User talk:Ombudsman

Archived talk pages:

• February 26 to December 31, 2005
• January 1 to June 30, 2006
• July 1 to December 30, 2006
• January 1 to December 31, 2006

Picture of the day

John C. Dancy (1857–1920) was an American politician, journalist, and educator. For many years he was the editor of African Methodist Episcopal newspapers Star of Zion and then Zion Quarterly. In 1897 he was appointed collector of customs at Wilmington, North Carolina, but was chased out of town in the Wilmington massacre of 1898, in part for his activity in the National Afro-American Council which he helped found and of which he was an officer. He then moved to Washington, D.C., where he served as recorder of deeds from 1901 to 1910. His political appointments came in part as a result of the influence of his ally, Booker T. Washington.Photograph credit: Turner; restored by Adam Cuerden

Please feel free to leave a message

Long belated thank you

I was thinking how nice it was when the occasional new editor tells me thanks for a welcome template I placed on their talk page; then I realized that I had never thanked you for the one you left me! So allow me now to extend my belated thanks for welcoming me to the project. Thank you! —Elipongo (Talk contribs) 21:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

A little help

A fellow editor asked me if he can remove/delete an account which he accidentally created. See here). Is this possible? Does it take an admin to do so? What is the procedure? Thanks! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:47, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Notice board for vaccine-related topics

Hi again, I don't really have any choice but to revert this edit again, for a few reasons:

1. You refuse to engage me on the talk page. I've asked you several specific questions, and you've repeatedly responded by deleting my comments.
2. You've repeatedly accused other editors of "personal attacks" but you've refused to explain to me which comments you think violated WP:NPA. You can't just throw around terms like "personal attack" and then refuse to say which comments you're talking about, and why you think they violate WP:NPA.
3. You falsely claimed in your edit summary that you were moving the discussion to the talk page. In fact, you just deleted it.
4. Yet again, you've marked your edit as minor, when you know it's not a minor edit. Since this has been clearly explained to you several times, I can only conclude that you're deliberately abusing the "minor edit" checkbox to avoid scrutiny from other editors.

As I've said before, you have no right to delete my comments from a project page. If you honestly think I've violated WP:NPA, please report me at the administrators' noticeboard. At the very least, take the time to answer my questions instead of unilaterally deleting them. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 12:57, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ban on Notice board for vaccine-related topics

Under terms of your indefinite probation, I find deletion of material on Wikipedia:Notice board for vaccine-related topics stating in edit summary to have moved to talk page (as per this), when bulk of material is not transfered (as here) is being disruptive. I therefore impose a ban on your further disrupting that noticeboard. I'll submit this to WP:AN/I for other admin review. David Ruben ^Talk 20:29, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Your action, on the heels of blatant misrepresentations (whether deliberate or not), was abusive, especially given your apparent association and conflict of interest with regard to vaccine marketers. It is that type of unilateralism and lack of civility associated with the protection of power structures that has resulted in the vast epidemic of vaccine injury cases, which now number in the millions worldwide. As was pointed out to you, the verisimilitude of the phrasing resulted in a very minor cut and paste error, which you have once again misrepresented in a less than civil manner. The noticeboard should be, inherently, used for timely notices, unlike the two year old 'comment' from an anon that you seem to think belongs on a noticeboard that should be routinely updated, and that should focus on vaccines, rather than hazing rituals. The ArbCom case, which you have lamely used as an excuse for your own knee jerk double standard reaction, was itself a sadly disruptive maelstrom of malicious behavior, something that is common in authoritarian cultural environments historically steeped in hazing processes. The abusive ArbCom process clearly never should have been perpetrated, much less turned into a classic and abusive example of hazing, by the ArbCom, given that the process was initiated by, apparently, a newbie who turned the biological psychiatry article into a grossly misrepresentative puff piece. Even the ArbCom acknowledged that the root issue, an npov tag on the article irreverently removed by NHS associated users, was clearly justified. Repeated removal of the biopsych article npov tag might be considered vandalism by NHS associates gravely hindered by conflict of interest issues. Moving comments from an anon (whose IP address seemed to match that of the anon who turned the Andrew Wakefield article into a character assassination hit piece) to the talk page was perfectly reasonable, a matter that you still don't seem to grasp, despite the histrionics over the simple cut and paste error that indicated your evidently admitted departure from WP:AGF. The Wiki is undermined by the type of public stocks actions that you and your NHS cohorts have perpetrated. An apology would be appreciated. Ombudsman (talk) 03:41, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Your advice on a new article

Hi. A few years ago, you were a great help when I wrote my first article about journal_club. At the time, I was very excited to contribute to wikipedia, and by the revolutionary role JournalReview.org was playing in the medical community. My enthusiasm led me to make the mistake of offering external links to this project in a fassion that recently has been interpreted as spam. Although no links have been offered to JournalReview.org in almost two years, in Feb 08 the website was placed directly on the blacklist (bypassing the nomination phase). There are several reasons why I found this action to be overly aggressive, not to mention that there had never been a warning made to me, about the links, or any other method tried to suggest that these links were not appreciated. I offered my perspective and appologized on the blacklist forum to ask for reconsideration, but my request was denied.

Be that as it may, to demonstrate notability of the project, I have started a draft on my talk page of an article specifically about journalreview.org. I recognize that the article will undergo careful scrutiny as it will require a whitelist requests. I wanted to give the article the best chance of success possible, and was hoping that you might offer some feedback if your time allows.

Many thanks, EBMdoc (talk) 16:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)