User talk:Ndma1

Welcome to Wikipedia
- 2/0 (cont.) 01:59, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine
Hi Ndma1,

I'm noticing the series of edits you made to the above article. Your perspective comes through very clearly--you think that the group of NDs associated with the AANP is unnecessarily or harmfully medicalizing the naturopathic tradition, while the group of NDs associated with the NANP is staying true to the naturopathic tradition.

I think that a lot of productive and healing conversation can and should happen between these two groups, but that editing this article (which is intended to be about the degree "doctor of naturopathic medicine", which is granted by the AANP-associated colleges) is not a good place to do it.

With your permission, I'd like to go ahead and revert your edits to a previous version of the article and discuss the matter civilly in a different forum, such as the 'talk page' of the article, or through emailing each other.

Please let me know what you think. Mark

lamaybe@gmail.com

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lamaybe (talk • contribs) 20:16, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi again,

Thanks for your response. Here are my thoughts: the "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" article is about the degree offered by the CNME accredited schools, so that should be the content it focuses on. Historical or current disputes between the two groups could fit under a "criticism" section, or on the "naturopathy" page. One note: although all the CNME-accredited schools offer the "Doctor of Naturopathic Medicine" degree, all but the Arizona school abbreviate it "ND".

I'm going to go ahead and make some edits--let me know what you think on the 'talk' page. I'm glad to be doing the work of co-creating an encyclopedic article with you, and excited for the potential for the two professions to heal some rifts in the real world.

Lamaybe (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:23, 20 January 2010 (UTC).

Strange but all of my diplomas have the degree written out, none of them also include the abbreviation on it?--Ndma1 (talk) 02:23, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent edits
Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. --SineBot (talk) 05:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Redirect
There is a discussion about your recent edit that might interest you. See Talk:Naturopathy. QuackGuru (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

In the future, please obtain consensus on the talk page before making such a drastic change, that is likely to be controversial. DigitalC (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Also, you should probably check out Requested moves for information on how to properly move an article. DigitalC (talk) 00:53, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

January 2010
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Naturopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing. Note long term edit warring is also included. Verbal chat  08:45, 26 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Consensus does not require either that you get prior "permission" to make changes or that the acceptance of your changes afterwards be formally documented. Edits that are neither changed nor removed are always presumed to have consensus until someone actually challenges them. Consequently, you should not remove a change solely on the grounds that there is no formal record indicating consensus for it: instead, you should give a policy-based or common-sense reason for challenging it.

This all started with a few minor edits that were reversed for no seeming good reason other than I did not ask permission to make the edits. I I must admit after a few rounds I decided to became more bold with my edits, and that probably was not the kindest response. But summarily reverting from sourced content to non-sourced questionable claims does not seem consistent with wikipedias policies. And Qwackgurus notion that nothing can be changed without a formal proposal does not seem to be consistent with the above. All I am seeing to do is make an article that reads more like an advertisement for one particular minority in a profession to a more NPOV article that fairly represents all substantial points of view. --Ndma1 (talk) 07:41, 27 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Please note the above warning on edit warring. Verbal chat  10:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright violations
Please take the time to read and understand WP:COPYVIO. You have repeatedly inserted copyright material. I hope I've been able to redact them all, but it shouldn't be necessary. Just give the links or citations, there's no need or justification for putting in unlicensed content.LeadSongDog come howl  06:02, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:10, 24 November 2015 (UTC)