- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training (talk|edit|history|logs|links|watch) (XfD|restore)
insufficient time, had to move the work the User:Tony85poon/sandbox many thanks. Tony85poon (talk) 01:31, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what this is about since the OP has not made any attempt to discuss this with me. However after a quick reexamination of the AfD, I am satisfied that there is a pretty strong consensus to delete. As far as I can tell Tony85poon was the only one favoring retention out of the six editors participating in the discussion (including the AfD's op). But if there is a sense that I muffed the call on this I am happy to defer to the community's judgement. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If those six editors are all doctors/surgeons, then deleting is fair enough. I do hope that (to have a diversity of opinion) a surgeon (or a surgical ]
Is there a policy that the original poster / contributor / creator of the article must do something to keep the article alive? What if he/she dies, too old, has gone to jail, or moved to a remote area with no internet access? Tony85poon (talk) 03:30, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's my feeling. Road Traffic Accidents are common. Let's say, person A's face is greatly damaged by RTA. He has recovered healthily but his social life is terrible because he is being labelled as a "monster". Somehow, Mr. Plastic Surgeon messed up his face. Person B (a female doctor) has sympathy for person A. She goes "I have got to learn how to fix his face". She looks up Wikipedia, because she is thirsty for surgical-training-information. She also got fed up with American politics, and wants to kill two birds with one stone:
- An institution that have feasible solutions to fix his face.
- That institution must be outside USA. Tony85poon (talk) 03:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm confused Endorse. What is ]- There's obvious consensus for deletion in the AfD and it was open for the required seven days. The OP hasn't given any vaguely convincing reason as to why we should change the AfD result. The main objection is
WP:NOTDIR, which seems perfectly valid to me as the article is almost entirely a directory of external links to training programs. If the OP really wants us to have an article at this title then throw the directory away and try and write an article consisting of actual prose. Medical Scientist Training Program, which he mentioned as an analogy in the AfD, is more the sort of thing we'd accept. Hut 8.5 07:49, 1 February 2019 (UTC) [reply
- Point 1. "I'm confused. What is User:Tony85poon/sandbox?" It is because the article got deleted in the regular Wikipedia, and in order to preserve what was deleted for future improvement purpose, I resorted to using my sandbox. Point 2. Anyone can edit my sandbox as an improvement to the article-draft. I have thrown away a lot of directory already. There are still (around) 22 direct-web-links left and reading all of them takes time. If I haven't read enough, I cannot come up with actual prose yet. Point 3. If I jump the gun and recreate the page, that would be speedily deleted (coz that defeats the purpose of allowing administrator to make the deletion decision). I understand that. I am waiting patiently. Point 4. "some sort of anti-USA" It can work the other way round: An Indian doctor who is fed up with Indian politics planning to move the USA and further his/her surgical education. Tony85poon (talk) 08:55, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Response to the "consensus" point: it is true that, before the deletion, the vote was 6 v 1. I want to use the George W Bush analogy that even though Bush did not win the popular vote (Al Gore had more votes), Bush won the 2000-election. In Wikipedia, it is the reasoning that counts. Tony85poon (talk) 10:59, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a directory, as I hope you're aware by now. That means you have to either convince people that this article is not a directory or write another article which people don't think is a directory. You failed to do the first point in the AfD and you haven't come up with any compelling argument since. If you write a different article which isn't a directory and is acceptable (it will need to be sourced to reliable sources which devote significant coverage to the subject, for example) then the article can be recreated. But so far you've got a draft which is still a directory listing and no new arguments. Hut 8.5 20:23, 1 February 2019 (UTC) [reply
- Endorse the closing of the article. In response to the comment above regarding the credentials of the six who advocated deletion in the AfD (though our real-world credentials are irrelevant; what matters here is Wikipedia policy and community consensus) - as someone working in hospital administration, I feel this article does not deserve to be in Wikipedia. Jmertel23 (talk) 11:39, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse Absolutely clear delete. I've also looked through the nominator's contributions - in only about three weeks, there's been several odd edit wars, including one where they removed referenced material because they arbitrarily considered it a "joke," being
WP:OWN mentality. I would urge them to be more constructive to the project in the future. SportingFlyer T· C 20:42, 1 February 2019 (UTC) [reply
- Yes, I did make that mistake. Luckily, the poorhistorian (whom I had edit-war with for a brief moment) instantly taught me a lesson. I gave an apology straight-up, then took a step further: added citations into the Chinese version of the article. Before that, the Chinese version of the article was not backed up with reliable source sufficiently. Now I refrain myself from edit-war. Tony85poon (talk) 01:23, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I did do something constructive. I went ahead and expanded pt:Implantodontia nl:Tandimplantaat ru:Зубной_имплантат and ko:덴탈임플란트. So far, there is no criticism from Wikipedians of those language versions. I tried expanding the Polish version too but my edit was reverted. As a Chinese, I do feel that the 植牙-article is too short and ought to be extensively expanded. Tony85poon (talk) 01:34, 2 February 2019 (UTC) Update: Russion version was reverted. Portugese, Dutch and Korean still good. Tony85poon (talk) 05:49, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Foreign-language Wikipedias have their own cultures, rules and customs. They were mostly set up more than ten years ago and they have evolved an entirely different set of rules to ours, over that time -- and of course, they often find themselves dealing with people who assume that English Wikipedia process and policy applies everywhere in the Wiki-verse. So for example, on en-wiki you're most likely to be reverted for making an unsourced change. On de-wiki, which has a lot less of a sources-and-evidence fetish than we do, you're most likely to be reverted for a grammatical mistake or stylistic infelicity -- it's a frustrating experience, editing de-wiki, unless you're a native speaker with an established de-wiki identity so people know who you are.
Welcome to en-wiki, by the way. We have plenty of pages that encourage you to just "dive in and edit", and being nice and welcoming to new editors is a founding principle of ours. I do hope you find that in 2019 we're still standing by that principle but I fear that we may be becoming a snappish and hostile place full of rules you haven't been told about but are expected to follow.—S Marshall T/C 12:50, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Endorse. Properly deleted by consensus that it fails ]
- Comment. The OP has recreated the article while this discussion is ongoing. -
MrOllie ( talk) 14:32, 7 February 2019 (UTC) [reply
- User:Tony85poon/sandbox-fellowship isn't the latest version. The latest version (with better citations) was speedily deleted. Resort to using the sandbox again to preserve what was deleted for future improvement purpose. I am still waiting for a surgeon to opine "the article does not deserve to be in the regular Wikipedia", look forward to hearing. Tony85poon (talk) 15:27, 7 February 2019 (UTC) Alright, now that the above-sandbox is also gone, at least keep my other sandbox pages please. It is because the heated debate of whether Dental implant and Root analogue dental implant should be merged is still ongoing at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Maths, science, and technology. Tony85poon (talk) 15:43, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowships
- Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training Programmes
They all redirected to "Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery Fellowship Training". Tony85poon (talk) 16:19, 7 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It is time to counterpunch/counterblow (to be honest, I feel angry).
Take a look at Oral and maxillofacial surgery#In Australia, New Zealand, and North America. The content in that section is not even understandable. But I am going to be fair. I hope someone who somehow understands can go-ahead and improve that section.
I believe that if the content is kept simple, readers can understand better. I used simple English in my draft. To preserve the speedily deleted article, I saved the content at Chinese wikipedia at zh:User:Tony85poon/沙盒 (but I lost the wikitext).
After completion of surgical training most undertake final specialty examinations: US: "Board Certified (ABOMS)", Australia/NZ: FRACDS, or Canada: "FRCDC". Some colleges offer membership or fellowships in oral/maxillofacial surgery: MOralSurg RCS, M(OMS) RCPS, FFD RCSI, FEBOS, FACOMS, FFD RCS, FAMS, FCDSHK, FCMFOS (SA)
I might be quoting out of context, but the readers with average medical knowledge need to spend extra time and effort to decipher the meaning. I guess SA = South Africa. Tony85poon (talk) 02:51, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
|
