User talk:PeterFernuk

Talk discussion

Please join the conversation here [1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:42, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

By the way you need to declare any association with the topic in question per WP:COI. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:16, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks, No COI per https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest PeterFernuk (talk) 21:21, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peter I work on COI and advocacy (see WP:ADVOCACY) issues along with editing about health/medicine - I have been watching the tussle at the MST article. Your edits are all emphasizing the effectiveness beyond what that ref says, which is what raises the questions. You are also pretty new here and are unlikely to be familiar with how the community thinks about COI here in Wikipedia. Would you please describe your connection with this topic, to get that surfaced so we can discuss it? Thanks! Jytdog (talk) 21:34, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a COI, I've just read the referenced reviews. I don't think a "tussle" has occurred given the collaborative and good faith nature of the editing. I have a tremendous amount of admiration for Wikipedia and its editors. It's completely changed the face of access to information across the world. I've provided quotes from refs on the talk page and have genuinely no desire to indicate something beyond what a ref says. PeterFernuk (talk) 22:05, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Jyt - I read your user page and wanted to thank you for taking the time to write it....Particularly NPOV part 1. It's helped me understand the nature of your comments above. I think that, while I have a genuine intent to accurately reference the secondary sources, Rexx did a way better job and DocJames spent a lot of time with me to collaborate. While we are only communicating via text, I hope the good spirit of that collaboration is coming through. PeterFernuk (talk) 00:34, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

glad it helped you understand where i was coming from. and yes it is. Jytdog (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

Peter, my talk page is for discussing my behaviour, not the content of an article that we are editing. Don't fragment debate. If you want to discuss content issues about Multisystemic therapy, please do it at Talk:Multisystemic therapy. Thanks. --RexxS (talk) 21:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I'm new here. I assumed you hadn't taken a look at the talk page so wanted to give you the quotes I was using. Thanks for letting me know. PeterFernuk (talk) 22:00, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I was a bit abrupt, Peter. I do know you've only been editing since 14 April, and I should have been kinder. The reason I wasn't looking at the talk page was that I was reading the sources and trying to edit the article. No harm, no foul? --RexxS (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I think you kind of have to be, in any case. While I've always known how important a tool Wikipedia has become for the public in accessing information, this process has taught me that there is a significant amount of unrecognized thought and effort that drives the content. When I look at the sheer volume of edits that you and DocJames are doing, it essentially means that you have to budget your time. I was impressed that DocJames devoted so much time to collaborating on edits with me, and when you made the comment to me, I didn't consider it abrupt. Thanks for the thought though and keep it up! :) PeterFernuk (talk) 00:11, 26 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]