User talk:Ombudsman/Archive02

'''Please DO NOT EDIT or POST REPLIES to THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE is an ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers the dates between January 1, 2006, and June 30, 2006. Please post replies to the current main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to, as necessary, or add new archivals to User talk:Ombudsman/Archive03 (see How to archive a talk page). Thank you. Ombudsman 19:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Re: Pentagon question
Wow - I'm the first to leave a message after the archiving! In reply to your question about the Pentagon, as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have an article specifically about the pentagon being hit... There's some discussion at The Pentagon and some of course at September 11, 2001 attacks, but I couldn't find a link on either one to an article specifically about the pentagon on 9/11. I'd say go ahead and start one if you have the time and engergy, and of course present the official view along with other explanations. I was just reading an article the other day at Jim Hoffman's site where he says the Pentagon likely was hit by a large plane, but that the plane was probably blown up just immediately prior to its impact and most of the damage in the building was caused by other explosive charges. You may find those interesting if you haven't read them already...

Talk with you later. Happy new year! Blackcats 09:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Just butting in, but all those 'the plane was blown up' things should go under conspiracy theories. There is some great computer modeling that shows how the damage that was done was done without needing to add lone gunmen on a grassy knoll.

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building."

--DoctorMike 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Lily Loat
You have inserted the given links into a number of articles. It is hard to see where they are appropriate or not. Please follow proper procedures if you find fault with their removal. Thanks! Cyberevil 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sigh, alright. Discuss it with the parties deeply involved in this. Cyberevil 05:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Happy New Year!
Since we've been just going back and forth on this one, I thought that we'd best ask for a little external perspective! I've started the RfC over at Talk:Thimerosal InvictaHOG 05:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

PS: If you look at the MMR vaccine website, you will see that I made no response to your assertions about hazing rituals...which do not exist anyway...but oh well. InvictaHOG 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)


 * You know, I'm not being obtuse on purpose - perhaps my unfamiliarity with British history is on display here. I am still unsure what your point is with the Whitehall studies or the French economists! There are many studies showing a variety of health differences between people of different socioeconomic backgrounds. I don't know if there were some proven medical cover-up or something that's just not covered in any of the Whitehall articles? I'm still at a loss a month later as to how it relates to whale.to. And the French economists - is it just that some people in an entirely different field were insensitive in their naming of their movement? How does that relate to me, to medicine, etc? Just as an example of people doing questionable things? An example of a hierarchy (which I'm most certainly NOT at the top of!)? It's just not readily apparent what you meant. I don't object to conversation, which must be conducted - it is important to discuss at length any concerns that vaccination is responsible for disease. I have always only objected to the whale.to site as an example of important information presented in a confrontational and off-putting manner. You call it color, I see it as an attack. Simple as that. As for the hazing, I didn't respond because it was ludicrous in my experience. I don't deny that it has happened or that it still happens elsewhere because I can't be everywhere at once to make sure. I can only say that I have never experienced the rituals that you described and am therefore not "brainwashed." I have no contacts with drug companies - they are not allowed in our hospital, our clinics, etc. I refuse all dinners, trinkets, etc. because I believe strongly that they should have no role in medical decisions. I know that there are many problems with medicine, but I do not feel that I am one of them. I, like you, just seek the truth. I just prefer that the truth not be wrapped in angry, accusatory prose! You know that I haven't deleted the other links...if we dispensed with the constant insertion of whale.to, we could get down to the more important things at hand! InvictaHOG 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Hey, I posted this to the MMR vaccine RfC, but I wanted to let you know that I thought of a compromise on whale.to! I think that you already noticed that I copied the speech and book by Lily Loat into Wikisource. I hope you see that this is a show of good faith vis a vis the content (though not the tone!) of whale.to! InvictaHOG 09:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the barnstar
Thank you for the Barnstar. --Arcadian 14:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!
Thank you for your welcome, hope to be able to make some interesting contributions in the future. Cheers! --Serrano 20.02, 7 January 2006

And more thanks
Hey, thanks for the barnstar. I'm flattered. How'd you even notice me? I'm still around but I'm not very visible these days. Isomorphic 04:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Nope, no particular reason for my comment on his page. I was just going through a few of the candidates, noticed that a new user had set himself up to take a beating, and wanted to soften the blow.  It's easy for newcomers to Wikipedia to put themselves in awkward positions like that, not realizing how the community works. I used to see lots of newbies do that on Requests for Adminship. Isomorphic 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman- recommended reading
I thank you for your unbiased vote on the Edward Smith VfD. I looked at your user page, and I see that your fields of interest coincide somewhat with those in which Edward Smith has made discoveries. Have you yet read the articles that the page (Edward Smith (psychologist)) links to, and the articles that those articles link to? I recommend that you do so because you personally are likely to value the information. The information is not just enlightening, but it is also useful. I request that you give me feedback on this matter, either here or on my talk page. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Autistic enterocolitis
Please adopt a less slanted approach to this topic. There are entries that are being made by you that do not meet a reasonable standard of verifiability. I like Andy Wakefield and have injoyed a number of conversations with him, and I treat autistic kids, so I am not an anti-Autism individual. However, as an encyclopedia the topics should not be backed up by comments by reporters. They certainly should not have descriptions of proposed research in the field. If this keeps up I will put it up for arbitration and deletion. Steve Kd4ttc 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the entry in my talk page. I responded there.  Also, I copied the thread of discussion into the autistic enterocolitis talk.  I would like to continue the discussion there. Regards, Kd4ttc 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Illegitimi_non_carborundum

 * Gosh! Thanks Ombudsman.
 * Now, repeat after me everyone: Illegitimi_non_carborundum
 * nuff said?!!!.--Aspro 22:19, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Medical intern/AMSA
Dear Ombudsman,

I have written the reason for my removal of the see also link to American Medical Student Association from Medical intern on the latter's talk page.

Cheers, --Daveb 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply on my talk page: I have made a further reply there. Cheers, --Daveb 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Epidemiology as a causal inference
Thank you for tidying up my editing. That is kind of you. 86.10.231.219 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

MMR stuff should not be in the Epidemiology article
Pushing the MMR stuff into the epidemiology article is inappropriate. The MMR studies do not do anything to advance the understanding of epidemiology. The place to put information on the studies of MMR is in an article about that issue. The epidemiology article is not the place where every article that is epidemiological should be referenced. At this juncture you have the option of naming the article where the material will go. If you don't take advantage of that you will find that someone else moves the material. Take advantage of creating an article with a name you like. Kd4ttc 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagreed with this comment from Kd4ttc and I set out some reasons []. Overall, a controversial topical example of this kind is not only something the lay person can relate to but it also highlights and is an opportunity to look in detail at the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiology.  The reasons given for excluding it really do not pass muster.  The Invisible Anon -  16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Autistic enterocolitis
I have to say I was disturbed to see such inaccurate information placed by others in "Criticism" [] on this page.

As I see you have been working on this page and trying to get it into proper shape. I thought I should let you know I have spent a little time tidying up that section and hope the quality of the editing is satisfactory to your eye. It is disturbing that information on such an important topic was so abysmally inaccurate. Basic facts were just wrong and the opposite of the reality. I cannot understand how it could have been allowed to get into such a state in the first place. This is not criticism of your efforts and I hope you approve of the edited text and appropriate references.

There is other inaccurate information also, but this was screaming out in pain for a cure. 86.10.231.219 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and discussion
Hello, thanks for your words of encouragement. My attempts to add what I consider relevant, useful information to the Template:Infobox Senator has been met with opposition. I have put forth my argument at Template talk:Infobox Senator. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the discussion? Potatoe 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical to medical claims community
Ombudsman, it may turn out that we may disagree on a number of issues in the future, but the experience on Anti-vaccinationists leads me to believe that we need a more unified, disciplined approach to make sure that articles about medicine, alternative medicine, medical issues and controversies, etc., are balanced and accurate. I am going to create a user template that categorizes those of us who object to blind faith in the current state of medical science and think that objections to it are duly noted. Do you agree with this, and would you like to participate? --Leifern 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, I overstated it a bit. I am not trying to create a homeopathy community (I wouldn't want to be part of it myself), or an "anything alternative is awesome" community. I just think that articles about medical issues should be written with the same standards for NPOV as everything else. --Leifern 00:53, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Joke's RfA
Hi Ombudsman, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagged as Fair Use
As part of image tag cleanups, I tagged Image:UncleMoo.jpgas fair use. If you don't agree, or want to release the image under GFDL, please feel free to change the image tag. Regards, Dethomas 19:49, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion review#List of interesting or unusual_place_names
Furhter to your views on the undeletion, you may be interested that the page was relisted on Articles for deletion/List of interesting or unusual place names (2nd nomination). Regards--A Y  Arktos 07:40, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Not to mention that it was relisted on Deletion_review. -- User:Docu

Thanks!
Thank you for the comment Om. I don't know you but the message is appreciatted very much. Good days to you. willsy 10:41pm 10, February 2006

Thanks
Thanks for the welcome. Merecat 06:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Thanks for taking the time to vote in my RfA, which passed with a final vote of 54/2/1 despite my obvious inadequacy for the job. I'll do my level best to use the mop and bucket — or, as I said in my RfA, plunger — responsibly. Of course, in the best tradition of politicans everywhere, I've already broken a campaign promise (I blocked a vandal last night despite having said "I don't anticipate using the blocking tool very often"). Nevertheless, I'll try not to let the unbridled power corrupt me. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 19:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Me
Just a few short notes, so that you get a bit of an idea who I am. I have written articles (under pseudonym) against stupidities in the medical world (got them accepted without an issue). I like to kick butts when it suits me. I am currently working on a manuscript to burry someone's ideas for ever before he makes more damage. I also have friends among doctors and medical researchers, and the image that you describe is not the image I get from it. There are many critical doctors out there that I personally know. --KimvdLinde 04:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the intro
A very nice intro boilerplate. I'd already read about 1/3 and am working throught the other 2/3. --David.alex.lamb 01:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Kaiser Page
Hi, Omsbudsman - do you have the power to revert the Kaiser Permanente back to your version (or mine before it) and then re-protect it? Someone put on protection after Travis had made major deletions. If you check the Kaiser Permanente talk page, I intended to source the questioned areas and had asked for the best way to do it. Putting the protection on after Travis's deletions amounts to a decision that approves suppression of criticism.--Pansophia 07:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Omsbudsman - I also wanted to mention that I'm concerned that FCYTravis is located in the area of Kaiser headquarters, and Kaiser is a major employer - he may have friends and/or family working for Kaiser. Can this concern be raised to counter his ability to get other administrators to protect his changes? --Pansophia 08:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Poor newbies
Leave the poor newbies alone will ya? :) I wanna do stuff in peace!

My RFA
Thank you for supporting me in my successful RFA. The admin tools will definitely be useful for dealing with vandalism more swiftly. Please drop a note on my talk page, should you have questions about any of my actions. --Aude ( talk | contribs ) 01:29, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
--Matth e w UND (talk) 05:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Re: Breggin
The point is that he is already in category:American psychiatrists which is also a sub-category of psychiatry as well as category:Anti-psychiatry which is a sub-category of psychiatry. I am not denying that he is a psychiatrist! I would like to remove him from the parent category if you have no objection. --Vincej 15:33, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Kaiser Permanente, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible.

AFD
Care to vote?

Articles for deletion/Scholars for 9/11 Truth (second nomination)

Take also a look at this: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Conspiracies Guild

--Striver 20:38, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Fix Typo
Thanks for fixing the typo's on my talk page. Cheers. Cameronian 12:30, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

AFD
This article could use your vote: Articles for deletion/The Citizens' Commission on 9-11--Striver 19:14, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Corporate Logos
Hi, Ombudsman. I've made an argument that corporate logos prominently placed in Infoboxes constitute ads here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Infobox_Company

User:Midgley
Just to let you know, User:Midgley appears to have registered himself today as User:The Invisible Anon. He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon".

Here is his original IP address for the sock puppet he first started editing with on Wikipedia. This has to be him because only he would know where it is. The diffs clearly show him associated with his recently registed user IDs the User:Invisible Anon and User:The Invisible Anon:-

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=14287194 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=16799973 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41250577 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:82.152.46.201&diff=next&oldid=41457405

He is now editing as User:The Invisible Anon and following me around and adding edits as "The Invisible Anon". Here is the link to his history of contributions and if you follow them you will see what he is up to:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=The+Invisible+Anon

Here is some of his mischief on the MfD page:- http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia%3AMiscellany_for_deletion%2FUser_talk%3A86.10.231.219&diff=41466436&oldid=41447676

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 16:11, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Further Update See []
 * The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 20:28, 27 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Yet a further update - See
 * []


 * and
 * []
 * It is appropriate to ensure other eyes see this.
 * The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 23:02, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Perpetrator identified
... as User:Midgley - see [] (this is an historical page - and long so wait for it to load and it will take you to the correct section in the page)

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 23:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

More to This? Or Nothing More to This?
[] ???

The Original Invisible Anon at 86.10.231.219 03:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

User:Midgley - Time for a Block?
Thought you should take a look at this [] which is referring to Dr Adrian Midgley's contributions here [].

If you agree something should be done, perhaps you could contact User:Leifern, User:Pansophia and john.

I will be similarly bringing this to the attention of others also.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 06:58, 20 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You may wish to take a look at [] Talk - The Invisible Anon 00:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Further development []
 * Talk - The Invisible Anon 86.10.231.219 09:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject Running
I'm glad that you found WP:CYC to be a good pattern for WikiProject Running. However, I've actually been meaning to re-subst the WikiProject skeleton template as it's changed quite a bit since last May; you might want to do that instead. Of course, with WP:CYC, I've patterned/adapted things from other projects, in particular WikiProject Doctor Who.

Anyway, good luck with the new project! --Christopherlin 09:24, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi
Are you from sweden? --Striver 10:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Trower333.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Trower333.jpg. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to indicate why we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the image also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture then you can use GFDL to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the image qualifies under Wikipedia's fair use guidelines, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. If you want the image to be deleted, tag it as db-unksource.

If you have uploaded other images, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of image 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion.

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. If you have any concerns, contact the bot's owner: Carnildo. 11:02, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Invitation
Please weigh in on this proposal and see User:Leifern/Wikiproject health controversies. Thanks in advance, and feel free to spread the word. --Leifern 17:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
I appreciate the welcome. It was a nice suprise. I look forward to adding to the project as time allows. --speet 06:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your welcome
Thanks for the welcome, I've been visiting/editing Wikipedia for years, though. NEMT 03:34, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your support
 r ƒa · ɐƒ ɹ Thank you for supporting me in my request for adminship! It ended with a tally of 39/5/4, and I am now an admin. I'm glad to have earned the trust of the community, and I will make use of it responsibly. Of course, you can let me know of any comments or concerns you have.

With a million articles in front of me, I'd better get mopping.

 r speer  / ɹəəds ɹ  05:11, 3 March 2006 (UTC) 

RfA/Christopherlin
Thanks for your vote and support in my recent RfA. Unfortunately, it closed without consensus at (22/11/8), but I hope you'll keep me in mind in any future RfA. Good luck with your new WikiProject, too! --Christopherlin 16:45, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
I was surprised to see a cordial message for me when I logged in earlier. I look forward to contributing whenever I can. Firewall62 07:00, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Welcome
Thank you for your message. I like the pic in your user page :) The gorilla 10:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you
Thank you for writing some lines in my discussion page. It's impressive for me how much you have written. Great work on the first look. Impressive. -- Qweet 13:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Footraces
That sounds like a great idea, I've accepted the invitation and signed up. :) Speaking of good humor, I finally received Jim Gaffigan's Beyond the Pale DVD today, it was well worth the month-long wait.  Thanks again for the invite!  Can&#39;t sleep, clown will eat me 05:44, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thanks for your support in my RfA. It passed, with a final tally of 62/0/1. I'm touched by all the kind comments it attracted, and hope I'll be of some use with the new tools. You know where I am if you need to shout at me. Flowerparty ? 15:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

My RFA
Thanks for supporting my RFA. I really appreciated the show of support and all the kind words from so many great Wikipedians. I hope I live up to them! -- Vary | Talk 17:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

rfc
Requests for comment/Jersey Devil --Striver 19:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Gleetings
Thanks! Bob, just Bob 11:34, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Image Tagging Image:James Dewar.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:James Dewar.jpg. I notice the 'image' page currently doesn't specify who created the content, so the copyright status is unclear. If you have not created this media yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the media on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the media yourself then you should also specify where you found it, i.e., in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page.

If the media also doesn't have a copyright tag then you must also add one. If you created/took the picture, audio, or video then you can use GFDL-self to release it under the GFDL. If you believe the media qualifies as fair use, please read fair use, and then use a tag such as or one of the other tags listed at Image copyright tags. See Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use.

If you have uploaded other media, please check that you have specified their source and copyright tagged them, too. You can find a list of 'image' 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 "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that any unsourced and untagged images will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stan 04:43, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic
You have reverted the history section in whole and not discussed your reasons on the talk page. I would be grateful if you would do so. I look forward to creating an encylopedic article. Mccready 07:19, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Reverting without discussion
Dear Ombudsman. you constantly revert the top of chiropractic and now appear to be the only user so doing. Despite requests to discuss the matter on the talk page you have not done so. May I appeal again to your cooperation as a wikipedian to discuss your reasons with other users. I will not revert until we have had adequate time for discussion. You may like look at Resolving_disputes* Mccready 02:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see that you have the following edit summaries for the inclusion of factual material in the chiropractic article:


 * (rv: seance version is ludicrous)


 * and


 * (rv: sticking the word controversial in the intro is extremely pov)


 * What's up? Since when is factual and documented material POV? -- Fyslee 15:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please reply to my questions above right here, rather than on my talk page. -- Fyslee 19:33, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Help Please!
Dear Ombudsman,

You welcomed me at the beginning of the month. Thanks again. Nearly 200 happy edits later without a reversion I have run into a bit of an issue. The page I have dedicated a lot of time to is the forgiveness page. Take a look at what it looked like last August and then again in early March and now. I solicited information from editors of many different articles (religions and psychology) and things were developing nicely, not perfectly, but nicely at a fun pace. I never got into an edit war and always tried to incorporate others ideas into the article. In my, admittedly biased POV, the admin that has taken an interest to the page has imposed his POV. The result is, I believe, a great setback to both the page and my motivation. Cutting to the chase, can you give me some fresh eyes and let me know if the recent form of the article is an improvement or negative change from the article as it existed on March 16 at 9:52. If it looks better now, tell me honestly and I will practice the topic at issue. If the information does not flow as well as before, I would appreciate advice on how to handle an administrator that has had no patience for discussion of the topic or working things out instead of just doing what he likes.

The fun seems to have gone for me; I hope it comes back because the article was starting to shape up nicely. (I am always open to fixing things after a reasonable debate, I am just not used to sorry you’re wrong, I win, and you lose.) I don’t get paid enough for the grief. If you prefer, I will gladly agree to keep you out of it. I am email enabled. By the way, I am well qualified to write on this topic, having practiced criminal law for 22 years, which has lead to a hobby of researching forgiveness on and off for the last 5 plus years. I was also a Law Review Editor many moons ago. My sincere thanks for any learned advice you can give. --speet 02:58, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Category:Alternative medicine
In case you're interested: Someone is trying to put Category:Alternative medicine into Category:Pseudoscience. I believe it is highly misleading to make this generalization. Perhaps you would like to weigh in with your comments, at Category talk:Alternative medicine. Dforest 12:33, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

breast implant article
I notice you peeked at the breast implant entry. I've been working hard on this area I know a great deal about as a Plastic Surgeon and FDA investigator of silicone gel implants. The entry is being high-jacked by someone who blames 1)her implants & 2)Doctors for her own case of auto-immune diseases. You can read the article to see the mainstream view on the subject, but it keeps getting edited to represent a very twisted take on the field.

Just venting! Droliver 05:57, 24 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I see Oliver isn't happy about having balance in the article. His original entries looked like an advertisement for "tort reform" and breast implants.  I could not believe what I was reading.
 * Secondly, I do not blame doctors for my autoimmune illnesses. I most certainly do blame ruptured silicone implants, and rightly so.
 * It is most interesting that all MY doctors also blame silicone implants for these problems. There are more doctors than DrOliver would like to admit that do consider slicone implants a problem.


 * Further, there are other contributors who do not agree with DrOliver's whitewashing. One is an epidemiologist.


 * It's a shame that Oliver considers another contributor a 'hijacker'.
 * Fortunately, I don't think Wikopedia considers one plastic surgeon as the arbiter of 'truth', or of 'taste'.   No matter how 'hard work' it was, George.


 * Jgwlaw 01:35, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Makemi RfA
Thank you for voting on my RfA. It passed with a consensus to promote of 45/7/1. To those of you concerned about the fact that I am a relative newcomer, I encourage you to poke me with a sharp stick if I make a mistake. Or better yet, let me know on my talk page, and I'll do my best to fix it. Mak emi 04:56, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

My RfA
Thank you for your support on my request for adminship. It did not succeed, however, with votes of 10/19/11, so I have not yet become an administrator. I appreciate your support vote, though, and I look forward to see you vote for me next time! Should you have any questions, comments, or complaints at any point in the future, please do not hesitate to let me know on my talk page or via e-mail. —JP06035

Anti-psychiatry
Hi Ombudsman. Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia 16 days ago.

With the help of other editors we have totally re-written the Anti-psychiatry article. Perhaps you may want to take a look at it? My real name: Cesar Tort 02:57, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for inquiring. A cursory review of several of your edits to the Anti-psychiatry article hasn't caused any questions.  User:Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC might be the best resource for reviewing the article to ensure against whitewashing, but relentless attacks upon her by defenders of biological psychiatry have caused her to leave the Wiki.  User:Neurodivergent has also shown insight into what lies beneath and beyond big pharma's undue influence upon the psuedoscience known as psychiatry.  Will review your edits again later, when the article settles down a bit.  Ombudsman 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Howard Bloom
I noticed that you added a lot of unreferenced material to this article. Could you please cite sources (preferably ones that are not Howard Bloom or his advertisers, but independent sources) for verifiability? See [|here] for more material pertaining to my main concern, which is that it will become a vanity article...for example the only thing Ive seen that says he helped MTV was written by him. 130.253.5.179 00:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
 * All the material came from a few quick goofle searches, which you can probably reproduce pretty easily. Seems like an interesting thinker.  Did not find any reference to the racism issue while goofling, so it would be nice if you could substantiate the notability thereof.  If the criticism is not notable, you might want to reconsider your restoration of the racism aside.

Breast Implants
Hi Ombudsman!! I want to thank you for the warm welcome to Wikopedia. I have often read Wikopedia but never before edited any entry. I also appreciate your contribution on the discussion page of the BI entry. jgwlaw
 * You're welcome. Your questions about the iatrogenic side effects are especially welcome, and your perspective is much appreciated.  Best of luck with your efforts to bring about balance on the Breast implant article, and glad you liked the link to the primate study.  Given that gaze research seems to reveal so much about rankism, sensory filtering and cognitive deficits associated with environmentally triggered autoimmune disorders, it would be very surprising if medical specialists (like plastic surgeons) would look much beyond the superficialities of mainstream medical dogma to develop an understanding of immune systems.  At least the Wiki is a relatively level playing field when compared to the stovepiping vertical integration of medical orthodoxy's ivory towers.  Ombudsman 22:57, 29 March 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think disease etiology & pathology are typically a plastic surgeon's specialty.  I was able to locate my original PS and asked him if he thought silicone implants could cause autoimmune disease.  He said he didn't know.  At least, that was a truthful response.  He just put 'em in.
 * Reminds me of Tom Lehrer's song with lyrics, "'Once the rockets go up who cares where they come down. That's not my department', says Wernher von Braun"
 * Jgwlaw
 * Am well aware that plastic surgeons are medical doctors. It is most unfortunate that too many medical doctors are quacks, although I don't go out of my way to jump on a soapbox about it.  Recent stats on medical malpractice in the United States are particularly disturbing.  But that is another subject altogether.
 * Self-styled "quackery" experts are too often themselves quacks. Again, that is another subject about which a book could be written.
 * Finally, I also see that you did not understand that this quote from Lehrer was a bit tongue in cheek. Perhaps some medical doctors should get off their pedastal, and get a sense of humor.Jgwlaw 04:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Great name
That... that's it. You have a cool username. That's all. Kicking222 20:14, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Seeking Community Input for RfC on Mccready at Chiropractic Article
I am seeking community input regarding the behaviour of Mccready and his attitude towards editors and their contributions to the Chiropractic article.

Discussions have been attempted in order to resolve disputes, but this has yielded no progress.

If other Wikipedians feel that Mccready has engaged in violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or has been unreasonable in his edits and reverts of your contributions despite presenting your rationale to him, kindly go to this page ASAP and record your comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steth/RfC

Thanks, Steth 12:24, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia_talk:Censorship
A watered-down version of the proposed policy against censorship is now open for voting. Will you kindly review the policy and make your opinions known? Thank you very much. Loom91 12:57, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism Epidemic
Ombudsman, I have called for reinforcements on this. I am not an expert on autism. I have perused the article a bit. Multiple sclerosis is considered an autoimmune illness, in which environmental triggers may play a part. Will explore this more later. I did note some appalling editorializing, sloppy generalizations and citing a lawyer-bashing forum as a source. These undermine credibility and are not appropriate. Frankly, if the manufacturers here are anything like the breast implant manufacturers and sadly, some plastic surgeons that make money from implants, then I wouldn't put anything past them. Jgwlaw 04:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Biological psychiatry
I have just post a NPOV tag in the totally re-written, pro-psychiatry article Biological psychiatry (see the talk page). I thought you might be interested. —Cesar Tort 04:41, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again!

Thanks for the tag post yesterday. It has been a hard day for me to try to discuss with people that don’t reply to my main argument: that psychiatrists themselves agree there are no biomarkers in the profession. You welcomed me last month when I arrived to Wikipedia and that’s something I really appreciate. I’ve tried to be polite in Talk Bio-psychiatry — yes: even with our opponents! — but we seem to be outnumbered. Anyway I just want to thank you for your support yesterday. —Cesar Tort 05:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Breast IMplants
Hi Ombudsman. I am still trying to learn Wiki language and edit as well. What do you know about Swatjester?? Please help me out with this? I will try to help out with what you asked, but I simply am not very knowledgeable on the subject of autism & vaccines. Oh and I echo the post above - I surely do appreciate your warm welcome. It's been quite a battle with the BI article.molly bloom 04:02, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC on Mccready
Hi Ombudsman. I would like to go ahead and file (or whatever one does with the RfC) because I also feel that Mccready has some explaining to do. But I am not sure of how to go about it. Can you help me with this? ThanksSteth 21:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request
Ombudsman, as I explained on the Biological psychiatry talk page, I've filed an arbitration request for the disagreement. Joema 01:07, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Whale fat follies
The Whale is surrounded by self-styled dolphins and orcas. Also Midgley misses you. RfC, chewing the fat, But one might check their tooth sizes before a swim. "It is perhaps unusual not to see a remark from User:Ombudsman here on the RFC page - if it was thought to be possible that he was not demonstrably aware of this RFC it might be thought proper and desirable that someone make it explicit on his talk page. This is something he doesn't want me to do so I'll leave it to anyone else involved to decide about. Midgley 18:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)" --66.58.130.26 23:33, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks
Kind of you.

Talk - The Invisible Anon 11:43, 27 April 2006 (UTC)


 * When I start drafting my Response I will replace the Holding Response and it will become an Annex to the draft Response. Accordingly, you will cease to be an endorser of my draft Response unless you so choose to be once it is available to be read.  I trust that is satisfactory and thank you for endorsing the Holding Response.  It would clearly be inappropriate for me to keep any of the names of the endorsers once the draft Response starts.


 * Hopefully, the RfC protagonists will see the sense of what I say elsewhere regarding confirming the Statement of Case is complete.


 * Talk - The Invisible Anon 16:07, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

List of notable Wikipedians
I wonder if this should be moved into the wikipedia namespace to avoid self-reference. Tim! 10:39, 29 April 2006 (UTC) I suggest that it be merged into Wikipedians with articles. Tim! 11:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Ombudsman

I hope you don't mind my contacting you out of the blue. I need help getting started with Wikipedia.

The situation I'm now in is that I've received two edit blocks both quoting different IP addresses for me. Blocks occurred when I tried to write up a profile.

One block mentions that My IP address was earlier used by Dick Wittington who has been doing a bit of vandalising.

The second block and info with it refers to AOL IP address and goes on to imply name change on my part (am using solo999)

Thirdly when I just tried to log in my account wouldnt accept my password.

Any suggestioins

Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others
Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Some Evidence for Your Arbitration
Ombudsman, please first note
 * my IP address (for The Invisible Anon) has changed overnight and
 * all evidence links to the following are below "Evidence Links".

Your comments on dealing with this requested.

Main Issue: - User:Midgley is now using the change of IP to pretend I am a completely new user and trying to make out I am a new editor making personal attacks which he has reverted. You will see he did this as if he were an Admin and as if the personal attacks had nothing to do with him.

The facts are of course that the edits he has reverted are embarrassing to him because they show (yet again) comprehensively that he has been caught red-handed. They also show I am defending myself against his attacks, namely, being called a liar on the internet by User:Midgley. However, if I take that to AN/I, the usual will happen and I as the anon on an IP address will simply be attacked by the usual Admins.

What is more, the deleted edits shows how comprehensively red-handed I caught User:Midgley. Now as you can see, he is trying to manufacture evidence against me to get me blocked. Please also note this is at the same time that he and his RfC protagonists refuse to confirm they will not add to an already oppressive RfC.

Principal Background Issue - I am determined to answer the RfC and win it but reluctant to start a reply to a moving target. The deleted edits contain my question to User:Midgley and the other RfC protagonists to confirm they have completed their part of the RfC. I am concerned that if I start answering, they will just bombard me with loads more stuff. The problem is not that it is not answerable. The problem is there is just so much to answer it is oppressive and will take a long time to deal with it all. And this is for an RfC User:Midgley started in a fit of pique.

Evidence Links


 * Pretending he is an Admin and I am a new user who edited 86.10.231.219 by mistake and then making an edit two minutes later claiming I am a new editor making personal attacks - diff here []


 * Here is the first point where User:Midgley makes out the "liar" allegation against me and in a particularly unpleasant manner
 * Go to A digression on the end of April in England here []


 * Here is where he continues making out I am a liar. I point out what he said was untrue.  He responds with a new allegation of lying by saying I am not telling the truth about him being on "extended study leave"
 * Go to Calling people liars (again)- Yawn here []
 * That was all deleted by User:Midgley pretending to be an Admin and claiming I was a new user attacking an editor.


 * Here I show the evidence that what I am saying is true - it is from his own website and there are independent press reports confirming
 * Go to Evidence Dr Midgley himself says he is on leave here - []
 * That was all deleted by User:Midgley pretending to be an Admin and claiming I was a new user attacking an editor.


 * Here is where I ask yet again for confirmation the trawl of RfC allegations are complete so that I can start replying
 * Go to Answer Requested - Please Confirm RfC Changes Complete here - []
 * That was all deleted by User:Midgley pretending to be an Admin and claiming I was a new user attacking an editor.


 * Here is what started him off - where I asked for confirmation the RfC protagonists' claims in the RfC are completed
 * Go to Finished Adding Disputes To the RfC Yet here - []
 * That was all deleted by User:Midgley pretending to be an Admin and claiming I was a new user attacking an editor.


 * As you can see from the above, his response to my questions to know whether they have finished adding new material to the RfC is to start a dispute by attacking me personally - exactly what he was doing with User:Leifern - forcing User:Leifern to defend himself and that is what he does with you and here he is doing it with me - but clearly engaged in fabricating evidence at the same time.

Please note that was not the first time of asking whether they have finished - and without any reply still. Here is where I ask in the RfC. And note the link to their discussions - this is where they claim they can add what they like when they like to the RfC - see Holding Response found here - []

Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:06, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Please Also See
Perhaps Sterner Action Than Last Time? found here []

Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:19, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

And please see now - []

Talk - The Invisible Anon 13:34, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry
I'm a consultant to the board of the World Network of Users and Survivors of Psychiatry. I appreciate the Wiki entry and would like to know who you are, how you came by such clear and accurate information!

Sylvia

Concordia newsletter
 Concordia Newsletter Community Justice is no more. It has been reformed to Concordia. Membership has been transferred.

Concordia is an organization of editors on Wikipedia that strive to encourage civility and fair treatment among all editors in the Wikipedian community, from the Wikignome to the Wikiholic. The project was designed to have a friendly and helpful environment to support any unfortunate Wikipedians that have become victims of incivility, hostility, or continual disrespect.

We currently need help in getting going, and making the community understand our aims. We work for civility. Nothing more, nothing less.

If you have ideas, let us know at our talk page, or on the IRC channel. We aim to spread civility in every way we can.

Should you wish to unsubscribe to future newsletters, please add your name to Concordia/Do Not Spam.

Thank you for your time. If you need anything, feel free to comment at WT:CCD or come into our IRC channel.

- The Concordia council. Delivered by Ian13 13:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
 * As you welcomed me to WP, I welcome you to Concordia :). --Osbus 01:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I thank too
Thanks for the warm welcome. Some feedback on your welcome message, if I may:
 * I think NPOV link should rather be to Neutral point of view
 * POV link goes to something very confusing. Is it Perspective (cognitive) that is wanted?
 * "neutrality" should in my opinion link to Neutral_point_of_view
 * Boilerplate text link is very confusing to me. I would not suggest that for newcomers.
 * Brilliant prose redirects to Featured articles. That makes me wonder is this really intended?
 * Utilities seems to be currently inactive

I looked but I could not find a template that you used, so that I could have corrected these myself. But as I said, thanks again for welcoming me and please, my comments are all made in good faith and I truly thank you for these guidances. Thanks and see you! --Ketorin 20:40, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Your edits on G. Patrick Maxwell
You had weighed in on this earlier, and I thought you might find the edits and questions of a couple newer editors interesting. My guess is that the article will soon need your help. There is no earthly reason for an entry about this guy, except that the writer of the article was his student. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G._Patrick_Maxwell MollyBloom 05:55, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Could you direct me to where I can propose deletion (of the G Patrick Maxwell article). I hope you weigh in on the deletion of it, then.  This is a fricking advertisement for this guy, who strikes me as a real sleazebag.  Did you read the court case?  MollyBloom 17:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you! I intend on researching this doctor more.  I am appalled by what I read of the case against him.  Did you read it?   Another lawyer and I have pointed out to Rob Oliver that the case was REINSTATED,  and not dismissed.  So now Rob is just deleting without comment.  Maxwell's publications are no more notable than any academic.  That is what is ridiculous about inclusion of this.MollyBloom 18:01, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Absoltuely Beautiful Photo
That's a gorgeous photo you have on your site here.MollyBloom 17:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

RfA
What do you say to being nominated for admin? --Osbus 19:35, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I would second that!!MollyBloom 20:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmmmm, the poor balance of Admins on the medical articles is a glaring problem... Would a no comment suffice, for quite a while perhaps?  Thanks for the suggestion, though...  Ombudsman 21:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeh, I mean, it is your choice. Maybe in two or three months? --Osbus 21:34, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well I would vote for Ombudsman

Vote for AfD on G. Patrick Maxwell
It has been renominated for deletion. Please come discuss. This surgeon is no more notable than hundreds or thousands of other academics. His list of publications is no more than most academics. MollyBloom 21:40, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I am shocked at your vote. That's all I can say.  This surgeon is no more notable than thousands of other academics, and certainly more quesionable than many.MollyBloom 22:31, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

regarding psychiatry
As per my note to Jimbo; ALL of the sciences have political implications at depth levels. This is no exception and a great proof of the case. I am very familiar with Psychology and with Logic. Where would be the best place for me to make an argument, or, to adress arguments allready made?

Its actually very clear from evidence that the idea of "chemical imbalance in the brain" is perhaps true in a very small fraction of the cases where serious neurotoxins are being administered. The science is faulty, and the real facts are that medicating people makes money for the pharma industry, and makes the medicated easier to deal with by others, but only in truth victimizes most persons being medicated. This is especially known to be true of Ridlin, ADHD drugs, most anti psychotics, and most anti scitzophrenia medications. These drugs in general are known to be brain function inhibitors, are known to cause serious side effects, and many have been proven to demonstrably lower mental functioning and IQ (As is very strongly proven with Ridlin.) The Psychiatric community is thus guilty of mass systemic abuse of millions of people.

The question which complicates these facts in this environment is due weight. What you and I have tho factual and impeccably logical is still a "minority opinion." NPOV policy states that all voices in a dispute should be given equal time. Except where due weight renders one or more voices to be in too small a minority. We have to make a case for at least minimal due weight, and for the responsibility of the Information to factually adress a problem which effects millions of lives. Our best argument for due weight is unfortunately a strong attack against the system; That millions of people are in fact being abused by overmedication, and that this has life altering and life threatening consequences, would ethically compel our minority opinion to be given at least some due weight. However, this requires our argument to be accepted as valid, which is a circular problem.

Well, enough blabbering until a response. Prometheuspan 18:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It is quite easy to take potshots at psychiatric medicines for being a grand conspiracy of the pharmaceutical giants ... until it saves your life. Derex 21:27, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Nobody said there isn't or wasn't a time and a place for allopathic medicine. And this isn't potshots, its simple basic fact that medications are overused and over prescribed.Prometheuspan 23:02, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Chirotalk
I noticed recently that Chirotalk has started its own self-promoting article on WP. I nominated it for deletion based on WP:Web and "What Wikipedia is Not" policies. As someone who has edited the chiropractic article and discussion pages, I thought you might want to chime in with your thoughts here. TheDoctorIsIn 19:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Abotnick has twice today tried to delete the AfD template from the Chirotalk page. He has also tried to change the outgoing link to his forum site to have very "spammy" link text - something that he has been warned about previously. I have reverted his edits twice thus far. Anything that you can recommend doing? How much longer until the article is in fact deleted? Levine2112 21:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Ombudsman, can I alert you to a new user - Randalllord - who has immediately violated 3RR by persisting to add a link to the Chirotalk forum despite being giving the explanation that forums such as this do not make acceptable external links? Please note, that Randalllord is a coleague of Abotnick and is a Senior Member of Abotnick's Chirotalk forum. I don't know if this is the proper way to alert an admin. I apologize if I am going about this the wrong way. Thank you. Levine2112 21:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Neanderthal theory - recreated stub deleted - again
I've put a request for Deletion_review --Rdos 14:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others
This arbitration case is closed and the final decision has been published at the link above.

Delivered for the arbitration committee as a clerk (I don't take part in making these decisions). --Tony Sidaway

Perspective on neutrality
Could you explain precisely what your standard greeting "your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable" means? It could be read as encouraging new users to believe WP:NPOV is flexible and negotiable. It ain't. Tearlach 23:56, 30 June 2006 (UTC)