User talk:Antelan/Archives/2007/November

Signpost updated for October 29th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:15, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Talking
OK. Wikimedicine Talk sounds fine. What do you think the section heading should be? "Use of term allopathic on wikipedia"? I'm just trying to focus the discussion is a way that works for you. User:Hopping T  04:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I would first like to resolve your conflict of interest issues with the term. Ante  lan  talk  04:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * OK, could you suggest a subject heading. Or just direct me to one you've already started. Thanks.   User:Hopping  T  04:22, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure we need to involve others; that will depend on how successful we are in discussing it between the two of us. I will ask you questions, and would like you to respond in as straightforward of a manner as possible - yes or no when you can. You may do the same of me, and expect the same conciseness. Ante  lan  talk  04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Conflict of Interest
Hopping, you were formerly known as OsteopathicFreak. You say you are a student of medicine at an osteopathic medical school. Would you agree that you have a conflict of interest in editing articles that relate to medical education? Ante lan  talk  04:27, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not aware of a conflict of interest. However, it is true that I am a medical student and I am interested in medical education.  User:Hopping  T  04:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * From WP:COI -
 * Editors who may have (or be perceived as having) a close connection with a subject are recommended to disclose this, and should take great care not to edit in a manner that may be perceived as controversial, promotional or agenda-driven.
 * Editors proposing to write about themselves, their own organizations, or matters they have very close ties to, are strongly advised not to edit or create such articles at all (except for certain non-controversial edits) but to instead use the talk page to request help from neutral editors.
 * Would you now agree that you have a conflict of interest? If not, why not? Again, you are free to ask me questions as well; I will respond as briefly as I can so that we may expedite this discussion. Ante  lan  talk  04:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No, I honestly do not believe I have a conflict of interest. Do you think you have a conflict of interest? Or I guess a better question would be, do you think you have a conflict of interest in editing articles like M.D. or allopathic since you are working towards tht degree? User:Hopping  T  04:50, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I believe that, per the Wikipedia guidelines, I have a conflict of interest when working on all articles that I have a close relationship with in any capacity. This includes MD and DO related articles. Ante  lan  talk  04:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * If that's the case, do you think that your edits of these articles violates the WP guideline not to edit articles in which you have a COI? User:Hopping  T  04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * WP does not disallow such edits, so no, I do not think I am in violation of those guidelines. Ante  lan  talk  05:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you think that I am in violation of those guidelines? User:Hopping  T  05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * This is difficult for me to answer because you have stated that you have no conflict of interest. It's as if I asked you if you had a car, and you said no. Then you asked me if I thought you were speeding in your car. How can I answer that? Ante  lan  talk  05:42, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that I have violated the COI guidelines? Ante  lan  talk  05:49, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Independent of whether or not I think I have a COI (or a car), do you think I have violated these guidelines? User:Hopping T  05:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * That is what I am trying to determine from our conversation below. When I know what I think, I will tell you. Ante  lan  talk  06:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you have violated these guidelines nor do I think you have a COI. User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  06:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am unsure as to whether I have violated these guidelines, but I am rather confident that I have a COI. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * What do you think you have a COI in regards to, specifically? User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  06:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I've answered this above generally and specifically. Please see my question below. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Term Allopathic
Do you think that when the AAMC or the AMA uses the term 'allopathic' it is still offensive? Is it still pejorative? User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  04:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do they mean it in an offensive or pejorative way? I'm certain they do not. Do some still take umbrage to that usage of the term? Yes. Is theirs a historically inaccurate usage of the term that ignores its provenance? Yes. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:57, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think it is important to introduce the term allopathic to new readers who may not have been previously familiar with it? Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  04:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * No. I don't. Do I have a personal preference for articles about medicine that use this term?  No.  I don't prefer using the term.  Do I believe that using this term is descriptive?  Yes.  Do I believe using the term makes articles more accurate, more complete? Yes.  Do I believe some other term could be substituted?  No, not without compromising the sources.   User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:11, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Do you believe that this explanation sufficiently justifies your reverts of my edits here and here? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:15, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes. I reverted those edits since I believed that the articles are unclear without some explanation of the allo / osteo distinction.  For example, in the second case you deleted the word allopathic from the lead of an article that is directly making a comparison between allopathic and osteopathic training.  Deleting the word allopathic from the lead obfuscates the entire article. User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:21, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * What meaning do you believe that allopathic and osteopathic convey that doctor of medicine and doctor of osteopathic medicine cannot? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure I understand the question. Are you asking me what I think allopathic and osteopathic mean? Or are you asking me if I prefer the term "allopathic physician" to the term "doctor of medicine" (or M.D.) ? (note, I asked another question in previous section)  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:35, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You said above that "articles are unclear without some explanation of the allo/osteo distinction". What meaning the terms allopathic and osteopathic convey that the terms doctor of medicine and doctor of osteopathic medicine cannot? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:39, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I think you cannot explain the distinction between allopathic and osteopathic medicine, as it is used here, here and elsewhere. 'without' using the term allopathic and osteopathic.  I don't think it is possible.  More importantly, I don't think it reflects the sources used in these articles.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That is an answer to the question, "Can you expain the distinction between allopathic and osteopathic without using those terms", which is not the question I asked. I'm looking for an answer to the question, "what meaning do the terms allopathic and osteopathic convey that the terms doctor of medicine and doctor of osteopathic medicine cannot?" Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:59, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I guess they have different connotations, and different situations in which they are more appropriately used. For example, when talking about the degrees themselves, versus when discussing groups that accredit and govern the schools that offer these degrees, or when comparing the two type of physicians directly. For example, to say "there are two types of physicians, osteopathic physicians and physicians" almost connotes that one is a subset of the other, which seems like a false implication. I'm trying to generate examples, I could give others if that would be clarifying. User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  06:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Consider, "There are two types of physicians, those with a D.O. and those with an M.D." Do you believe that this loses part of the message that you attempted to convey in your example? If so, what? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:58, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I have tried to respond to this question here. note question for you below User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  21:28, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I feel that the response you gave there is, again, not to my question but to a different question. I'm not asking about other authors. I'm asking about you. Sorry for not being satisfied, but an answer to this question, I feel, is critical: Why would you reject "There are two types of physicians, those with a D.O. and those with an M.D." ? What message does that lack for the reader? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that the people who you claim take umbrage at the use of the word allopathic represent a minority or a majority within the U.S. medical community? User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:53, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is not written for the US medical community. It is international in scope. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  22:01, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I am of course aware of this. I'm trying to understand your position. It would help me to understand where you are coming from if you could answer this question. Do you think that the people who you claim take umbrage at the use of the word allopathic represent a minority or a majority within the U.S. medical community? User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  22:07, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My position is that Wikiepedia is not just written for US health professionals. I will answer your question more directly, but I have answered several of your questions while patiently waiting for a straight answer to my question above, which I have now had to repeat 3? 4? times, and I would like that answered first. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:00, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * I really appreciated your initial frame for this conversation: "I will ask you questions, and would like you to respond in as straightforward of a manner as possible - yes or no when you can. You may do the same of me, and expect the same conciseness." I feel that I am trying to be concise, and straightforward in my questions and in my answers.  I feel like you are not meeting me on this, but I could be missing something or misinterpreting you.    I'm asking simple questions, you don't answer them.  I offer answers to your questions, you don't like them, or you reject them as answering the wrong question. Can we re-commit to this process together for the sake of moving foward?   User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  01:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * You consider this to be a concise answer? You have avoided answering my question, which should be an easy one to answer, and I am pointing this out to you. I'm committed to this process, but I'm no fool. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  01:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Your question "Why would you reject "There are two types of physicians, those with a D.O. and those with an M.D." ?" Answer: I would not reject this statement. In some situations, it would be useful/appropriate to say "those with a D.O. and those with an M.D.", in other situations it would be more appropriate to say "allopathic and osteopathic physician." I tried to say this before, you rejected it, so I tried again to elaborate more on my answer here (#5, 6, 7), which you also rejected. You don't seem to like my answers, whether long or short. Likewise, you are not interested in responding to the questions I have asked. At this point, it seems like a conversation breaks down. I don't know what else to say. I'm sorry this seems to be intractable. I don't know what the next step it. User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  02:08, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * There's only one question I haven't answered (as far as I know), and I'm waiting to answer that because I feel that I have answered several questions while awaiting an answer to my main question for you. Please see below, where I attempt to give context to the question. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

The context of that question was lost over this long line of questions, so let me give it here, again. On Medical school in the United States, I changed a sentence from "This article discusses the education of allopathic and osteopathic medical students earning M.D. and D.O. degrees, the two degrees held by medical physicians in the United States." to "This article discusses the education of students earning M.D. and D.O. degrees, the two degrees held by medical physicians in the United States"

You undid this change, leaving it to say, "This article discusses the education of allopathic and osteopathic medical students, respectively earning M.D. and D.O. degrees, the two degrees held by medical physicians in the United States."

I believe that this is emblematic of our editing patterns, so I would like to understand why you do this. What "allopathic and osteopathic" add to the meaning that is not already conferred by referencing "MD and DO"? Ante lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I added to your work to clarify the allo/osteo distinction, I did not delete the info about M.D./D.O. My addition lets the reader know what is meant by the terms allo/osteo when used in describing medical education in the United States. User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  02:45, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * As is typical of a Wikipedia article, those words are Wikilinked within the article the first time they are used, which lets readers know what the words mean precisely when they first see them and think "Hmm, what does that word mean?" If you place allo and osteo at the top, why not any of the various other keywords from the article? Your justification does not make much sense to me. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:30, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's true. So I guess the reader can just click there. Works for me. User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then why this revert? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:38, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Did I revert that article? I didn't think I had. User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * From 3RR: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wp:3rr#What_is_a_revert.3F Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  05:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK, I thought a revert was just when you undid the edit. My motive for this revert/edit was to clarify the allopathic/osteopathic distinction in this case.  From the sources I've read, that seems to be how they would state the issue.  (note, at what point can I ask a question? or at what point will you answer questions?)  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  05:56, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. I am going to change them to M.D. and D.O., just so you know. OK, ask away. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Why? If you change them to M.D. and D.O., there will be no way for the reader to wikilink to those words. I think this point belongs in the article.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  06:13, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Then we are back to my original question, which is what do allopathic and osteopathic convey, specifically, that M.D. and D.O. do not? What do we lose when we just use M.D. and D.O.? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you think that removing these terms from these articles improves them in some way? User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  06:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I believe that the full message is conveyed in M.D. and D.O. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  06:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

To follow your cue, I'll say "that's not answering my question, that's answering a different question." My original question was Do you think that removing these terms from these articles improves them in some way? And my other question from above was do you think that a majority or a minority of U.S. medical community takes umbrage at the use of the term allopathic? User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  07:01, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Quite right. The answer to the question - yes, I believe it improves the articles by increasing precision. "Allopathic" is a term that is occasionally used to denote M.D.s, occasionally used to denote the form of medicine practiced before the advent of modern medicine (references: Osler, Flexner), and occasionally used as an insult. "Osteopathic" is a term that refers to D.O.s in the US, and can refer to non-licensed practitioners in foreign countries. Saying M.D. and D.O. eliminates all of that ambiguity by telling the reader which of those meanings we're going for. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:07, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

OK - I think I see where you are coming from. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Cheers! User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  07:17, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * So can I conclude that you will not continue reverting my edits? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:22, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry man. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  07:37, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * My goal is to find actual agreement, not just to agree to disagree. Do you think that my explanation of why M.D. and D.O. are preferable to allopathic and osteopathic (above) is wrong? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:41, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * That's my goal too, but I don't think we are getting anywhere, just going in circles. I still share this goal with you, but my belief that we will achieve it via this process has expired.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  07:44, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I do not see this as going in circles. I'm giving you an opportunity to tell me if you think I am wrong, after having elaborated my rationale for you for the first time. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  07:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it is encouraging to know that you don't see this as a waste of time. If you are giving me the opportunity to tell you that I think you are wrong, I will take it. I do think you are off a bit about the offensive-quality of the term allopathic - I think you are wrong about that. Also, I missed the part where you elaborated your rationale. User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  20:05, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It was a couple of replies above. I'll copy it here: "Allopathic" is a term that is occasionally used to denote M.D.s, occasionally used to denote the form of medicine practiced before the advent of modern medicine (references: Osler, Flexner), and occasionally used as an insult. "Osteopathic" is a term that refers to D.O.s in the US, and can refer to non-licensed or lesser-licensed practitioners in foreign countries. Saying M.D. and D.O. eliminates all of that ambiguity by telling the reader which of those meanings we're going for. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:16, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Saying "MDs and DOs" could mean you are comparing medical physicians to practitioners of osteopathy. Saying "allopathic and osteopathic physicians" is very clear, IMO.   User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  23:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course, if you are not comparing MDs to DOs, you could then just say "physicians". Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:36, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * True. But in common U.S. parlance, "physician" and M.D. are interchangeable.  Only in U.S. does D.O. mean physician, and that's not even widely recognized.  Outside of U.S., D.O. means something completely other.  Using allopathic may internationalize, since other countries (notably India) do use the M.D. degree, but they do use the term allopathic physician to denote those that graduate from conventional, Western medical schools.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  23:40, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So it's a question of awareness - you are concerned that people haven't heard of D.O.'s? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  23:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not concerned about that. I'm more concerned that the articles that refer to medical education in the U.S. are clear, accurate, and unbiased. I do think there's a bit of an inherent bias towards the assumption that "M.D." and "physician" are synonymous terms in the U.S. This is mostly a function of the greater numbers of U.S. physicians that hold an M.D., and not the prodeuct of some campaign or agenda.  If we clarify that M.D.s are are allopathic physicians and D.O.s are osteopathic physicians, on the appropriate pages (which I've listed here) then I think we've solved this slight problem.   User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  00:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * So you want to correct the misconception among the public? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:04, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the public has a misconception, so no, I don't think it needs correcting. As I said, the "bias" I refer to is not based on an abstract misconception, its based on a statistical reality. A rough analogy would be how confounding or low sample size leads to a spurious relationship. User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  00:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you think that Wikipedia is the place to correct what you see as the bias? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't think this bias needs correcting, as its not really a problem. I'm simply noting that it exists, only to make my point above that "allopathic and osteopathic" are better terms to use in some situations than "M.D. and D.O.", which seems to be the question you are asking me. Incidentally, other authors have noted this bias, or confusion, or whatever you want to call it, as  here for example.  Generally, I would say that Wikipedia is the place neither to advance or try to counter this bias, but simply present it, if it is noteworthy.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  00:41, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure that presenting the bias every time "physican" is used is the best way to go about it. You have started several articles comparing MDs & DOs - don't you feel that it is sufficent to note what you see as a bias there, rather than on every medical-education page? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Again, my point was '"allopathic and osteopathic" are better terms to use in some situations than "M.D. and D.O."', and I brought up this bias in the context of making that point. I am not making a suggestion to include a discussion of this bias in articles about medical education or in articles comparing allopathic and osteopathic physicians.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  00:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I would argue that, in every case except where a distinction between MDs and DOs is necessary and purposeful, "physician" is all that is needed. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  00:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree. The pages where I think that distinction needs to be made are limited to the ones I listed here.  Outside of these pages, I too think that 'physician' is all that's needed.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  01:13, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * OK. So we agree on all points except for, within that set of pages, how to identify MDs and DOs. This is progress. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I wish that were true, but I'm afraid it's not.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  02:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Please explain? Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:40, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

You said "we agree on all points except for . . . " I'm not aware of any points we agree on, except for one. We agree that our disagreement involves a limited number of pages, approximated by the list I gave here. User:Hopping <sup style="color:purple;">T  02:46, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Misleading user box that omits "Osteopathic"
Hopping, I have read some of the conversation above and find your insistance on using "allopathic" and "osteopathic" rather....hmm....interesting, yet you have a self-created user box that hides the fact that you are an osteopathic medical student. It has this text:


 * This user attends or attended Touro University, College of Medicine.

In fact, Touro University doesn't have a College of Medicine, but a College of Osteopathic Medicine. If using the terms are so important, then what's up here? -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 06:48, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I also have a user box that says I drink beer, when in fact I usually drink lagers. :)   In common parlance, both osteopathic and allopathic colleges of medicine are simply called "Colleges of medicine" or "medical schools."  Our discussion above is regarding when and how this distinction is necessary versus when it is gratuitous.  User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  12:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, since it's a user box you made, you can easily correct the error. Otherwise people get the mistaken impression that you are studying to be an MD. -- <b style="color:#004000;">Fyslee</b> / <b style="color:#990099; font-size:x-small;">talk</b> 18:12, 5 November 2007 (UTC)


 * It's not an error. :)   User:Hopping  <sup style="color:purple;">T  21:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Quackwatch (another Barrett article)
I just want to say that you and Jossi have done a good job controlling the environment and actually making things productive there. I want to bring this article to your attention because it too is a Barrett article. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrett_v._Rosenthal First some major clean up to archives is needed on the talk page as you will see if you decide to take a look at the article. I would archive myself but I don't know how to, I only know how to delete or strike out. I have a robot doing my archiving with the help of other editors setting me up. I am one of the slowest learners I think of Wikipedia (but I do have some wonderful editors who understand why and help me when needed). But anyways, it is a mess since both persons in the article were posting to the article. It was a messy time. Anyways, this is just to let you know it exists. I think the talk page violates WP:BLP big time.

I hope bringing this to your attentions is ok. If it isn't please just delete my message. I usually do clean up work and a little bit to the Crohn's article. Thanks, -- Crohnie Gal Talk  14:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You can ignore, Jossi took care of it and showed me where to go to learn how to archive. Thank you though. -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  15:43, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Re: Q&A Page
Doable, but only if there's a single central page for all cases, rather than a separate page for each case. Otherwise, we'll see the same "lost in the flow" effect, only exacerbated by the presence of even more pages that need to be watched. Kirill 06:21, 4 November 2007 (UTC)


 * We already have this - the case talk pages suffice. There is only ever some limited over-lap between the four different pages, and most of the direct questions to Arbitrators ends up on the "/Proposed decision" sub-page's talk.
 * James F. (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you please check out this talk page
If you go to the title 'you are great' I think you will see for yourself that I might have found a bad situation. I am just a simple minded editor so I really do not know what to do. I have found you to be very knowledgable about Wikipedia and so I thought you might know what to do and if anything at all should be done. Thanks,-- Crohnie Gal Talk  13:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Hi CrohnieGal! I read the link, and I think people are mostly joking with one another, albeit in an off-color fashion. If you're still concerned, please let me know and I can try to look into it further for you. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)
 * No problem, I thought that was the case but I wasn't sure so I figured I'd let an expert check it out. Thanks for taking the time to check it out.  I try not to get overly concerned about anything here and stayed chilled, better for my health to enjoy what I am able to do then to stress over anything.  Real life does that enough! ;)  Thanks again, -- Crohnie Gal  Talk  18:39, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 5th and 12th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:21, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

homeopathy
By the way, thanks for taking your objection to the talk page first rather than just reverting my last edit. For the record, i am no fan of homeopathy but when I read "homepaths contend" three or four times in the opening paragraph the immediate sense is the article is an attack on homeopathy rather than an article about homeopathy. I agree there should be a detailed rebuttal to the claims of homeopathy but the intro does not seem the right place to expand on such ideas. IMO, of course. David D. (Talk) 07:39, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
 * (Replied on your talk page.) Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  02:20, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

My RfA
Hi; thanks for your support to my RfA, which closed successfully at (51/1/2). I'll keep this brief since I don't like spamming anyone: I'll work hard to deserve the trust you placed in me. Thanks again. &mdash; Coren (talk) 23:27, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

MD not equal to PhD or true doctorate
According the US dept. of Education professional doctorates such as the DDS, MD, OD, DPM, DPT, etc. are not equal to a PhD or true doctorate. see reference ->  Thoughts?
 * It's about your wording. The source says nothing about a "true doctorate," but certainly none of those degrees are PhD equivalents. Ante  lan  <sup style="color:darkred;">talk  18:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Martinphi-ScienceApologist
This arbitration case has now closed, and the decision may be found at the link above. Martinphi and ScienceApologist are subect to an editing restriction for one year, and ScienceApologist is limited to one account. For the arbitration committee, David Mestel(Talk) 18:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Re-factoring
I removed the attack in the previous post but only tagged it as hidden. If you want to remove it entirely go ahead. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 19th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 09:50, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Signpost updated for November 26th, 2007.
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2007 (UTC)