![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Is it possible to use this study in the article?-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I placed it in the external links section. Since it's about the topic but does not cite any statements of the article, it belongs in the external links section.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 04:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Taeyebaar, I don't understand why you reverted everything. Could you please tell me which sourced paragraph I actually deleted? Could you please tell me why you reverted to a version that has bad capitalization, a WP:REFERS violation in the first sentence, and that also removed three new, sourced paragraphs? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Your edit removed vital and reliably sourced paragraphs, which clearly belongs in the article. You can clearly see the citations next to them.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 03:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
[1] here is the diff showing all that was removed.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Since the material I added was there first, i am going to restore it and have to ask you to re-add the "useful changes". It's unfair to remove what somebody already put there first and ask them to put it again. Instead leave what was already there and re-add the "useful changes" separately.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 04:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a wikipedia policy but it's a general rule of courtesy. The current version of the article seems fine and for the second time, I provided the diff where you removed my edits, which now seem to be restored, so therefor Im satisfied.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a story in the New York Times by Aaron Carroll, who is a pediatrician and also writes a column for JAMA. He reviews the published evidence for retail clinics, including policy statements by medical organizations and publications in the peer-reviewed journals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/upshot/the-undeniable-convenience-and-reliability-of-retail-health-clinics.html
The Undeniable Convenience and Reliability of Retail Health Clinics
Aaron E. Carroll
New York Times
APRIL 12, 2016
--
Nbauman (
talk)
18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There are "walk-in clincs" in the UK. The significant difference is that we have different reimbursement systems. You can do a PubMed search for "walk in clinics" and see whether they are talking about the same thing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28%22bmj%22[Journal]%29%20AND%20walk-in%20clinic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853183/ -- Nbauman ( talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Dbe1997 ( talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The photo in this article is NOT representative of a walk-in clinic at all. Consider replacing it and check teh alt-image tags as well Also, solvhelath (a private "directory aggregator" company) had been creating backlinks with conflicts of interest. The link to doctors express in the references was similar and actually pointed to AFCUrgent care. These were edited. SJNY2020 ( talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A few things:
Darth Flappy «Talk» 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
i am going to ping @ SJNY2020: to remind him to respond. Trains2050 ( talk) 16:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
![]() | Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent. |
Is it possible to use this study in the article?-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 08:04, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I placed it in the external links section. Since it's about the topic but does not cite any statements of the article, it belongs in the external links section.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 04:20, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Taeyebaar, I don't understand why you reverted everything. Could you please tell me which sourced paragraph I actually deleted? Could you please tell me why you reverted to a version that has bad capitalization, a WP:REFERS violation in the first sentence, and that also removed three new, sourced paragraphs? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 20:53, 21 January 2015 (UTC)
Your edit removed vital and reliably sourced paragraphs, which clearly belongs in the article. You can clearly see the citations next to them.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 03:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
[1] here is the diff showing all that was removed.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 03:57, 22 January 2015 (UTC)
Since the material I added was there first, i am going to restore it and have to ask you to re-add the "useful changes". It's unfair to remove what somebody already put there first and ask them to put it again. Instead leave what was already there and re-add the "useful changes" separately.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 04:31, 23 January 2015 (UTC)
It's not a wikipedia policy but it's a general rule of courtesy. The current version of the article seems fine and for the second time, I provided the diff where you removed my edits, which now seem to be restored, so therefor Im satisfied.-- Taeyebaar ( talk) 04:04, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
Here's a story in the New York Times by Aaron Carroll, who is a pediatrician and also writes a column for JAMA. He reviews the published evidence for retail clinics, including policy statements by medical organizations and publications in the peer-reviewed journals.
https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/upshot/the-undeniable-convenience-and-reliability-of-retail-health-clinics.html
The Undeniable Convenience and Reliability of Retail Health Clinics
Aaron E. Carroll
New York Times
APRIL 12, 2016
--
Nbauman (
talk)
18:52, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
There are "walk-in clincs" in the UK. The significant difference is that we have different reimbursement systems. You can do a PubMed search for "walk in clinics" and see whether they are talking about the same thing. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=%28%22bmj%22[Journal]%29%20AND%20walk-in%20clinic https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1853183/ -- Nbauman ( talk) 14:05, 16 August 2017 (UTC)
Dbe1997 ( talk) 13:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
The photo in this article is NOT representative of a walk-in clinic at all. Consider replacing it and check teh alt-image tags as well Also, solvhelath (a private "directory aggregator" company) had been creating backlinks with conflicts of interest. The link to doctors express in the references was similar and actually pointed to AFCUrgent care. These were edited. SJNY2020 ( talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
A few things:
Darth Flappy «Talk» 19:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
i am going to ping @ SJNY2020: to remind him to respond. Trains2050 ( talk) 16:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)