User talk:Justinmarley

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

June 2008

talk) 11:28, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

July 2008

talk · contribs) 08:55, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Reliable sources have been used and included books and journal articles Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
No, they were not as has already been explained to you multiple times. --
talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

What is your interest in Liaison Psychiatry? A cursory examination of the literature would reveal the importance of the included texts Justinmarley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]

I have none. You can make all the claims you want. Without a reliable source, anyone regardless of knowledge of the topic, will remove them as false claims. Again, you can't NOT use the book itself to support your claims of the books being important. You must find reliable, third party sources that make the claim. YOU are not a qualified source, period. --
talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Referencing third party peer reviewed comments on stated texts is straightforward. Justinmarley (talk) 06:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
You did not, however, do it. Instead you threw a temper tantrum and kept putting back the invalid references until the article was locked to stop it. --
talk · contribs) 06:05, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

talk · contribs) 10:13, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

The vandalism template was used because a significant proportion of work had been removed without discussion Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
It was falsely and wrongly used. It is not vandalism to clean up an article. Don't use a template if you don't know what you are doing, and when you have no understanding at all about what
talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
My text was removed without discussion. Also whilst I was in the process of inserting references within minutes my original text was removed. In my opinion, the article was being vandalised. Justinmarley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
That is your opinion, and its wrong. Read the page, and while you are at it, read
talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

talk · contribs) 10:57, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Facts were included very densely in the article and were referenced appropriately Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
Again, no, they were not. There was nothing in the article actually referenced that wasn't just "the book exists" which is not real referencing. This has been explained to you repeatedly. --
talk · contribs) 22:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion, your simply wrong and I believe its inappropriate for you to repeatedly remove intricate details on a topic about which you have no qualifications Justinmarley (talk) 05:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
Again, just your opinion which doesn't really count for much. Go read
talk · contribs) 05:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
It is your opinion that has been used to initiate the actions you have done. Your actions are clearly value driven. These are judgements not facts. My opinion is important to me. It is also important to other people who are interested in dialogue. You have repeatedly removed relevant references. What's more you have not justified why certain references have been removed. It is here that I believe that knowledge of the subject area is important as at the very least other references would have been suggested. However your responses have invariably resulted in loss of referenced information and/or loss of structure. Both references and structure are important in an encyclopedia Justinmarley (talk) 05:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]
I have justified them, multiple times. Your choosing not to read, or to ignore them, is your problem. Wikipedia is
talk · contribs) 06:04, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
In my opinion your justifications have been inadequate. I would recommend that you refrain from commenting on my actions on the editor assistant board and hope you are not trying to influence my actions in this regards. I have relevant qualifications and training in the area i am writing on and therefore your requests for qualified people in this area have other connotations 06:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley
Your "qualifications and training" are irrelevant. Again, Wikipedia is NOT the place for your personal opinion and research, no matter what kind of expert you are. I am allowed to comment on your actions on the board when you make false accusations and violate
talk · contribs) 06:16, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

talk · contribs) 10:59, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Where would you suggest we talk on this article given that there is no discussion page and instead there is a reference to a generic medical page Justinmarley (talk) 21:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley —Preceding unsigned comment added by Justinmarley (talk • contribs) 06:06, July 6, 2008[reply]
There is a talk page. Sitting there plain as day at
talk · contribs) 11:11, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Welcome

Hello, Justinmarley!
talk) 23:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]
Getting Started
Getting Help
Policies and Guidelines
The Community
Things to do
Miscellaneous


Please, use these links to help learn about editing. Also, note that posting the same topic over and over in the editor request board will not get you "help" any faster, but rather will annoy others and will likely result in your requests being ignored completely. Keep in mind that while it may be daytime or early evening for you, its very early in the morning for many editors, and a holiday weekend, so not too many people are around right now to answer questions. --

talk · contribs) 11:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to

talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 11:43, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]


You have been accused of

talk · contribs) 17:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply
]

This allegation is consistent with a series of what I perceive to be other hostile behaviours by Collectonian and I have reported this appropriately Justinmarley (talk) 21:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)justinmarley[reply]

See closing comments hre: Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justinmarley. If you consider Collectonian has some agenda, provide evidence, otherwise, AGF. — Rlevse • Talk • 11:53, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiology task force

Cardiology task force

ECG
Unit (Welcome!)

--

talk) 00:12, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply
] 

Maen. K. A. (talk) 23:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 20:11, 16 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Justinmarley&oldid=1063835972"