User talk:Drsjpdc/archive 2

FICS - reposting problems
'''THIS IS COMPLICATED AND THERE ARE HIDDEN ISSUES HERE... PLEASE READ THIS THROUGH.''' Background In the beginning, I admit that as a newbie, I committed the sin of posting an autobiography. Worse, I linked it to an organization I founded, and this was perceived, (though this was NOT my intent) as "self-promotion". Then a supporter, asked me for biographical data, and HE re-posted the page, expressly to avoid the COI issue, and I, not he, was blocked for three days as punishment for the re-posting. OK - let's forget about me for now. There is NOW no bio. thus no longer any COI. I am certainly not interested in self promotion anyway. Don't need to.

FICS This is a separate entity, for which I am NOT on the Board. Simply a member now. I am a past president, and was the founder of the agency. I am also the only one who has taken the time and trouble to attempt to learn Wiki culture, and coincidently I am also the person with the most information about the Federation and its history, having been there from the start.

It is THAT international in scope ref>WP:ORG ; non-profit organization, the FICS, or "Fédération Internationale de Chiropratique du Sports", or in English, the International Fed. of Sports Chiropractic, is now being kept from publication in Wikipedia, in my estimation, as direct result of the controversy I inadvertently created, and that per se, is not fair to the organization. I understand that the "if that one is here, then this one should be" is not an acceptable argument. However, it is a reasonable argument that certain standards should be reasonably applied, and applied with an even hand.

The last attempt I made to have this re-posted was to appeal to the admin Cirt who ultimately deleted the page the second time. I am now being told that there are not adequate "secondary sources" to support "notability". Thus dismissed out of hand, and with no further comment. My arguments, from your own references and rules  are as follows:

A.-      [] - The page clearly states: Notable means "worthy of being noted" or "attracting notice." It is not synonymous with "fame" or "importance." Please consider notable and demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." (emphasis added).

In the completely RE-WRITTEN page on my sandbox site, I have  provided  NUMEROUS articles  in valid SECONDARY sources (news sources completely unrelated to FICS, or myself, which are circulated to around 60,000  Doctors of Chiropractic, plus Chiropractic interested persons in about 55 Countries every two weeks.

I have a question: Q: Are medical journals acceptable as secondary sources for medical articles, but chiropractic journals are not acceptable sources for chiropractic subjects? Is this even-handedness? Injecting personal belief systems is also against wiki policy as a basis to edit out articles, just because you personally disagree with the subject. I know there are people, especially those affiliated with medical organizations with such beliefs. There was a Federal lawsuit (WIlk, et al v AMA, et al in the 70's)which convicted the AMA of just such a conspiracy, and a permanent injunction was issued by the Federal Courts against this, but desit that in the Courts, reason prevailed; still, the propaganda they spewed out for all the time before pervades the minds of some closed-minded people.

B.- IN WP:NOTE under "Alternate criteria for specific types of organizations"; "non-commercial organizations" it clearly states:

Non-commercial organizations Shortcut: WP:CLUB

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards:

1. The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. (FICS is WORLD) 2. Information about the organization and its activities can be verified by third-party, independent, reliable sources. (In other words, they must satisfy the primary criterion     for all organizations as described above.) I have shown in references that:

I.- FICS is named in the International World Games Association website, for the World Games in beginning in 2005  in Duisberg, Germany that it was the provided of medical services for the athletes of the event, and then AGAIN, and will continue in the future as they are under contract, to provide Doctors, for Kaoshiung, Taiwan's Games, and etc. II.-FICS  is listed as a "recognized agency" by UNESCO, ICSSPE, GAISF, and others.... all THIRD party sources, and clearly documented. III.- FICS is cited in more than one McGraw-Hill  textbook 9A respected THIRD PARTY publisher) as one of the TWO recognized International Organizations that govern aspects of the Chiropractic profession WORLDWIDE (and the other page is not controversial). IV.- FICS is a tenant, in the building, BUILT by the City of Lausanne and the IOC itself (IOC recognition is pending).... and their logo  is proudly listed on that site along with all the other World Governing Bodies which were acceptable to the IOC and Lausanne  to have offices there.

Thus, clearly, FICS meets BOTH of the requirements of this alternative criteria policy.

In addition there are "additional criteria" listed on your page: to wit:

Additional criteria are:

* Organizations whose activities are local in scope may be notable where there is verifiable information from reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area. Where coverage is only local in scope, the organization may be included as a section in an article on the organization's local area instead. * The organization’s longevity, size of membership, or major achievements, or other factors specific to the organization may be considered. This list is not exhaustive and not conclusive. (emphasis added).

FICS consists of some 55 national associations with around 40,000 total individuals, around the World, and has been in existence since 1987, and has provided care via gratis delegations of Doctors to athletes in Asia, the Middle east, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America  to level the playing field at sporting events.

In summary; I believe that the page may have been initially deleted for good reasons, but the re-written page, (ABSENT my autobiography anywhere), for the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic 'should be re-posted forthwith, and the Federation should not be held to an unreasonable level of expectation that world news media should be interested in it, when professional organizations are not typically subjects of such coverage. Reasonable coverage in secondary sources, unrelated to the Federation, or myself, should be sufficient to show its notability when it is clearly an agency which is Worldwide in scope. FICS' notability is established here, and it should now be fairly judged by the established WIKI criteria I have quoted herein, expressly to cover such organizations and situations.

Respectfully,

Drsjpdc (talk) 18:06, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi there. This actually is not complicated; please don't fall into the frequent trap of endless dialogue - you'll have much more success sticking to simple, policy-based arguments.


 * You do have a conflict of interest with FICS - past president, and founder. Just because you have left the org does not remove the COI. For example, Bill Gates has stepped down as CEO of Microsoft, but I still feel that his opinions on that org would be somewhat slanted, and he would also be discouraged from editing the company article.


 * Therefore, you should not create the article yourself, nor should you directly edit an article created - please follow the practices outlined in WP:BESTCOI. You could suggest an article via either requested articles or the articles for creation process - but either way, please make your involvement with the org clear, to avoid problems down the line.


 * I am not disputing (or necessarily agreeing) whether the org meets notability requirements or not, because that is beside the point here.


 * The best advice I can give is to work on other articles that you are not at all involved in - thus avoiding all of these difficulties. If this organization is indeed notable enough, then - in the fullness of time - I'm sure that someone will write an article about it.


 * I hope that you will not be offended by my frank statements, which are made with the best of intentions - to improve Wikipedia, and that's what we're all here for.


 * If you do have any further questions, please use a further helpme, and please be as consise and specific as possible. Myself, and other Wikipedians, will be only too willing to help you, as long as you conform to the community-agreed policies. Best wishes,  Chzz  ►  18:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Drsjpdc,
 * I think an article on FICS should probably be created, and I think it probably is notable enough to have an article. However, I agree with Chzz that you should try to stay away from creating such an article, for reasons to do with WP:COI. There are a lot of other articles that need help on Wikipedia. Have you thought about working on articles to do with your hometown? What about articles on various orthopedic tests that you use in practice, or various clinical conditions that you come across? Again, reliable sources are needed, but you have knowledge in that area, without having a conflict of interest that would affect the way you would write/edit the articles. I will try to find some more reliable sources for FICS over the next few days, and then go through the articles for creation process that Chzz suggested above.
 * Regards, DigitalC (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * To follow up, I do not think the re-written article in your userspace is ready for articlespace at this time. Many of the "references" do not mention FICS at all. Further, some of the information is not encyclopedic in nature (such as the address). I will be working on this, further, but it will take time. DigitalC (talk) 20:30, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Dig: remember that  FICS is known BOTH as International Federation of Sports Chiropractic, AND in French as Fédération Internationale de Chiropratique du Sports....  (thus FICS).

I carefully selected all those references... if you cant find FICS in one, pleae ask me, and I can point you to the reference.

Drsjpdc (talk) 20:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Reference #6 (UNESCO) does not mention FICS. Reference #5 does not support the statement that FICS is a "International federation member" of ICSSPE, and again does not mention FICS. DigitalC (talk) 20:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Chzz - you too, no offense taken... you are only being helpful Dig: VERY much appreciate your help Drsjpdc (talk) 20:59, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Physician Page dispute
Chzz - I appreciate the candor, and have no issue with honesty and constructive criticism.

I have looked at various areas in which I do have expertise:

Unfortunately, a few of those have been summarily dismissed as well. I especially want to correct a severe inaccuracy in the way the word "physician" is being used on a page in Wiki.

The page starts by defining "physician" directly out of a dictionary... like  Wiktionary, and then fails to note that the  term is also a term of art, defined by State and Federal law, like "lawyer", College", "Bank" etc.  IN other words, a Physician is whoever a legislature defines it as, not just the dictionary, or the AMA.

There is an editor with the unfortunate moniker "quackbuster",  and this is also the name used elsewhere online by a totally discredited libeler, and slanderer, disgruntled ex-MD, who has been made a career of  drubbing all alternative health professions  with which HE does not agree. This is in direct contravention of Wiki policy.... I think, but am not certain that this is his work.

All I added were the words:  (at the end of the first paragraph),

"the term is also a term of art, defined by all US States                       legislatures and the US Federal Code. In all States it also                       includes those with the DC (Osteopathic) degree, and in the                       majority (plus the US Federal Code)                       ,                        those holding the DC (Doctor of Chiropractic) degree  as well"

This was just removed without comment that I saw. My statement is dispassionately objective and totally accurate.... and supported by the reference.

What about this? Drsjpdc (talk) 21:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Have you tried taking it to the talk page of the article? Your text also contains a typo in regards to the Osteopathic degree being DC instead of DO. DigitalC (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You were reverted by User:Eubulides, not by anyone named QuackBuster. In fact, a quick browse of that article's history shows no recent edits by anyone named QuackBuster. His reason for reverting you was that the information does not belong in the lead (intro) of the article if it is not in the body of the article. This is fully in accordance with WP:Lead. DigitalC (talk) 15:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above, the proper place to discuss this (as succintly as possible) is the talk page of the article. I looked at the reference you provided, and I don't think it is good enough to substantiate the claim. The term "Physician" does not include those holding a Chiropractic degree, although Chiropractors in the majority of states can use the term "Chiropractic Physician". I would agree with Eubulides that it doesn't belong in the lead, and I don't think it belongs in the article either, because a "Chiropractic Physician" and a "Physician" are two different identities, and the article is about the identity "Physician". You will likely be reverted again, and if so should not get into an edit war over it - you should take it to the talk page. Also, you said above that your addition was "just removed without comment". If you click the history tab of the article, you will see that when Eubulides reverted your edit, he used the Help:Edit_summary "No reason to emphasize this minor point in the lead, especially since the body does not mention it".
 * Good luck, DigitalC (talk) 15:44, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

FICS
I have completely rewritten an article on FICS, and would appreciate it if you would proof-read it for me, and then provide any feedback on my talk page. The article is currently located at User:DigitalC/sandbox/fix/draft/. Regards, DigitalC (talk) 21:42, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the headsup about the article. Unfortunately my computer bit the dust, although I seem to have revived it. You mentioned that you thought it had all been resolved - Wikipedia articles are constantly evolving, and there is never really a point where anything can be resolved. Anyone can nominate an article for deletion if they feel that it doesn't pass WP:N. I don't think the speedy deletion that Bongo put on the article was appropriate, and am looking into that now, but the article may have to survive the AfD process just to survive. DigitalC (talk) 01:14, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

MIS
Just a heads-up. The article, in its current state would not likely pass AfD. It needs more references. Everything on Wikipedia needs to be verifiable, so to list a tenant on the MIS page, you should have a reference for it. Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * And as always, secondary references are better than primary references (for example, a newspaper article about FITA moving the archery headquarters into the MSI would be better than a link to the FITA website). DigitalC (talk) 00:57, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just to clarify: WP:ORG is not a rescue for articles about organizations. The articles still need to have "...significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources." The independent secondary sources must give it significant coverage, and "trivial or incidental coverage of a subject by secondary sources is not sufficient to establish notability" - ie, a passing mention is not good enough. For the MSI article, what you want is something published ABOUT MSI, but not by MSI. For example, an article about the opening of MSI, in a newspaper. Unfortunately, I'm not convinced such sources exist for MSI. In general, when you want to start an article, the best thing to do is start with your topic, and figure out what the best sources are. Once you have collected your sources, then you read through them to make sure you have significant coverage, to meet the notability requirement. Once you've read through them, THEN you figure out what you want the article to say (based on what the sources say), and the final step is to write the article. For the FICS article, I didn't base it on what was in your userspace. My first step was to scholar.google.com, where I found the article in Chiropractic & Osteopathy. My next step was to go to books.google.com, where I found a hit in Principles and Practice of Chiropractic. Finally, I did google news and google web searches to determine what else I could dig up. I then put the content from all the sources I dug up into my sandbox for the article (as seen at User:DigitalC/sandbox/fix/). From that, I wrote the article based on what the sources said. New editors at Wikipedia often think that getting references is the last step to an article - ie, you write the article, and then find references for what you've written - but this is backwards. I hope this helps, and if you're still looking for things to write about, there is always Hugh Logan, Joseph Janse, or anyone else listed at Historical figures in chiropractic that doesn't have an article. Just remember, start with the references that have significant coverage, and build from there.


 * Cheers, DigitalC (talk) 02:25, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Maison du Sport International
I have nominated Maison du Sport International, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Maison du Sport International. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bongo  matic  05:07, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Deletion Protocols
Just to give you some more guidance through the confusion that is wikipedia - there is more than one type of deletion. Your articel, Maison du Sport International, has been nominated for deletion through a process known as AfD, or Articles for deletion. This process generally takes a week, and involves the input of the wikipedia community. In fact, you can go respond to the deletion nomination at Articles for deletion/Maison du Sport International, but first you might want to go to some other deletion nominations to see how people respond, and how they vote. Generally, people either vote with a keep vote, or a delete vote. These are often formatted with a "*" to give a bullet, and a bolding of the actual vote. However, the vote itself is not what is necessarily important - it is the reasoning behind the vote. Why does it deserve to be deleted/kept? Here is an example AfD that you might want to look over to see various keep/delete votes Articles_for_deletion/Shayne_Hayne.

Another deletion protocol is called Speedy Deletion. More information can be found at WP:Speedy deletions. These are much quicker, and do not involve community input. Someone tags an article for speedy deletion, and then an admin comes along and determines whether it warrants deletion under that reasoning. Examples of reasons for speedy deletion include empty articles, articles without any context, etc. So, not every deletion is a speedy deletion.

Good luck, DigitalC (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Since you are learning the ropes, I will let you know about another couple of policies which are relevant to deletion discussions - WP:CANVASS and WP:Sock puppetry. I'm not saying that you have broken these policies, more just informing you so that you know enough not to break them in the future. DigitalC (talk) 20:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In regards to you comments at WP:Articles_for_deletion/Maison du Sport International, no, the deletion nomination process cannot be stopped, it must run its course. The article will only be deleted if there is consensus to delete the article, or the reasons for deletion have clear merit. What you do is just wait, and see what happens. DigitalC (talk) 20:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Self-aggrandizement
Dr. Press, can you please stop your campaign of self-aggrandizement, as in this edit to this article. The cited reference (a scanned PDF document from your own personal website) has been discounted as being not reliable on several occasions, and does not at all prove the claimed fact that you are "the only doctor of any kind to have ever represented six countries at one Olympic games". This is the type of self-promotion that has gotten you blocked in the past, and will result in the same action again. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry Wiki - I guess I am still a "newbie". I honestly did not add that cite with the purpose to self-aggrandize as you phrased it. It was added as it was a major chapter in my book which chronicles the whole founding of the federation. I promise that I have NEVER added anything, anywhere, with self promotion in mind, I have only been seeking to publish the truth. Sometimes the originator is the only one who has all the facts. This can be very frustrating. NB - In the process of removing my poorly thought-out cite, which was only the year of founding and the book 'ref'. you also removed a lot of DigitalC's work as well. Please reconsider that, and restore what he wrote. So, my apologies to DigitalC for the damage to HIS work this caused. Your edit set that back by severely cutting the facts HE placed there. Drsjpdc (talk) 18:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * My reversion was to Unified Team at the 1992 Winter Olympics, an article to which has never contributed.  The only changes I reverted were your addition of a "fact" which was not supported by the citation, namely that you are the only doctor of any kind to have ever represented six countries at one Olympic Games".  As for your claims of never having added anything with self-promotion in mind, I'll let your edit history speak for itself.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry you feel that way. I can only tell you what is in my own heart. Did you have a problem with Chiropractic in general?? I clicked on the FICS page and saw a flag for COI and all references to the past presidents etc, and numerous references removed... I guess I assumed it was you.  It's all back now....minus my book thing, of course.

Q: how it is that a genuine document, signed by the Minister of Sport of the USSR and his deputy, complete with their official seals, mailed to the then President of the United States by diplomatic mail, is nt a reliable source? I have a problem with that policy. Can you elaborate? Are you alleging that it was forged? Drsjpdc (talk) 19:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have not not touched the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic page since it was recreated by DigitalC. In fact, I proffered him a barnstar for his efforts in making this article worthy of Wikipedia.  As to your question, WP:SELFPUB indicates that your scanned file is probably admissible, but only as proof that you were the doctor for the Unified Team.  It does not indicate that you have been the only physician to have ever represented six countries at a single Olympics, as claimed in the article.  And, as indicated by its context of "the Unified Team" (emphasis added), it really only indicates that you served as a physician for a single team, albeit a team representing multiple countries.  To phrase the "fact" in the terms you did is "self-aggrandizing".  And to answer a final point you've brought up -- no, I have nothing against chiropractic in general.  I do have something against people using Wikipedia to promote themselves or their interests, however.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I understand your position. And, I do understand that it probably looked to you like that was my motive.

I also appreciate your explanation: thus, as I understand your position; the validity of the letter is not in question. Thus it could be used in the future perhaps somewhere, as a source of the fact that I served as "Chief Doctor for the USSR team". And presumably, therefore, as it is elsewhere an established fact that that team disintegrated into six countries by the time of the games in February 1992, it is also thereby presumably valid to show that I was "Chief physician for six  National Olympic teams", but the problem is proving the assertion that this never happened before or since... got it? Drsjpdc (talk) 19:42, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Thanks for helping a newbie understand. Drsjpdc (talk) 19:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Properly stating a credential

 * According to Unified Team at the 1992 Winter Olympics, although the Soviet Union had split, the individual countries' National Olympic Committees had not yet had time to achieve recognition by the IOC, so the individual countries jointly fielded a single team. I.e. separate countries, but one team.  Not six separate teams.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 20:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Wow... are we just a little pendantic? But  you are absolutely right! Thus the statement must be that I was "Chief Doctor for six  newly independent Countries", not National Olympic Committees, as you're exactly correct, they had not yet officially been recognized by the IOC as NOC's, but they WERE by then separate nations. Still, it was an Olympic first... any idea(s)  on how to prove that???

Drsjpdc (talk) 20:53, 12 October 2009 (UTC) Drsjpdc (talk) 20:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not trying to be pedantic, I'm trying to bring your claims down to earth. You were a team doctor for an Olympic team.  That may well be a pretty good accomplishment, but it does not stand the embellishment to say you were simultaneously treating six separate teams.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)


 * There we disagree. It was the first time that any doctor had represented more than one Nationat an Olympic event. We agreed that the Unified team was, by the time we marched into the stadium, six separate countries, who had not yet had time to be accepted by the IOC as NOC's. But it was  still six separate Countries, and the truth is that as Chief Physician, I was in charge of all six. That, is FACT, not aggrandisement. I do appreciate CONSTRUCTIVE criticism, and from a member of the Guild of Editors, I DO accept the instruction. Thanks.

World Federation of Chiropractic
By the way...on the page World Federation of Chiropractic which I wrote, Bongo placed a COI flag. It's really absurd... there is NO connection, and no relationship to self here. I just know all about them as I was there from the onset. I am not a Board Member, former Board Member, or have any stake in the Federation whatsoever. So, unless being a member of this profession is enough of a connection, then the COI flag should be removed. Can I remove it? Where to comment that I did? Or who CAN?? Appreciate the help... Drsjpdc (talk) 22:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I suspect the conflict of interest arises from this sentence: "The offices of the WFC, under the direction of David Chapman-Smith, a barrister practicing in Toronto, Canada, who has served as Secretary-general of the WFC since its founding, also administers the International Federation of Sports Chiropractic (FICS).", since you have a history of COI with FICS-related topics. On a more subtle level, you have made efforts to promote chiropractic in general, and have made several statements in various discussions regarding a perceived anti-chiropractic bias that you are trying to counter.  Whether or not such an anti-chiropractic bias exists, I cannot say, but your reaction in promoting chiropractic seems to indicate a general conflict with the goals of Wikipedia to present a fair and unbiased view.  That's just my opinion, of course.  WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard and get an outside opinion as to whether or not you have a conflict of interest in regards to this article, as well as any others that Bongo has tagged (even if those tags have been removed). There are different noticeboards, and they can be useful in cases such as these. DigitalC (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Why don't you take it to the conflict of interest noticeboard and get an outside opinion as to whether or not you have a conflict of interest in regards to this article, as well as any others that Bongo has tagged (even if those tags have been removed). There are different noticeboards, and they can be useful in cases such as these. DigitalC (talk) 18:59, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

NoIndex
I have corrected your use of the "NOINDEX" tag on your user subpages. Pardon my presumption in this, but I know you were trying to do the right thing as suggested by another user, and I felt it would be easier to correct the problem than to try to explain how to correct it. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 19:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I was conflicted about that... thought I might have left the "nowiki"'s in when they should come out. Thanks. BTW - My, my, you ARE keeping awfully close tabs on my every move. Have you some kind of flag on my contributions that flashes on your screen whenever I write anything? Drsjpdc (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009
Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. However, please be aware of Wikipedia's policy that biographical information about living persons must not be libelous. Any controversial statements about a living person added to an article, or any other Wikipedia page, must include proper sources. Please be especially careful to use only the best references when writing about living persons. - 2/0 (cont.) 01:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks 2over0, I truly thought I was referencing the actual transcript from the CA trial, and it certainly appeared that this was correct information. The Plaintiff has published this stuff all over our profession, as gospel. If its not true, then he may be libeling Barrett. That would be the tail wagging the dog. Barrett is infamous for libelling everyone else. :) Drsjpdc (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Talkback by DigitalC
DigitalC (talk) 22:52, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

DigitalC (talk) 23:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

File:FICS Logo photo.jpg
I think you put up incorrect licencing when you uploaded this image, you said it was under Creative Commons 3.0, but typically logos of organizations are subject to copyright, in which case you would only be able change the licence if you owned the copyright for the logo (which you probably don't). Also typically companies/organizations don't release their logo under CC or GFDL licencing because it means that their use by anyone is permitted, for any reason, which the company/organization usually doesn't like. I'm not saying that the logo has to be deleted, but if the you don't own the copyright (and the logo is subject copyright), it has to be changed to fair use. I can (probably) change that for you, if you want, although fair use images can only be used in articles for which there is justification (the FICS article would be justified), but can not be used in userspace (I see that it is present in a couple of your subpages).--kelapstick (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Appreciate the heads up... please do.... that can be pretty confusing .....  will communicate to DigitalC who should make that change. As to my own use; as a Past-President, I do have some intrinsic rights.... In any event, I rather doubt that obtaining permission, should that ever be necessary, would be any problem, as I have had feedback that the admins are pretty happy with the page. But I appreciate your help. Drsjpdc (talk) 23:22, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If you don't own the copyright, we can just change the image to fair use. We don't need to ask FICS for permission. If you don't know how to do it, thats ok - just place a helpme request on your page like you have done in the past, and I'm sure someone will be able to help you :) DigitalC (talk) 23:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * If it hasn't been done by Monday, I can take care of it. kelapstick (talk) 00:53, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Howard Press
I have nominated Howard Press, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Howard Press&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Bongo  matic  00:19, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi Drsjpdc
 * Whatever you may think of my actions on Wikipedia, a tactical matter, I suggest that you limit your comments in AfD discussions to the merits of the nomination and the merits of the article&mdash;both with reference to policies and guidelines. If you have issues with the conduct of other editors, those can be taken to other fora, such as Wikiquette alerts, Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and RFC.
 * Regards, Bongo  matic  23:32, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Original research
Is this the same Howard Press? Bongo  matic  02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Dispute playing out in AFD
Your recent comments in Articles for deletion/Howard Press regarding Bongomatic's recent interactions with you are inappopriate. The AFD is a place to discuss the merits of the article, not of the editors. If you have a dispute with another editor, bring it up at WP:Dispute resolution. I'll warn you that your case is weak, as he is only doing what many WikiEditors do; namely identifying a problematic editor and reviewing all of that editors contributions. WikiDan61 ChatMe!ReadMe!! 13:16, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

User:Drsjpdc/Howard Press
Hi Drsjpdc, just letting you know that you went about creating User:Drsjpdc/Howard Press in your sandbox the wrong way. When you copy and pasted it from the article to your userspace, you no longer have the revision history and therefore it appears that you wrote the entire article (in your userspace), when in fact (while you are the primary contributor), there were other editors who did some cleanup and copy editing, and their work has to be attributed. I assume that you created it because you think that Howard Press may be deleted following the deletion discussion. It is fine to have a deleted article in your userspace if said article is deleted following a deletion discussion, however the way to go about it is to request an administrator userfy the article (any administrator may do it, and it would be appropriate to request the administrator whom closed the discussion and deleted the article, or there is a list of admins willing to perform that task here). When you userfy an article that has been deleted, the revision history is also included. There is no need to preemptively copy the article to userspace "just in case", as even deleted content may be retrieved by an administrator. I hope I am making sense...If not let me know and I will clarify. --kelapstick (talk) 16:54, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

New sections
Hi Drsjpdc

With respect to this edit, it appears you may not be familiar with the "new section" or "+" feature of the Wikipedia user interface. On talk pages, at the top of the page, next to the main edit tab is another tab that says "new section" or "+", which brings up the editor with a slightly different interface, asking you for a section name. Using this automatically creates an edit summary that gives the new section name (and identifies it as a new section). This is nice for editors who are watching the pages you edit&mdash;and easier for you.

Regards, Bongo  matic  00:31, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * No I was not, thanks.... now you're being helpful??? :) Can we start over? I would like to contribute constructively....
 * Drsjpdc (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm always helpful&mdash;some people just don't understand how nominating an article they have spent a lot of time and effort on as "helpful";) By the way, I think your effort to catalog chiropractic credentials is quite useful. Exactly the sort of thing people go to an encyclopedia to look up. Bongo  matic  08:20, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I saw that a while ago, although I would suggest putting it in a Wikitable of some sort, making it a little easier to navigate. --kelapstick (talk) 21:51, 21 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Good idea, can you show me how? Д-р СДжП,ДС 22:25, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikitables
One of the easiest ways is kind of like this

Which gives you

To make another heading just add |Heading name below heading 3, and add another | below to each set of somethings. To add a new row of "somethings add: (one | for each something). There are over rides for colour, border size, column width/height etc, but this is a pretty simple one and is the one I use the most, if you don't like the grey heading colour just find another colour you like (in that format) and put it in.  Hope this helps, mess around with it and see what it can do, once you get the hang of it, it's a pretty simple process.  I usually have a cell at the end of each row for references, you may want to consider that, something like (notice how I made the reference row unsortable, sometimes that is handy, because you usually don't need to sort by reference number): There is more usefull stuff at Help:Table, cheers.--kelapstick (talk) 22:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for File:FIMS logo 72dpi.jpg
Thanks for uploading or contributing to File:FIMS logo 72dpi.jpg. I notice the file page specifies that the file is being used under fair use but there is not a suitable explanation or rationale as to why each specific use in Wikipedia constitutes fair use. Please go to the file description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on those pages too. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free media lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.  F ASTILYsock  (T ALK ) 20:58, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note. Д-р СДжП,ДС 22:17, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Drsjpdc, it will likely still be deleted, because something in your userspace can't have a fair use image, see Non-free content. If it's deleted you can re-upload it once the article has been moved out of your userspace, unless you move it to userspace before it gets deleted.  --kelapstick (talk) 22:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (File:FIMS logo 72dpi.jpg)
 Thanks for uploading File:FIMS logo 72dpi.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of "file" pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. kelapstick (talk) 22:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I removed it from the userspace article (per WP:NFCC), if you move the article into userspace, I would be glad to remove the deletion template, if the article isn't ready, feel free to upload it when it is. --kelapstick (talk) 22:32, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please stop. If you continue to blank out or delete portions of page content, templates or other materials from Wikipedia, as you did to Howard Press, you will be blocked from editing. Bongo  matic  23:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

What you wish for
Hi Drspdc

I'm sorry that events on Wikipedia are causing distress to you and/or your family. However, you have brought them on yourself.

Any topic covered here (that gets the attention of a reasonable number of editors working within policy and guideline) will ultimately be covered in an encyclopedic manner, with relevant verifiable facts included, and original research or unsupported claims excluded. If you don't want topics covered in this fashion, you should not introduce them into Wikipedia.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Despite numerous suggestions, you continue to edit it without that in mind. You do not seem to have internalized the contents of WP:NOT. Indeed your recent statement "the initial intent of this article was to memorialize the good work of Mr. Press" is a perfect summary of a wrong-minded approach to editing that pervades your contributions to the project.

I hope you take these points to heart before you embark on other topics near and dear to so you do not continue to fall victim to the law of unintended consequences.

Regards, <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:15, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that that statement is what you say. I also stated that this was perhaps the first article I wrote, and was still thinking that way...  I assure that I have learned a lesson. - Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС  02:29, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I hope you can translate the lesson learned to other articles you are working on. If there is any possibility of anything negative being brought to light regarding any of the subjects, living or dead, it may not be too late to save their reputation by not going public with those articles. If any articles have already gone public, then they are no longer yours and there isn't much you can do. Think seriously over the ones you have in your userspace. If anything might be included by others that you might not wish to see in public, now's the time for preventive damage control. It can't happen very well at a later date. All in all, now that Wikipedia exists and no one is perfect, I pity those who are notable or who seek notability, for they will surely fall. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Articles for deletion nomination of Howard Press
I have nominated Howard Press, an article that you created, for deletion. I do not think that this article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and have explained why at Articles for deletion/Howard Press&. Your opinions on the matter are welcome at that same discussion page; also, you are welcome to edit the article to address these concerns. Thank you for your time.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:44, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Bongo, I went there and cannot find anything other then the flag. The redirect taks one back to the 3rd nomination. I would like to add my Agreement to delete.

Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 02:49, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Just fixed your nomination as 3rd&mdash;somehow the page was wrong and the transclusion into today's discussions didn't occur. Trying to clean up the mess now. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  02:58, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Now I'm confused. Are you nominating the Howard Press pagefor deletion, which of course, I support, or the 3d nomination page? Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 02:59, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I have reinserted (correctly) your nomination for Howard Press at the above-captioned page. Your page was wrongly formed. I have also nominated a bunch of incorrectly named AfD pages for speedy housekeeping deletion. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  03:01, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Specifically:
 * You created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3nd nomination), which has two errors: the duplication of the "Wikipedia:Articles for deletion" prefix and "3nd" instead of "3rd".
 * You created Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3nd nomination), which has one error: "3nd" instead of "3rd".
 * I used an automated script to do a correct nomination, that created Articles for deletion/Howard Press (4th nomination) (using the text from your nomination), and transcluded this page into today's deletion discussions.
 * I moved [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (4th nomination) to [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination), changed the transclusion in today's AfD discussion page, and the link in the article's AfD header.
 * I nominated your two and my one erroneously titled pages for speedy deletion.
 * Currently, other than the bogus links in the AfD page, everything works.
 * When the erroneously named pages are deleted, everything should be completely normal.
 * <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  03:09, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * For the record, I am for deletion at Articles for deletion/Howard Press (3rd nomination). Bearian (talk) 14:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet policy
Hi Drsjpdc

Are you aware of Sock puppetry? It seems likely that User:Waynethegoblin may be an undisclosed alternate account of yours. If that is the case, you should disclose and strike out any duplicate opinions. Someone (possibly even me) may initiate a sockpuppet investigation on the matter.

Regards, <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  04:03, 28 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I can hereby swear and attest that Waynethegoblin is most certainly NOT an alternate account of MINE. I have ONE account. I am aware of the policy on sockpuppetry.


 * Check the url, it cannot be coming from my computer.
 * Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 04:57, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * What URLs are you referring to? <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  05:08, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I just assumed that you could see the computer tcp/ip address (le.g. 192.168.1.1) from which the person was entering, and make some conclusion as to the region of the world from which the entry came from that.. No? In any event I assure that this is not MY account. The moniker sounds to me like a younger person into Dungeons and Dragons. Д-р<sub style="margin-left:-3.2ex;"> СДжП,ДС 05:12, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Uh, 192.168.1.1 isn't really your IP address (i.e., it's not the IP address that can identify your location). It's the IP address your router assigns to you. The important IP address is the one your ISP assigns you from its pool of numbers, and that your connections show as being from. See Network address translation. <sup style="color:green;">Bongo  <sub style="margin-left:-4.2ex; color:blue;">matic  06:06, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Retiring
I'm retiring for about a year, so you'll have to find one of the better article writers on this site to write your article. Apologies for the inconvenience, Astronominov  04:13, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hai Dozo
Hello Drsjpdc, I see your dilemma and I sympathize. I suppose this is exactly why we have the conflict of interest guidelines. When you create or edit an article about someone or something you're close to, all sorts of problems can occur. I understand that it was your first article and you didn't know what you were getting into, and I don't blame you.

My suggestion to you is to back away. Let the AfD go where it will. It looks to be pretty even at this point, and if nothing changes dramatically the closing administrator will have to use his or her judgment as to whether or not the article should be deleted. If I had to make a prediction, I'd say that the discussion would probably close as "no consensus" which defaults to keeping the article around. I know that's not what you want, but what you want might not be feasible.

The article is there, the article probably has enough to it to merit inclusion, and the article includes information that makes your father look bad. I'm sorry about that, but the article isn't saying anything that's a secret, what happened is already public knowledge (that's why the article has sources). The way the discussion is going is just making you look bad, and I think you realize that. It's almost impossible to not get emotional in a situation like that, so that's why I suggested that you back away.

If the article is kept, your best bet is to try to avoid it, just ignore that it even exists. If that is impossible for you, do everything you can not to edit it. I think you're on the verge of being topic-banned as it is. Nobody can object if you want to remove defamatory information or vandalism in the article but anything more than that might bring you trouble, and might prevent you from working on other articles that you are involved with.

One last thing, I see that it has been suggested that you are Waynethegoblin. If you're not, I sympathize, I was recently accused of being a sockpuppet (and was exonerated). But if you are, please just be sure not to do that again. Creating accounts to give a false sense of support in any manner is really bad, as is asking someone you know to create an account to help you (that's called meatpuppetry). I assume that you didn't do that, but if you did, just don't do it again.

If you have any more questions please let me know. Thank you. --  At am a  頭 19:28, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Material added to List of chiropractic schools
Hello Drsjpdc.

I know you have other matters to look after, but I just wanted to suggest that you review Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources. The references that you have added to List of chiropractic schools do not meet WP:RS, and as such will be removed. If ECCE wants to publish the information on their website, that would be fine however. You and your website are not considered a reliable source, just as me, or my website would not be considered a reliable source. You might want to email them back and suggest that you put a list of accredited institutions on their website. In the meantime, I will see what I can dig up.

DigitalC (talk) 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)