InformaticsMD

January 2012

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Electronic health record. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Please refer to the Bold, revert, discuss cycle - if your changes are reverted, you should start a discussion on the talkpage and gain consensus for your version instead of just making them again and perpetuating the edit war. I have reported your edit warring at the Edit warring noticeboard.--SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Last warning for edit warring

This is your last warning. The next time you vandalize Wikipedia, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:30, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring and violation of the three-revert rule at Electronic health record. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. --Chris (talk) 17:32, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

User has since been editing as User talk:108.16.62.235. Snowolf ^{How can I help?} 18:55, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In response to your feedback

Hi, if what you say is true then it is important to remember a few things. Do not let them trap you by making lots of revers which can have you banned. Keep cool, avoid personal attacks and do not revert more than once before bringing the topic to discussion.

If discussing doesn't work, find like minded people, preferable admins, the power of peers is important in wikipedia since without support, you are likely to be banned, nomatter how good your edits are.

Good luck!

Juice Leskinen (talk) 19:20, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. InformaticsMD (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

 

When following the link to the feedback dashboard provided above, I see that InformaticsMD is referencing me specifically as being the one to remove their edits.

To correct their claims: their edits were removed by four different editors, three of whom are long-established editors. Of the four who removed the content, two explicitly referenced WP:SYNTH as the reason for removal, and a third implied it although they didn't reference it directly. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for any misunderstandings. InformaticsMD (talk) 06:00, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

New additions

I will be adding verifiable references from sources of the highest reputation that I use in my teaching on EHRs (e.g., the US National Academies of Science, the U.S. National Institute of Standards, the Journal of the American Medical Association, the U.K.'s NHS, etc.) along with a short summary of their findings on EHR issues, and page numbers where applicable. If these entries are found to violate any Wikipedia rules, please advise. Thank you. S. Silverstein MD, Drexel University, Institute for Healthcare Informatics, Philadelphia. InformaticsMD (talk) 05:58, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Added 'patients' as stakeholders in the 'Implementation and End User considerations' section. Added unintended consequences references from the UK NHS and the US FDA. US FDA memo was originally released by the Huffington Post Investigative Fund in a timeline sidebar ("TIMELINE: Safety Overshadowed? Two Decades of Warnings and Inaction") archived at http://web.archive.org/web/20110425002322/http://huffpostfund.org/stories/2010/08/fda-obama-digital-medical-records-team-odds-over-safety-oversight . The Investigative Fund has since merged with the Center for Public Integrity (http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/10/huffington_post_investigative.html). InformaticsMD (talk) 14:52, 29 January 2012 (UTC)