paid contributions. Aspening (talk) 03:59, 28 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Changes to Radio Station WWWW

I AM the reliable source, son. Now, revert your unauthorized changes. NOW.68.49.167.110 (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What you changed was original research, so it can't be included in Wikipedia. I also don't see how my changes are "unauthorized," since users do not own Wikipedia content and can't prevent others from making changes to pages. Aspening (talk) 03:45, 30 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'm NOT warning you again, son. You are KNOW NOTHING, NIT PICKING NERD and in Violation of MULTIPLE Wik Rules -Assume Good Faith, the 3edit rule. Etc. Now put that part back in before I put it in FOR YOU!! 68.49.167.110 (talk) 02:40, 31 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Signpost: 30 August 2018