User talk:CircleGirl

@CircleGirl:}I saw your complaint on the Teahouse. I then saw one edit by Dr Wood. I disagee with his edit. However emotional language is not suppose to be used.But yours was a quote, or partial quote, and that is fair game IMHO. So here is what I propose as a replacement

”Theresa May told to scrap 'appalling' fit-to-work assessments as nearly 50% of female claimants attempted suicide”^[1]

The WCA and the suicide or self-harm of people going through it is an issue that is covered in detail on the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment page).^[2][3]

Here is your original comment: You don't have a quote for "appalling". I quoted the Indendent and put it in blockquotes just to make sure. He might still edit it, but you have grounds to complain as the quote is referenced. I will insert it if you wish, but need to know where. You should be able to copy and paste it. If you don't want to I willOldperson (talk) 03:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I'm sorry but I'm a bit confused about this. I don't recall adding any quotes about anybody commiting suicide. Please can you show me where I made this edit? I have been trying to tone down the articles and remove what I feel is irrelevent content. For example, the Incapacity Benefit article only actually talks very briefly about Incapacity Benefit.CircleGirl (talk) 04:02, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I concede I've perhaps been a bit overzelous with removing bias. I'm trying to make the articles as neutral as possible. I've got overly-stressed about the articles, and in retrospect, I should have calmed down a bit before I posted to the Teahouse.CircleGirl (talk) 04:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@CircleGirl:The following is your original post (I saved it on wordpad)"In October 2018, the Scottish National Party used Prime Minister's Questions to ask Theresa May about the what it said was the “appalling” connection between WCA and the ""suicide"" or self-harm of people going through it (an issue that is covered in detail on the Criticism of the Work Capability Assessment page).^[4] For what is worth. I detest Theresa May, as much as I detested Margaret Thatcher, Tony Blair, Ronald Reagan, Nixon, Donald John Trump and the malignant narcissistic, lying sociopath that is polluting the White House and the Executive. You can't be overzealous in removing other persons bias, but you should eliminate your own bias. You are probably a more experience editor than moi. I started Mid November and have been through the mill, mostly learning the rules and my own deficits.Oldperson (talk) 04:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Firstly, ny reasoning behind removing content from the WCA article is that, because there is a criticism of the WCA article, the criticism doesn't need to be repeated on the main WCA article. Also, I've asked for the criticism of the Work Capability Assessment to be moved to a new title: criticism of Employment Support Allowance. I'm writing a draft of the new article, which you can see here:. As well as this, a lot of criticism was put into the introductions of these articles. I'm not really sure that's a good idea.

The other issue is that I've discovered that Dr Greg Wood actually used to work for Atos, the company who used to do the ESA assessments. I have found he was writing about himself on the article (he describes himself as a whistleblower in the article). He cited an interview he gave to the BBC and a different interview he gave to the Guardian as sources in the article. What I found strange all along was that the articles all focused very heavily on the Work Capability Assessment. There have been many other controversial things that have happened with these benefits that had nothing to do with the WCA. For example, with ESA, there's been a cut of £30 a week for some new claimaints, but this wasn't covered at all.

With respect to my own bias: I'm actually claiming the benefit this is talking about (ESA) and I've been to a Work Capability Asessment. I'm certainly no fan of the WCA or the politicians who brought it in! But this is Wikipedia;an online encyclopedia. If I wanted to write about my experiences with being an ESA claimant, there are plenty of places on the internet that I could do that. Also, I only started editing on the 28th November, so I'm still not a very experienced Wikipedian.CircleGirl (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@CircleGirl:}I am not an experienced wikipedian either, in fact you seem more experienced than I. I've had my share of run in's with some senior editors and an Admin or two. I wouldn't worry about getting in trouble reverting Dr Wood's edits.

From what you tell me it looks like there is a Conflict of Interest (COI) with Dr Wood. He sounds like a paid stooge for ESA (I don't know what ESA is what their agenda is). When you say whistleblower, are you talking about WCA? If in fact he is an agent, paid or unpaid, for an anti social welfare program like WCA, then his edits are a COI violation, and he should be brought to the attention of the Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, be sure to include documentation (references) though, such as his claim to be a whistleblower or working or being paid by ESA (whatever that is). By the way we Americans have no idea what British acronym's mean much less a lot of American acronym's. The thing to do is spelled it out long hand first then put the acronym in paranthesis as follows Department of Defense (DOD) Supreme Court of the US (SCOTUS).Oldperson (talk) 14:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: I'm sorry for not saying what ESA is. ESA stands for Employment Support Allowance. It is a payment made by the UK government for people who are too sick or disabled to work. To be eligible for it, often a person must attend a Work Capability Assessment (WCA), which decides if a person is well enough to work. A whistleblower is someone who has exposed bad practice in a government organisation. Legally, a person who declares themselves to be a whistleblower is protected from being sued for exposing things that the organisation normally keeps secret. In Dr Greg Wood's case, he used to be a Work Capability Assessor. He resigned from the company who had been commissioned to do the assessments because he disagreed with being asked to find people fit for work when he felt they were not fit for work. He gave an interview to the BBC. Here is the interview . He has also given other interviews about this. I have raised this on the COI board and it's being dealt with. CircleGirl (talk) 14:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: Also, I have had a look through the Manual of Style. It says to avoid using quotes that aren't clearly attributed. It also says that editorialising is to be avoided. It gives the example of the word tragically. I think describing the deaths as apauling would fall under editorialising. However, I think it's appropriate to use a quote. For example:

Wrong:Anytown Secondary school is an "inadequate" school in Anytown.

Right:Anytown Secondary School is a school in Anytown. In 2017, it was described as "inadequate" by an inspector.

You can read the Manual of Style at WP:MOSWTW. CircleGirl (talk) 20:01, 28 December 2018 (UTC) @CircleGirl:. Yes quotes need to be attributed, but in my opinion in this case, the quote is attributed to the Independent, which in turn attributes the phrase "appalling" never the less moving on. You said that you and Dr Wood had an ideological difference, but the way you describe him makes him sound like a good guy. He resigned because he woldn't declare people fit to work when they were not fit to work.Do you disagree with that? Do you think that people should be forced to work even though they aren't fit to work?20:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@Oldperson: You seem to be misunderstanding me! I have gone through this process and been declared unfit for work! I don't have an ideological disagreement with Dr Greg Wood! I think he did the right thing morally, but Wikipedia isn't supposed to be about who beleives what or whether Greg Wood is a good guy! The problem is that he has been writing about himself without saying who he is! For all I know Greg Wood could be the kindest man on Earth. But he still has a conflict of interest. Conflict of interest has nothing to do with how good or bad someone is. For example, what I mainly do on Wikipedia is edit stubs relating to disability. I've seen plenty of times where people have started articles to charities and people who've worked for the charity have been exposed as having COI. It doesn't mean they're bad people. It just means that they're not following the rules on Wikipedia.CircleGirl (talk) 21:22, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

@CircleGirl:Got it now. Sorry about your condition. I can empathize. Luckily I don't have to work though, I'm 79 have a good retirement, but I had a tumor removed from my brain, and of course they took some tissue, then 10 rounds of radiation that whacks cells, good and bad.If the radiation knocked out hair follicles (which grew back)what did it do to brain tissue. Had to go through rehab, doing fine, but still have deficits and limitations. Up are correct about revealing your COI. But not sure if that applies to editing or just article creation. That is a question that might be answered at teh COI talk page.Oldperson (talk) 21:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi CircleGirl, thanks for starting these two articles. I have moved them to Draft:Disability in France and Draft:Disability in Denmark as they are cleary not yet "complete" in the sense of covering the topic per the title. I'd be very happy (and eager even) to assist you in getting these articles ready for mainspace. Take a look at Disability in Australia, Disability in South Africa and Disability in Saudi Arabia for examples of the broad range of topics these articles should cover.

I'm actually going to propose that WikiProject Disability has as its main "project" for this year a serious attempt to complete the set of "Disability in <Country>" articles. You're one of the first people I thought of to get involved.

Happy New Year! Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 10:49, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

@Dodger67: Thank you for this. I should have started them as drafts in the first place. We can work together on getting them ready for the mainspace. CircleGirl (talk) 04:27, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

I hope some more editors respond to my post at the WikiProject. You and I seem to be the most active on disability topics these days. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

An automated process has detected that when you recently edited 1949 Summer Deaflympics, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Athletics (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver).

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 09:28, 8 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks very much for your contributions to Wikipedia. Take good care of yourself. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 21:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CircleGirl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "National Key Scheme".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. JMHamo (talk) 09:22, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CircleGirl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Nimbus Disability".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CircleGirl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Disability and Religion".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thanks for your submission to Wikipedia, and happy editing. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:00, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

You proposed that Fragile Mental Retardation 2 be merged into X-linked intellectual disability. The former was a redirect even when you proposed the merger; its target Fragile mental retardation 2 has since been merged into AFF2 and the proposed merger tag has not been put on the new article. Do you want to relist? I couldn't see it at WP:PM. Hairy Dude (talk) 14:20, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Hello, CircleGirl. It has been over six months since you last edited the Articles for Creation submission or Draft page you started, "Disability in Denmark".

In accordance with our policy that Wikipedia is not for the indefinite hosting of material deemed unsuitable for the encyclopedia mainspace, the draft has been nominated for deletion. If you plan on working on it further, or editing it to address the issues raised if it was declined, simply edit the submission and remove the {{db-afc}}, {{db-draft}}, or {{db-g13}} code.

If your submission has already been deleted by the time you get there, and you wish to retrieve it, you can request its undeletion by following the instructions at this link. An administrator will, in most cases, restore the submission so you can continue to work on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia! CptViraj (📧) 08:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)