Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 16:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed a pattern in your editing, and I was wondering why you've only (right?) added content from Becker's Hospital Review and beckersasc.com? To me it looks fishy, like a possible case of citation spamming. Here is our page on conflict of interests, just in case. Also, when you cite sources here, we don't just provide bare urls. Here's a quick how-to. Please let me know if you have any questions. You can reply immediately below this. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again, FYI I am instructed to " not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner". So, I don't want you to think I'm being hostile by reverting your contributions (I think I've undone 5 of them recently). If I didn't explain why I reverted your edits clearly enough, please feel free to ask me. Perhaps you should consider being someone's "protégé" to get over the learning curve. I don't think it is steep though. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jesanj ( talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I definitely am not spamming. I would appreciate if you didn't undo my contributions as I am trying to contribute things I find interesting and insightful. I apologize for citing poorly but I will cite better from now on.
- Thanks for the reply. I understand it is frustrating to have your contributions undone. And perfection is not required. But some things around here just don't work and can be removed. I've tried to preserve some of your edits. The three links I just made all came from Wikipedia:Editing policy. Take a look. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Here is an explanation of some sources we like around here. I don't know how Becker's Hospital Review fits into that framework. One thing I like to use for health care policy issues are NEJM policy letters. I'm still unsure why it seems everything you find interesting comes from Becker's; I hope that you branch out with your sourcing. Thanks again. Also, sign your discussion posts by typing this: ~~~~ and a signature and time stamp will appear that looks like this --> Jesanj ( talk) 21:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen you keep adding Becker's urls as citations to sources, most recently to say they were on Beckers top 50 list in 2011. Why Beckers? What makes you think they are a respected source for hospital rankings? It seems U.S. News and World report is one of the most commonly covered. [1] Consumer Reports rankings also exist. [2] Why not cite something with a more established reputation? Otherwise, it is undue weight, in my opinion. Jesanj ( talk) 18:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Becker's happens to be extremely well regarded in the medical field. They hold huge medical conferences every year and they are INDEED well respected. Would Wikipedia really only be complete if everyone only referenced US New and World report? I think, in fact, that would make Wikipedia very uni-dimensional. In sum, Becker's is well regarded.
- I disagree. Here's evidence to back up my opinion. A google scholar search comparison of "Becker's Hospital Review" hospital rankings vs. "U.S. News & World Report" hospital rankings yields 1 hit from a random website vs. many hits in respected medical journals. I bet if you read those sources you could find some criticism of U.S. News & World Report. Maybe you would want to include that info at that page? But it appears no one cares enough about Becker's to cite it. This provides more evidence that you are placing undue weight and link spamming. Jesanj ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, I disagree with you for the following reasons. 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Because of this you have no right to say that something I post is not credible because it is not from a "major" source. If you actually took the time and read articles from Becker's you would see that the site is indeed very credible. They interview well regarded medical professionals and get their opinions from credible sources. That is how they establish their lists. To me, this seems credible. As far as I am concerned, the Wikipedia world you are living in is one that is quite contradictory to the true meaning of Wikipedia. You would prefer that everything is sited from the most popular and well-known sites, when in reality this is unrealistic and contradictory to the Wikipedia "way". 2) I am far from spamming, I am simply taking evidence from one of my favorite sites and sharing it with the the Wikipedia world. I am in no way harming anyone, I am purely stating a fact from Becker's just like you apparently would state a fact from US News and World. In sum, I find your comments to be extremely biased as you are essentially stating that if I were to edit pages referencing one of your "preferred" websites, then this conversation, essentially, would not be taking place. I think you should attempt to find more important issues with people who are actually trying to ruin the integrity and purpose of Wikipedia then worry about some harmless high school student who is simply interested in the medical articles that Becker's offers and is trying to help inform the Wikipedia world of things they may otherwise not be aware of.
- Yes, Wikipedia is based off of collaboration. However, that has nothing to do with the types of sources we like around here. I'm not saying it is never a reliable source. Also, let me quote what good research means: " good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." You are clearly biased towards Becker's, a source that is ignored by the best sources when it comes to hospital rankings. In my mind it is simply unencyclopedic for you to go around and add Becker's list for 2011. Please branch out. I doubt your high-school teachers would like it if only cited one source when you wrote a paper. Well, we're an encyclopedia. We're supposed to use good research and find good sources in an unbiased way. We're here to improve articles. Please don't be offended, but I haven't found your contributions very helpful.
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to the encyclopedia, one or more of the
external links you added do not comply with our
guidelines for external links and have been removed.
Wikipedia is not a collection of links; nor should it be used as a platform for
advertising or promotion, and doing so is contrary to the goals of this project. Because Wikipedia uses
nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the
welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you.
OhNoitsJamie
Talk 16:24, 11 July 2011 (UTC)
Hello. I noticed a pattern in your editing, and I was wondering why you've only (right?) added content from Becker's Hospital Review and beckersasc.com? To me it looks fishy, like a possible case of citation spamming. Here is our page on conflict of interests, just in case. Also, when you cite sources here, we don't just provide bare urls. Here's a quick how-to. Please let me know if you have any questions. You can reply immediately below this. Thanks. Jesanj ( talk) 16:44, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- Hello again, FYI I am instructed to " not be hostile toward fellow editors; newcomers in particular. Remember to assume good faith and respond to problematic edits in a clear and polite manner". So, I don't want you to think I'm being hostile by reverting your contributions (I think I've undone 5 of them recently). If I didn't explain why I reverted your edits clearly enough, please feel free to ask me. Perhaps you should consider being someone's "protégé" to get over the learning curve. I don't think it is steep though. Please let me know if you have any questions. Jesanj ( talk) 18:40, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
I definitely am not spamming. I would appreciate if you didn't undo my contributions as I am trying to contribute things I find interesting and insightful. I apologize for citing poorly but I will cite better from now on.
- Thanks for the reply. I understand it is frustrating to have your contributions undone. And perfection is not required. But some things around here just don't work and can be removed. I've tried to preserve some of your edits. The three links I just made all came from Wikipedia:Editing policy. Take a look. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. Here is an explanation of some sources we like around here. I don't know how Becker's Hospital Review fits into that framework. One thing I like to use for health care policy issues are NEJM policy letters. I'm still unsure why it seems everything you find interesting comes from Becker's; I hope that you branch out with your sourcing. Thanks again. Also, sign your discussion posts by typing this: ~~~~ and a signature and time stamp will appear that looks like this --> Jesanj ( talk) 21:00, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
- I've seen you keep adding Becker's urls as citations to sources, most recently to say they were on Beckers top 50 list in 2011. Why Beckers? What makes you think they are a respected source for hospital rankings? It seems U.S. News and World report is one of the most commonly covered. [1] Consumer Reports rankings also exist. [2] Why not cite something with a more established reputation? Otherwise, it is undue weight, in my opinion. Jesanj ( talk) 18:11, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
Well, Becker's happens to be extremely well regarded in the medical field. They hold huge medical conferences every year and they are INDEED well respected. Would Wikipedia really only be complete if everyone only referenced US New and World report? I think, in fact, that would make Wikipedia very uni-dimensional. In sum, Becker's is well regarded.
- I disagree. Here's evidence to back up my opinion. A google scholar search comparison of "Becker's Hospital Review" hospital rankings vs. "U.S. News & World Report" hospital rankings yields 1 hit from a random website vs. many hits in respected medical journals. I bet if you read those sources you could find some criticism of U.S. News & World Report. Maybe you would want to include that info at that page? But it appears no one cares enough about Becker's to cite it. This provides more evidence that you are placing undue weight and link spamming. Jesanj ( talk) 18:36, 4 August 2011 (UTC)
First off, I disagree with you for the following reasons. 1) Wikipedia is a collaborative encyclopedia. Because of this you have no right to say that something I post is not credible because it is not from a "major" source. If you actually took the time and read articles from Becker's you would see that the site is indeed very credible. They interview well regarded medical professionals and get their opinions from credible sources. That is how they establish their lists. To me, this seems credible. As far as I am concerned, the Wikipedia world you are living in is one that is quite contradictory to the true meaning of Wikipedia. You would prefer that everything is sited from the most popular and well-known sites, when in reality this is unrealistic and contradictory to the Wikipedia "way". 2) I am far from spamming, I am simply taking evidence from one of my favorite sites and sharing it with the the Wikipedia world. I am in no way harming anyone, I am purely stating a fact from Becker's just like you apparently would state a fact from US News and World. In sum, I find your comments to be extremely biased as you are essentially stating that if I were to edit pages referencing one of your "preferred" websites, then this conversation, essentially, would not be taking place. I think you should attempt to find more important issues with people who are actually trying to ruin the integrity and purpose of Wikipedia then worry about some harmless high school student who is simply interested in the medical articles that Becker's offers and is trying to help inform the Wikipedia world of things they may otherwise not be aware of.
- Yes, Wikipedia is based off of collaboration. However, that has nothing to do with the types of sources we like around here. I'm not saying it is never a reliable source. Also, let me quote what good research means: " good and unbiased research, based upon the best and most reputable authoritative sources available, helps prevent NPOV disagreements." You are clearly biased towards Becker's, a source that is ignored by the best sources when it comes to hospital rankings. In my mind it is simply unencyclopedic for you to go around and add Becker's list for 2011. Please branch out. I doubt your high-school teachers would like it if only cited one source when you wrote a paper. Well, we're an encyclopedia. We're supposed to use good research and find good sources in an unbiased way. We're here to improve articles. Please don't be offended, but I haven't found your contributions very helpful.