Jump to content

User talk:Lpritchard: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Line 54: Line 54:
[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|25px]] This is your '''final warning'''. Stop [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalising]] the Talk:Legal medical advisor page or you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy|blocked]] from further editing. -[[User:THB|THB]]
[[Image:Stop hand.svg|left|25px]] This is your '''final warning'''. Stop [[Wikipedia:Vandalism|vandalising]] the Talk:Legal medical advisor page or you will be [[Wikipedia:Blocking_policy|blocked]] from further editing. -[[User:THB|THB]]


We are just learning to use WIKIPEDIA so we cannot defend our point of view on the discussion page of the article that we posted?
So really this user is telling me to shut up about the Legal Medical Advisor edits or i will be blocked.

Revision as of 01:32, 13 December 2006

Email I recieved from Mr. Maurice Frank: All the admins who talk on Wiki-en-l openly admit counting any shred of personal fairness as mattering less than developing Wikipedia as they wish. Blocking of only 1 side when 2 sides have done exactly the same thing that the block is supposed to have been for, is routine. It's what happened to me, and claiming to have any rights against a biased 2-day block actually was the offence that got me permablocked, after only 5 weeks' membership. Look at all these:

a voice from within Wikipedia's own system describes how the ArbCom and dispute resolution systems are rigged with discretionary catch-alls that always enable admin to win http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-June/024230.html on how force of group numbers dictates Wikipedia pages's content http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025936.html this is actually called "don't bother reporting abusive admins" http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025921.html

I was wary of how the umpiring of pages the whole world can fight over could possibly work well, but I was drawn into Wikipedia by a friend who was briefly (and no longer is, already!) having good experiences with sharing his medical concerns on a couple of pages on medical subjects. My Wiki name was Tern, and here are 2 administrators saying to me http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027816.html http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-August/027817.html saying "You are not entitled to anything" and "Wikipedia is not a democracy."

On the nature of Wikipedia: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2005-July/025583.html http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2005/08/322087.html http://spectrum-fairness.blog.co.uk/ tag "Wikipedia"

and a former admin, leaving Wikipedia just recently, on 6 Oct 06: http://mail.wikimedia.org/pipermail/wikien-l/2006-October/054949.html " Too many admins whose first course is to insult a new user in order to see if they get a "reaction" so that they can spank the new user for talking back to an admin. I've seen too many admins block accounts for infinite duration on flimsy evidence or mere whim.

I've seen more accusations thrown around of someone being a "sockpuppet" of another user. Time and again, I looked through the edits, and I didn't see it. Instead, what I saw were users who were systematically hounded until they finally broke down and broke the civility rules, and then as an afterthought someone came up and said "oh, it doesn't matter, they were a sockpuppet of X anyways", thereby removing all culpability on the part of the abusive users who had spent time hounding and abusing the newbie...

The Wiki is broken. ... We, the admins of wikipedia, broke it. We broke it by being stuck-up jerks. We broke it by thinking we are better than normal editors, by getting full of ourselves. " Being a newbie to wikipedia I have found that my welcoming has been outright hostile. With users and admins working together to stop new users from posting articles. I think this project could have been something special although I believe that one day someone will come up with a bigger and better system that does not give so much power to people to bully other users. Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lpritchard"

Legal Medical Advisor Certification ('LMA’) refers to both an individual certification and the LMA professional certification program.

To become an LMA, candidates must complete the LMA certification program and successfully pass the LMA certification exam. LMA certification is open to many different medical professions although college level training including RN degree is a plus in this field.

For detailed information about the requirements and certification curriculum refer to LMA certification site.

LMA certifications costs approximately US$ 295.00. Exams usually take between 1 to 3 hours to complete and consist of between 60-80 multiple choice, drag and drop and true/false questions. Optional packages are available for LMAs that would like to create a website or need help setting up their LMA business.

LMA Business

LMA Demand

Very few legal professionals have an understanding of clinical documents, medical terminology or Health Information Management. A LMA is responsible for articulating complex medical and clinical information to legal professionals. This service is invaluable to legal professionals because it saves much valuable time and resources. LMA services currently charge an average of $100/hr for services.

LMA Service Rates

LMA services currently charge an average of $100/hr for services. Some LMAs charge more for in court testimony.

Criticism

The LMA certification has been criticized for the small business training material included in the certification curriculum. The LMA advisory committee has stated that approximately 80% of certification holders own their own LMA firm and the added business material assists in the start up process. [1]

References

  1. ^ www.legalmedicaladvisor.org

www.legalmedicaladvisor.org* [1]


Thank you for experimenting with the page LMA on Wikipedia. Your test worked, and it has been reverted or removed. Please use the sandbox for any other tests you may want to do. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. -THB 00:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a prime example of user abuse after posting a new edited article that was again deleted without discussion. The article did not contain any links to external pages. Notice the "our" comment lol I think Mr. Frank was on to something. lpritchard

This is your final warning. Stop vandalising the LMA page or you will be blocked from further editing. -THB

Stop abusing new users THB...

This is your final warning. Stop vandalising the Talk:Legal medical advisor page or you will be blocked from further editing. -THB

We are just learning to use WIKIPEDIA so we cannot defend our point of view on the discussion page of the article that we posted?