User talk:Orthopedicfootwear

December 2014
Welcome to Wikipedia. I noticed that your username, "Orthopedicfootwear", may not meet Wikipedia's username policy because it seems like a corporate name. If you believe that your username does not violate our policy, please leave a note here explaining why. As an alternative, you may ask for a change of username, or you may simply create a new account for editing. Thank you. pcfan500 (talk) 01:39, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello,

I do not believe that Orthopedicfootwear violates policy because it does not seem like a corporate name. Orthopedics and orthopedic footwear is a medical specialization that has been around for more than a century and has its origins in ancient Greece. Footwear created with an aim of improving the health and comfort of the wearer has been around for millennia, before corporate names were even a thing, and it will surely exist until humans no longer have a need for walking. There are many nouns in the world that are sold my corporations, including high heels, lettuce, and cups. However, if every object that is sold sounds like a corporate name, perhaps the policy should state instead "we do not want nouns or things that are sold."

Thank you!


 * I actually came here to compliment you on your cool user name. If there is a company by that name I can't find it. Kendall-K1 (talk) 17:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you! Agreed. Orthopedicfootwear (talk) 17:18, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Welcome!


Hello, Orthopedicfootwear, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, try Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then type  before the question on your talk page.
 * Quick introduction to Wikipedia
 * How to write a great article
 * Ten Simple Rules for Editing Wikipedia, an essay from PLOS Computational Biology
 * Identifying reliable sources for medicine-related articles (general advice)
 * Wikipedia's Manual of Style for medicine-related articles (general style guide)
 * A few tricks to help you format references are at WP:MEDHOW

''If you are interested in medicine-related themes, you may want to visit the Medicine Portal. If you are interested in improving medicine-related articles, you may want to join WikiProject Medicine (sign up here or say hello here).''

Again, welcome! 86.164.164.29 (talk) 15:59, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Quick note
Hi, I see you are pretty new here. I noticed the discussion at the Chopra article about this edit you made. You are new here, and that was a bad edit, in my view. Which is not a bad thing. Being BOLD is how you learn and actually get some things done. But you should know, that starting to edit any article (and especially an article that has been the subject of a lot of controversy within the community) is like walking into the middle of a movie, or maybe better into the middle of a dinner party full of people you don't know. You have to be sensitive to the community aspect of things.

In this particular article, there is a history of employees of Chopra's various entities showing up at the article to advocate for him, often without disclosing that, in violation of WP:COI and WP:PROMO and yes sometimes WP:SOCK.

This article in turn, is a "front" in the larger struggle that goes in WP between the Wikipedia way, which is that we are science and reality based, and various purveyors of "woo", especially about health. See WP:Lunatic charlatans for a glimpse of that. I am not sure you are aware of this either. (If you think about this for a moment.. Wikipedia is "an encycopedia that anyone can edit." People often come here because they are passionate about something.  People who really believe that, say, their magnetic bracelet cured their cancer, or that eliminating wheat from their kid's diet "cured" their kid's persistent earaches... come to Wikipedia and are very fierce about getting that content into Wikipedia.  We also get people who sell stuff who want to promote it here.  See for example the SierraSil article, which looked like this this morning, before I cleaned it up.  Many of these people aren't even aware that they are abusing Wikipedia - they think what they are doing is legit.  (some people of course know that what they are doing is wrong, and don't care.))

But whether someone comes here to sell an idea, or sell a product (or denigrate an idea or a product, for that matter) they are not here to further the mission of Wikipedia - they are violating WP:SOAPBOX, which is part of WP:NOT. They are advocates. WP:NOT is super important, and I hope you read it and drink deep.

Related to that, new editors often think of Wikipedia articles like blog postings or personal webpages or the like, and think WP articles should provide "updates" on what their subjects are doing. This approach violates WP:NOTNEWS (also part of WP:NOT). We want to create enduring, encyclopedia articles about subjects, that transmit "accepted knowledge." That is what we do here.

If you have made it this far :) and reflect on this a bit, and look at your edit again, I hope you will have a better sense of why it was reverted, especially with the payload of the quote in the middle.  Happy to discuss, if you like.  If you do, you can reply here as I am now watching this page. Jytdog (talk) 19:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)