{{Template:Cardiologytaskforce/invitation}} [[User:Madhero88|Maen. K. A.]] ([[User talk:Madhero88|talk]]) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
{{Template:Cardiologytaskforce/invitation}} [[User:Madhero88|Maen. K. A.]] ([[User talk:Madhero88|talk]]) 23:32, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
== Homeopathy ==
I'm sure you've read the article on Homeopathy - every sentence there is criticised and no defense is being allowed. I'm new here (although I'm not a noob). Can you mediate/arbitrate and make that article more NPOV or at least tell me how to get someone mediate/arbitrate, without getting blocked/banned?. Not even a POV tag is being allowed on the article. Please help!-[[User:NootherIDAvailable|NootherIDAvailable]] ([[User talk:NootherIDAvailable|talk]]) 11:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Hi - that's not how you move pages. You've lost the edit history so it looks like you wrote the entire article from scratch. I've repaired it.
We need to discuss on the talk page whether we should move it or not - and then move it using the tab so that the edit history is kept. Secretlondon 20:50, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Image tagging for Image:IMG 0945.JPG
Allopathic/Osteopathic medicine
With the changes you made, the Allopathic medicine article is now getting to be really about the medicine, more than the term itself - so I don't mind "Allopathic medicine" as the title. I just wanted the allopathic articles to parallel the osteopathic articles. After going through the Osteopathy article, it seems to describe osteopathic medicine just as well as it does non-US osteopathy. Do you think it would be good to rename "Osteopathy" to "Osteopathic medicine"? (The old "Osteopathic medicine" is now "Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine".) With Osteopathy renamed to Osteopathic medicine, all of the articles will actually be accurately described by the titles.
I think a comparison between the various types of medicine is needed, but it should probably have its own article. I don't think the comparison should be solely on the allopathic or osteopathic page. Maybe something like "Comparison of types of medicine"? Also, I'm sure that people from non-physician camps (naturopathic, homeopathic, etc.) would want some representation too. With a comparison/list page, all types of medicine can be added. --Scott Alter 02:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi - I see you have recently created one or more new stub types. As it states at Wikipedia:Stub, at the top of most stub categories, and in many other places on Wikipedia, it is recommended that new stub types are proposed prior to creation at Wikipedia:WikiProject Stub sorting/Proposals, in order to check whether the new stub type is already covered by existing stub types, whether it is named according to stub naming guidelines, whether it is otherwise correctly formatted, whether it reaches the standard threshold for creation of a new stub type, and whether it crosses existing stub type hierarchies. Your new stub type is currently listed at WP:WSS/D - please feel free to make any comments there as to any rationale for this stub type. And please, in future, consider proposing new stub types first! Grutness...wha? 01:51, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello again. Avoid this issue by completing articles before creating. The post in front was made byPopexvi 21:23, 6 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Between us
OsteopathicFreak, I want to apologize for jumping to conclusions about many of your edits. I'm involved in the ArbCom proceedings regarding Parapsychology, which have left me doubting the intentions of people who make contentious edits. (Not to imply that you make any more contentious edits than any of the rest of us - I just came across your new articles before they were able to mature.) I failed to WP:AGF, stemming in part from my frustration during the ArbCom with regards to editors who refuse to be willing to have an open and productive discussion. Because I failed to assume good faith, I apologize. I do want to let you know that, at the very least, I brought the AfD sincerely (believing that its salvageable material could fit into an allo or osteo article), but after combing over it (and seeing your improvements, too) I agree that it will end up being a long and useful article in itself. Regards, Antelantalk 00:12, 12 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
allopathic medicine
I have reverted to the version passed at AfD. The version you had before that would not have passed afd. It's that simple. Do not change back again. I suggest you put the remainder of the other content into an article by its own, or add it to History of the relationship of ... if you think it will be acceptable. DGG (talk) 05:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)
I think the AfD was pretty obvious. Based on a fairly extensive experience at AfD, if you add the content back, & it doesn't get reverted, it will be nominated again, and will not pass, or will pass with a merge to History of ... which will have the effect of a delete. Since I do AGF, I advise you honestly that you will do best to try to keep that one History of article; it will be contentious enough unless it is scrupulously NPOV. DGG (talk) 18:15, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Deal with POV problems there through the usual dispute resolution procedures: discussing it on the talk page, asking for a third opinion, or if needed a request for Comment. I hope there will be no objection to the appropriate addition of well-sourced material, especially if discussed on the talk page first if there is resistance, consider carefully whether you might be adding too much, or adding material that is not really to the point. The goal is to provide information, not advocate. If you do need to use dispute resolution, make sure you do not appear as a zealot. But moving the problem to other pages doesn't really help. Please understand what I have said as a friendly try at helping you best edit the material. 01:08, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
The article is silly and misleading, but you are helping to make it better. Just keep editing out the junk. I don't understand how they can pretend it is not in use in the allopathic world. It's rediculous.Donaldal 05:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I have made, and am going to make some additional edits, and have asked for sources--or better sources-- in a few places. DGG (talk) 19:32, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi OF - I'm sorry.,but I've listed this stub template at WP:SFD. If you'd proposed the template at WP:WSS/P, like I suggested last time, you'd have been told that it would need a far less ambiguous name. Osteo-man-med-stub instantly makes me think we also need an osteo-woman-med-stub! Grutness...wha? 01:46, 23 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know there's no vetting process for any templates other than stubs and userboxes, so feel free to create an infobox for articles. It's probably worth using a similar type of template as a guide, since some form of uniformity is usually desirable in infoboxes, but other than that, go for it! :) Grutness...wha? 00:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd just like to say "Well done" for all the work you put in to it so far. I was researching treatments to allegedly cure homosexuality from the era of my own youth and found that you have a great gap in the timeline. Not my field, I'm afraid, but this was the era of ECT, Lobotomy, Oestrogen, Insulin, Apomorphone, Electric aversion therapy, Castration. There's an awful (literally) lot more to go in when you have time.
I am quite concerned about your introducing multiple duplicative articles such as "allopath" , or non-notable stories that have the term in the title. May I suggest as a friend and as a supporter of fair coverage of all point of view that you instead concentrate of positive articles about osteopathy and notable osteopaths. Thiswill do much more to improve the balance of WP. DGG (talk) 22:00, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
let me give you some advice, then, from someone who is also somewhat of an outsider, on how to work effectively here: 1/don't try too much at once, especially on a single point--it's taken as a sign of someone trying primarily to promote a POV. 2/continue ti build up a reputation for substantial non-controversial contributions--the ones you are doing of presidents of the AMA are good examples, as are the LGBT contributions. 3/don't try to introduce weak articles or even dubious ones. It will be taken as a sign there is not stronger material on the subject. 4/discuss briefly--long defenses of the merits of osteopathic medicine are not to the point. 4/make small changes for balance. Adding large amounts of possibly controversial material without discussion on the talk p. is another sign of possible POV-pushing. 5/Don't accuse WP eds. of bias--it won't help convince them. Just talk about NPOV in a positive sense. If you really encounter WP:OWN on an article, ask for a WP:THIRD opinion. You should however first ask someone trusted if it is likely to succeed.
And some details--Consider adjusting your sig--it should not have links to articles in it, see WP:SIG. and, really a detail, but the qualifier is Joe Smith (physician), not (doctor)--I changed a few. "Doctor" has too many other meanings.
I look forward to working with you in a positive way. I frequently defend & try to source human sexuality articles when they are challenged for deletion. DGG (talk) 23:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Conflict of Interest
From WP:COI: "Those who feel the need to make controversial edits, in spite of a real or perceived conflict of interest, are strongly encouraged to submit proposed edits for review on the article's talk page, or to file a request for comment." You continue adding material to "allopathic" articles, despite your clear conflict of interest as an osteopathic medical student. The burden is on you, as someone who wants to add material, to ensure that it is neutral. Again, I do not understand why you feel that you must push the term "allopathic", and I would appreciate an explanation so we may work towards a compromise. Antelantalk 22:16, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathic
Odd, I usually see it used perjoratively, probably because of the homeopathic origin sending it into alternative medicine, but you make a convincing case that it's an accepted term in osteopathy (which is, of course, a perfectly respectable field), so I guess I should let it stand, at least in osteopathic contexts. Sorry! Mind, Category:Allopathic medicine is a mess for reasons not related to the name, so I think that should go. Adam Cuerdentalk 23:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
*nod* It's actually a bit confusing - some sources seem to be using it to distinguish osteopathy from the other type of evidence-based medicine, others seem to be using it to distinguish evidence-based medicine from alternative medicine. Ah, well. I messed up and I'm sorry.
...And, er, I just realised: I insulted osteopathy by implying it was unorthodox when I used orthodox for "medicine when practiced by an M.D." in an osteopathic/allopathic context. I apologise, since I didn't mean that. My only defense is that I'm somewhat ill and not entirely with it. Adam Cuerdentalk 00:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If I bring our case to the Mediation Committee, will you agree to mediation so we can work towards a resolution? Our case was declined at third opinion since others have already opined. Antelantalk 03:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in the Mediation Committee, buy I am a mediator in real life, can I perhaps help in some way? Daoken 19:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That would be great. OsteopathicFreak, how about you? Thanks, Antelantalk 02:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Where do you two think we should carry out the discussion? Antelantalk 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My first instinct would be one of our talk pages. How does that sound? TU OsteopathicFreakT 04:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC) (usurpation of User:Hopping in progress)[reply]
Sure. How about a subpage within user space (otherwise one of us will get big orange alerts every time someone makes a statement, deletes a comma, etc.). How about User_talk:Antelan/Ante_Oste? Antelantalk 04:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I will meet you both there and we can see how an uninvolved observer can help Daoken 09:30, 20 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
G'day
G'day and welcome to the WP:TORIG. Hope you enjoy our tasks, your input will be very valuable Daoken 19:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mediation
Revising the mediation page I realized that a passage may be missunderstood from your point of view. I don't say that osteopathy came from popular cures, it was in fact developed by a conventional MD, I was trying to make understand that all that was out from mainstream when it became organized or created, claimed participation in the conventional medicine, please don't feel unjusticed in that passage, it was not intentional only anecdotical in general.The point was that the term Medicine was coined by one kind of philosophy, the other philosophies came later and claimed right to the term. I just came here to make that clarification, we may go back to the mediation page later for the main issue Daoken 11:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your messsage. I have not received any comments from your counterpart, I will give my opinion when both have answeredDaoken 05:02, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your message. Just wanted to know why the mediation page waas deleted and if both have given up it Daoken 08:28, 30 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. That was odd, I tried to find the page days ago and couldn't, my mistake, apologies. Daoken 06:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks
Thanks for your neutral input at Talk:Quackwatch. I wholeheartedly agree with your assessment of WP:RS but I am having a hard time expressing that to the other editors there. My feeling is that they simply don't want any criticism at all in the article and are doing anything possible to systematically remove any of it. -- Levine2112discuss 06:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, thanks. While it's tiresome to repeat the same arguments over and over to the same editors, your perspective and questions have produced some good discussion. --Ronz 02:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:TouroLogo3.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. 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 all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 06:08, 11 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:TIMETRACE
Hello, I wonder if you could, while editing diverse articles, check if they have sources in their history or chronology (or when they mention any important date. If they don't, could you please place inline {{Timefact}} calls where those citations to sources are missing, this will display [chronology citation needed].
If you find an article with too many inline calls to place or totally lacking needed history of the subject, you can instead place {{histrefm}} at the footnotes of the article's main page, just before Categories.
If you could add this to your routines, it will most certainly help WP:TIMETRACE. Thank you for your help. Daoken 06:43, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Osteopathic medicine business
I refused the CSD on Osteopathic medicine because the RM of Doctor of Osteopathic medicine was held only recently. However, I agree that the state of the article has major flaws, and lacks the definition what Osteopathic medicine actually is (I'm the first that doesn't know). Alternatively, redirect Osteopathic medicine to Osteopathy, if there's difference. There's also Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine as a possible target. Note that it's all Greek to me, but having 3 articles with similar titles on apparently similar subject is highly confusing.
I suggest that you simply split or reorganize the articles, and you don't need an admin to do that. A good design of scope of each would certainly help the reader. Duja► 11:18, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr Gevitz is somewhat of a reactionary in his views on osteopathic medicine. The vast majority of osteopathic physicians practice identically to allopathic ones, which you must know if you are a physician (which I am). Dr Gevitz advocates a return to OMM as the heart and soul of osteopathic medicine (hardly any DOs practice OMM anymore), and as a historical expert is a believer in osteopathic medicine in the very traditional sense at a time when that form is being rapidly left in the past. This is why I think the quote on ost. med being a "social movement" should be at the very lesat moved to a subsection from the introduction. How it could possibly be considered a social movement is beyond me, and is certainly not explained in the least in the article you cited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.113.87.227 (talk) 21:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You posted outside contact about a blocked editor contacting you about the Barrett articles. I didn't say anything because real life has had me busy but I want to thank you for telling everyone and your honesty about it all. It is very brave to be honest like this. Keep up the good work and happy editing. You have my respect big time with what you said! (if that means anything ;) ) --CrohnieGalTalk 11:51, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The LGBT studies project has been rather quiet of late. Though we've added over 180 new members in the last year, only a small percentage are active participants. If you haven't visited our project or talk page in a while, please stop by for a look. Also, if you happen to bump into another editor who you feel might enjoy working with us, please extend an invitation. There's lot's do do, and the active members would sincerely appreciate some help.
Our Peer review project is struggling at the present, with only a few people reviewing the articles. While it is certainly possible to submit articles for a general peer review, a review by members of the LGBT community can be of additional value for LGBT specific writing. There are several articles currently up for review on a wide range of topics. At the very least, reading the articles will undoubtedly broaden your intellectual horizons :-)
At the moment, David Le Brocq, Malmö Devilants and Trajectory Hermeneutics are up for deletion review. Please take a look at them and make your voice heard at the deletion review. Articles nominated for deletion also present a challenge for improvement. See what you can do, and watchlist our deletion review page.
The Pederasty articles continue to be a point of controversy both within and outside of our community. Various editors have suggested that to include them as LGBT Project related somehow taints the project and brings Wikipedia into disrepute. Other editors have stated that the articles, and especially the Pederasty article, are part of the core of LGBT studies. Well meaning editors continue to remove our tags from the articles themselves as well as the talk pages. If you have time, please read the articles and watchlist them to protect them from vandalism and well meaning but counterproductive edits.
The list of LGBT people has survived its 4th nomination for deletion. Please watchlist this list to protect it from vandalism and unsourced additions. There are many in Wikipedia who would like to see this Featured status list removed from the project. It is up to us to keep it to such a high caliber that it never is removed.
Our project member David Shankbone is now working as a journalist for Wikinews, as well as continuing to improve our project and Wikipedia as a whole with his photographs. A sincere thank you goes out to him for all of his hard work. Wikipedia would not shine nearly as brightly without your contributions, David.
Happy Halloween, everybody! Be happy and celebrate!
The surviving life partner of prominent LGBT rights activist Barbara Gittings recently called one of our editors and, among other things, complimented us on what a great job our project is doing on Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who contributes to this project, either through their article edits or support for other project members. We really are making an difference here!
Member assistance
Some of our project members have been having difficulties related to editing on the encyclopedia. If you are feeling frustrated or distressed by your editing experience, please don't keep it to yourself. Wikipedia is a collaborative effort, and we are all here to help one another. Drop a line on our talkpage or on another editor's page, and other members of the LGBT project will happily give you the support you want and need.
Lastly, Halloween is just around the corner. More than most holidays, Halloween is a holiday embraced by and tailor made to our community (though God only knows why we are invisible in the Halloween article here. Perhaps somebody would like to rectify that editing oversight). Have fun, everybody, and remember to both trick and treat!
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Dev920 know.
This is an automated message from CorenSearchBot. I have performed a web search with the contents of Rocky Vista University College of Osteopathic Medicine, and it appears to include a substantial copy of http://www.rockyvistauniversity.org. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions will be deleted. You may use external websites as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences.
This message was placed automatically, and it is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article and it would be appreciated if you could drop a note on the maintainer's talk page. CorenSearchBot 22:49, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Dr's of Osteopathic=D.O.
I just want to let you know I just started reading [1]. The only knowledge I have is from seeing doctors for my family or me. This sentence "The training of osteopathic physicians is now considered "virtually identical" to that of M.D. physicians." helps non-medical people distinguish the difference between allopathic and osteopathic doctors. I have found in some of the articles here in Wikipedia that the terms are used more often then M.D. and D.O.
As someone who is studying to become a doctor, I just thought if I could mention to you that the use of 'doctorish terms' can sometime make it very difficult to distinguish who is who or what is being said. I am not saying this well but the best example I can show you is the article Crohn's Disease. If you take a peek at the article you will see that it's too medical for the average reader in a lot of the article if not most of it.
Anyways, I just want to say that one sentence early in the article makes it easier to read which kind of Dr. is being written about. I thought that maybe an input from someone like me would help you, and wishfully others, who are in the medical field to try to keep their edits with the thought of the normal patient. Thanks for listening, --CrohnieGalTalk 14:44, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi CrohnieGal. Are you saying that you're more familiar with "DO", or with "osteopathic doctor"? Antelantalk 16:22, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I understood her to say: One sentence, early in the article, helps non-medical people distinguish the difference between allopathic and osteopathic doctors,e.g."The training of osteopathic physicians is now considered "virtually identical" to that of M.D. physicians"User:HoppingT 16:42, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am saying that I know DO better than osteopathic, Antelan. Hopping, I am also saying for that article it help clearify who's who while reading it. I hope I answered your questions.--CrohnieGalTalk 16:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question
On the article Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine under the title of International practice rights there is a sentence "Some countries don’t understand the differences in training between an osteopathic physician and an osteopath."[28]. Now following the wikilinks I think I got confused but I'm not sure. Is an osteopath a chiropractor? I thought an osteopathic physician and an osteopath were the same type of medical care, am I wrong?
So you understand why I am telling you about these things I would like to clarify. Being a simple patient and not involved in medical care knowledge, I do a lot of research. I have been finding other articles that could be informative to me personally of late and this article you are working on seems really good then I get to a part that seems conflicting in information or obscure. I can't edit these articles obviously but I thought I might be helpful in helping articles like this be more friendlier to the average reader. If you prefer me not to help like this you will not hurt my feelings, I am not that easily hurt! :) I just know you have been working these articles a lot and your honesty on another article about emails you were receiving earned my deepest respect. Have a wonderful day!--CrohnieGalTalk 14:30, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Journals
You might be interested in this tool -- select "PubMed ID" from the picklsit, type in a PMID, and click Submit. It provides a string you can paste into Wiki articles, using the cite-journal format. It saves me a lot of time, and it might be of use to you. --Arcadian 19:31, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed this article on Jeffrey Satinover, and the lead strikes me as being askew-from-neutral in its portrayal of homosexuality. I thought you might be interested to have this brought to your attention. I would like to get your judgment, since it looks like you're interested in this topic. Regards, Antelantalk 05:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Invitation
Hello. You may have seen that some Wikipedia articles lack sources to given dates, timelines and chronologies. If you feel that you could like to help in making all articles more reliable and well sourced in this regard, we would like to encourage you to use, as part of your daily editing and when {{fact}} is not enough for requesting clearly and specifically a citation or source for dates, timeline or chronology, the following inline tag:
{{Timefact}} displays {chronology source needed} for requesting timelines, dates and chronology sources. Click here for more information
At WP Timeline Tracer, we thank you for using these tools and for helping to make Wikipedia articles more accurate and reliable.
You listed an article at the Wikipedia Medicine project's list of open tasks some months ago. It's not clear to me whether your concerns have been addressed. Would you please look at the article you listed, and if it has improved, remove it from the list of open tasks? If you still have concerns about the article, please let me know, and I'll see if together we can recruit some assistance with it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pseudoscience discretionary sanctions
Hi! As somebody who commented on a January proposal to place all articles related to homeopathy on article probation, I would greatly appreciate your input on a new proposal to help combat disruption that would scrap the probation and implement discretionary sanctions. I apologize for any intrusion, but this is to my knowledge the first time sanctions of this nature have been attempted to be enforced by the community, so I feel that a wide range of opinions is necessary. Thank you in advance for any comments you may make. east718 (talk) 19:00, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Content
My point in inviting you to correct me was that I believe I have given an accurate description of what happened. That is certainly not an attack by any stretch of policy or guideline. Unless you can point to a place where I was materially incorrect in my description of your activities, no response is necessary. Antelantalk 06:18, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Link to my response, before it was deleted.[2]Bryan HoppingT 07:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We are in a community
Your response did not address the straightforward points that I raised, and instead again resorted to accusing me of personal attacks. If you will withdraw that accusation, I will be content. If you will not, then I will ask the courtesy of explaining why my original explanation of your actions was incorrect. We are not editing articles in a vacuum; this is a community of people. I, for one, am happy to explain to people when they are wrong, so that they may improve themselves. If I am wrong, or even if I am right but you feel that I am wrong, you should do me (and you) the favor of explaining why. Antelantalk 07:01, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Briefly
I'm preparing a longer response that has diffs backing my assertions. In the meantime, you may want to review WP:NPA. The wording there does not support your attempts to portray my actions as attacks. In fact, you may want to consider [NPA:Responding to personal attacks for a better way to respond to real personal attacks in the future. Finally, you made a few points regarding the actual issue at hand - these, I am eager to respond to. Antelantalk 08:11, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Since you insist
My statement that you have called a "personal attack": "For what it's worth, Hopping has pressed very hard for inclusion of the word allopathic across this encyclopedia. Even when I've made various suggestions for substitutions ("MD" being one example), he's been opposed. This term still carries a foul air, despite the fact that it is not exclusively pejorative." [3]
Removing things that are clearly not even about you, we have: "For what it's worth, Hopping has pressed very hard for inclusion of the word allopathic across this encyclopedia. Even when I've made various suggestions for substitutions ("MD" being one example), he's been opposed.".
"Even when I've made various suggestions for substitutions ("MD" being one example), he's been opposed." [7][8][9]
In conclusion: I have used civil language to describe your actions, and these descriptions are backed by evidence. They may not be the only interpretation of your actions, but they are far, far from a personal attack. From WP:NPA "Personal attacks do not include civil language used to describe an editor's actions, and when made without involving their personal character, should not be construed as personal attacks, for instance, stating "Your statement is a personal attack..." is not itself a personal attack."
You are undoubtedly in violation of 3RR with that edit, which is your 4th revert "in whole or in part". I urge you to undo this yourself. Antelantalk 07:56, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I am not debasing myself any further forget it. bye Peter morrell 18:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathy
Hopping, some time in the past 2 weeks, you posted some great modern-day information and references to the word "allopathy" by leading medical institutions as well as governmental agencies. However, I couldn't find that information that you previously posted at, I think, OrangeMarlin's Talk page. Could you post this information at my Talk page? DanaUllmanTalk 04:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! That is truly a powerful body of RS. Based on the article on allopathy, it is disappointing that this article states many times that the term "allopathy" is not accepted by mainstream medicine, and yet, you clearly and powerfully provide a significant body of evidence that shows that this is simply not true. I haven't followed the dialogue and editing at allopathy, but I can only assume that some editors have ganged up against your good, solid RS. Wow, I thought that we had problems at homeopathy. DanaUllmanTalk 04:43, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion requested
Another editor has suggested that the "allopathic" issues be discussed here. I would also ask that you discuss the "censor" tag on the talk page before replacing it. Antelantalk 03:00, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
April 2008
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Doctor of Medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It is not usual to template regulars, but your insistence on placing a censor tag is getting ridiculous. You are at 3RR. Don't go further.
That's not the correct use of the censor tag anyway. It's used for images. Jefffire (talk) 08:58, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathic medicine
I am not sure if you are aware of this, because you seem to be coming from the osteopathic medicine side: All homeopathy-related articles are under "article probation"; this clearly includes the article on allopathic medicine, because "allopathy" was historically the opposite of homeopathy. Outside the US this is still one of its two standard meanings, the other being the opposite of "alternative/complementary medicine". (The latter definition is the one used in a large WHO study, for example.) E.g. on many German pharmacies you can still read: "Homöopathie – Allopathie". Please read about the terms of the probation at Talk:Homeopathy/Article probation. As I read it, it basically means zero tolerance for everything that could be considered even mildly disruptive. In fact, people seem to get blocked for almost nothing in this area.
I am telling you about this because you added the "censor" template to the article's talk page several times. The advice on its use says: "This template should only be used on talk pages for articles prone to editors censoring objectionable content from them and not merely controversial topics." I can see how this can be misunderstood, but it seems pretty clear to me (and apparently to many others as well) that this is only for subjects that a large number of people actually consider to be taboo, such as pictures of Mohammed, sex with dead animals, or the like. --Hans Adler (talk) 10:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Censor tag
Your use of the {{censor}} tag at Talk:Doctor of Medicine is not appropriate. It's intended for matters related to obscenity, not content disputes. Please do not reinsert the tag or give warnings to other editors for (correctly) removing the tag. Raymond Arritt (talk) 14:07, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I will add my voice to the chorus of others here who are telling you to be very careful and cautious about getting into an edit war like you seem to be about this censor tag and similar issues. Do you want to continue to edit WP or not? Well doing what you are doing, you soon will no longer be able to edit. Sorry, but that is just reality. Please try to take a step back and relax.--Filll (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours for disruptive editing at Doctor of Medicine and Allopathic medicine. Several editors and administrators have explained that the {{censor}} tag is not to be used as a weapon in content disputes, yet you persist in using it as such. To contest this block, please reply here on your talk page by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} along with the reason you believe the block is unjustified, or email the blocking administrator or any administrator from this list. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
Not a reason for unblock, per Luna below. — Sandstein (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
I received your email. To reiterate what has already been explained several times, {{censor}} is intended for use only in the context of obscenity and the like (see WP:CENSOR). If you promise not to misuse the tag in the future I will lift the block. Raymond Arritt (talk) 02:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously I can't see the contents of your email to Raymond, only what you've posted here on the wiki, but currently the only response I see on-wiki is "contacted Ramond Arritt," which isn't a full rationale for unblocking. You may wish to further discuss with RA, or elaborate on your response here. – Luna Santin (talk) 19:40, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In reply to your e-mail, I have merely stated that you have not provided an adequate unblock reason. See User:Sandstein/Unblock. I have not examined the merits of your block. Please do not e-mail me your reasons for an unblock. Instead, use them to make another, more specific {{unblock}} request on this page. Sandstein (talk) 21:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathic, Osteopathic, Chiropractic
Hi Bryan,
I see that the article allopathic medicine has produced some heated debate about the validity and notability of the term which many MDs (on Wikipedia as well) judge as perjorative. I'm curious as to why you feel it's so important to include this term not only in the aforementioned article, but other medically (mainstream and CAM) articles. I have spoken to User:Antelan about this briefly and he made some good points too. Although I'm hardly an expert in this particular issue, I can say that there is a sizeable about of chiropractic literature that does use the term 'allopathic' but purely as a synonym for conventional or mainstream (i.e. it carried none of the connotations as originally implied by Hannemahn) and I think that really does need to be conveyed quite strongly especially in the main article. I'd also suggest that if both sides are spinning their wheels on this topic (or a detail thereof) that you bring it to dispute resolution and both sides can present their case and hopefully a compromise can be achieved. I do agree strongly with a point you've raised though, namely editors shouldn't play a CAM vs medicine straw man card. Incidentally, what is your interpretation/opinion of having a scientific, peer-reviewed literature of mainstream medicine trump scientific, peer reviewed literature of a separate and distinct profession such as chiropractic? Is it true that because mainstream medicine is the "bigger" player that it's POV and philosophy and evidence (research) supercedes the mainstream POV, philosophy and evidence (research) of Chiropractic despite the fact that we're editing the article Chiropractic? It's something I'm thinking of bringing up to the appropriate venue myself because I think that is grossly unfair in many terms, morally, intellectually and it completely disregards the concept of cultural relativism. So, in essence, why should medical culture get the final say on chiropractic culture in chiropractic's own article. It should be noted that I'm thinking of the precedent that it sets here, namely that mainstream med's "opinion" and "sources" would ALWAYS overrule the POV of CAM professiosn (regardless of the literature base and best evidence). Under this line of thinking, no CAM profession or even Chinese Medicine (which is the mainstream in China....) would continue to be misrepresented through the lens of a separate, different, and let's face it, competing health profession... I'm very curious to hear your opinions, since as a DO you're kinda right at the crossroads between my profession and allopathic! CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you're not interested in having this conversation. Anyways, best of luck. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I also posted this on my talk page. We share similar goals; produce quality encyclopaedic content and providing our expertise on our respected professions. I want to foster good interdisciplinary relations here; and have in real life (I work at the community health centre with MDs, RNs RDs and OT. I am the NMS doc, and I'm completely respected for my area of expertise. Yet, when I bring that expertise here, a select number of die-hard "skeptic" editors, (I have 3 on the list with a total of about 6-7 who, since Jan 08, have actively engaged in supressing and disrupting my efforts to bring Chiropractic up to snuff. Only, as of late, there has been a certain allopathic editor who wants the allopathic POV to trumps chiropractic POV (POV=science), and has constantly been blocking my efforts at any every turn usually over the smallest of things. And, it's not only me. There's between 4-5 editors who share the same concerns and raise the same points. Which he has never addressed, or addressed well enough that the 5 regular editors. Check this out and, if you have the time, the Appeal to drop effectiveness section. There you will see a perfect example of civil POV pushing. I would appreciate to have the osteopathic input on this here, ultimately I feel the best, and fairest way to get all articles (and especially "controversial" ones like Chiropractic is to have editors, such as yourself, who have demonstrated expertise consistently on a given subject (Osteopathic Medicine). My goal is to provide expertise not only to all chiropractic articles, but to all physical medicine. I just want to get "home turf" cleared out first because it's long overdue . Ultimately, the medical editors here are going to learn, accept and respect the emergence of scientific chiropractors and given the opportunity to be productive (which I can't with all the obstructionism (look here and scars I hope generate some serious discussion about major problems with the project here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 03:55, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathic medicine
Hello Bryan, after I got a vote against my proposal I changed it in two points. I was very happy that you supported the previous version. Can you check whether that's still the case? Thanks. --Hans Adler (talk) 21:17, 23 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't really had time to check this but because I am happy with the current version I see no need to split it into daughter articles. Perhaps it can be more clearly stated exactly what is being proposed as it is simply unclear. thanks Peter morrell 08:43, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, but I do not consider myself sufficiently informed of its uses in the US to make any meaningful comment on this point. Sorry. Peter morrell 17:25, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3rr alert
You risk violating the 3 revert rule if you revert again on "Comparison of ...". Antelantalk 17:33, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm restoring all our recent edits to the last version by Hans Alder. Let's start from there and move forward.
This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).
reason — 3RR-edit warring applies to everyone and Wikipedia policy strongly discourages it It's best when one gets so involved to go and edit something else that they do not feel so strongly about, or simply take a break . — Ѕandahl 20:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.
Lake Erie
Instead of "& Seton Hill", what do you think of "at Seton Hill" on the "list of medical schools" until the new school is formally named? Antelantalk 05:11, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds great. I'm not sure what the new school will be called. But I like your solution. Bryan HoppingT 17:56, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathic Medicine (again)
I really agree with your statement "The contradiction seems to lie in the American DOs' idea of themselves and their position in relation to the rest. I have suggested before that there are elements of self-hatred and cultural cringe involved."
You can see this played out in the very robust debate seen within the osteopathic physician community today, as in this recent publication discussing eliminating the MD/DO split in the US altogether, which is hardly a new idea.
Though I agree with your analysis, I don't see an easy way to represent these elements (self-hatred and cultural cringe) into any specific article, without violating WP:OR. I don't agree however, that these facts obviate the need to eliminate the term "allopathic" from Wikipedia. We are not resurrecting an outdated term, the term is in active usage in the US.
I am not proposing that we should eliminate "allopathic," and merely assert that it is being grossly overused. It is perhaps not coincidental that this term has become more prominent at a time when integation versus separation has become a live issue in American medicine. Regarding the debate within the American DO community, it will no doubt take place mainly in the osteopathic journals and their on-line counterparts, and I doubt very much whether anything would be gained by encouraging everybody and his uncle to contribute their two cents-worth in a forum such as Wikipedia. NRPanikker (talk) 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A tag has been placed on Frank Chapman (physician) requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section A1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because it is a very short article providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. Also please note that articles must be on notable subjects and should provide references to reliable sources that verify their content.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Lastly, please note that if the article does get deleted, you can contact one of these admins to request that a copy be emailed to you. Legosock(talk) 19:19, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed this term from several pages where I think it is inappropriate. This term is poorly understood, and has several meanings, including derogatory ones. I have replaced the term with MD or other, well understood and unambiguous, words where appropriate. I had no expectation that this would be controversial, and I'm sure they are good changes that the community will approve of. Allopathic should appear where appropriate (homeopathy, allopathic medicine, etc), but not in any article where links to MD or similar are more specific, while capturing the entire intended meaning, without the derogatory overtones. The term allopathic fails for many reasons. If you feel it should be included in any specific article (and I agree it should in some), don't just blindly revert or add it in - justify it on the talk first. --68.46.109.163 (talk) 20:47, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Pie charts and allopathy
I have seen that you have produced a few pie charts and such for certain wikipedia articles. Although these are generally good, they have some problems. Firstly, some are unreadable at the thumbnail sizes you have specified. It would be a lot better if you could fix this. Secondly, many of them use the term "allopathic" which is incorrect in many countries and even in US articles has many meanings, and can be replaced by better, more accurate, and less controversial terms. Thirdly, some of them seems of questionable value, as they do not integrate greatly with the text. This could be fixed by discussion on the relevant talk page and by referring to the figures in the main text. Also, be aware that on several pages they are breaking the flow of the text, which makes the article very hard to read. The term allopathy should obviously not appear in figures of articles that don't use the term, and also where it is in appropriate for reasons discussed above and on the talk pages of those articles. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.75.91.18 (talk) 17:09, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! So, I see that in the past few days someone, I'll assume you, has started a mission to remove all instances of the word "allopathic" from Wikipedia. I'll hope you'll sign in and register, to facilitate a meaningful dialog. Otherwise, I don't know how we're going to have a conversation, let alone reach a consensus. Bryan HoppingT 18:47, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bryan, you are (again) reversing what is happening all over Wikipedia. It is YOU who have been pushing the term and not the other way around (others deleting it). They are just counteracting your improper pushing of the term. Your "perseveration" on this matter seems quite pathological: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results." - Einstein. Please stop it. -- Fyslee / talk 19:12, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the spirit of WP:COMMONNAME, let's look at some dictionary definitions of allopathy.[10] They imply a meaning radically different from the technical definition of allopathy you guys are referring to here -- in fact, these dictionary definitions would allow for a DO as an allopath! This is an open invitation to confusion. Why not simply contrast MD with DO and be done with it? It's not helpful to use terminology that the average reader is very likely to misunderstand when clearer terminology is readily available. (FWIW a close family member has a DO as her PCP, but I go to an MD. No family strife has resulted.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm the originator of this thread. I've made an account now, and I agree with the commentators above. Also, your claim is patently false - the word allopathic is still used in it's correct context on relevant articles (homeopathy,allopathy,etc). If you feel it should be included in an article, raise it on that article's talk page, with your justifications. Changes to articles should be discussed on the relevant talk pages, and consensus built before controversial edits (such as adding controversial terms, rather than replacing them with uncontroversial terms that have the correct meaning). I wont act against wikipedia consensus, or the relevant policies (such as NPOV, WEIGHT, FRINGE, UNDUE, etc). I have to say you appear to be the one pushing controversial edits, and you seem to be in a minority. As has been pointed out, allopathic is a very poorly defined word - it can even include DOs which you claim it is a differentiator for. It is clearly a controversial term, as this very discussion illustrates. It is not in common use in the way you imply, and your downplaying of the negative aspect of this word goes against WP policy, in my view. I wouldn't be at all surprised if Comparison_of_MD_and_DO_in_the_United_States#Usage_of_the_term_.22allopathic_medicine.22 were to change after it is reviewed by more editors - it does seem to break OR and WEIGHT to me. --SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 19:55, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comparison of MD and DO in the United States: Removing sections
Hi, Although I agree with your reasoning, perhaps you should leave a not on the talk page explaining why you are removing sections. It would be best maybe if you did this first to see if anyone else had some view on the matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.206.210.170 (talk) 18:49, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Allopathic (disambiguation)
Hopping, could you please undo your last edit to the "Allopathic (disambiguation)" page. As a redirect it shouldn't have any other contents. It might be best if you were to speedy-delete it though, as a redirect already exists at "Allopathic". SesquipedalianVerbiage (talk) 17:25, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, members and friends of WP:LGBT! I'm not one to be writing newsletters, but I miss our cruise director, Miss Julie, and our project is drifting along with a few leaking plugs in the bottom of the boat. Hey, it happens. Every group we join goes through changes. If Wikipedia weren't so interesting it wouldn't also be so frustrating sometimes. And vice versa. More than one Wikiproject has tumbleweeds blowing through it, but this is one that can't afford to let that happen. Even if you pop in to the talk page of the project, you can let us know you're still around.
WP:LGBT's Role in HIV / AIDS articles
It wouldn't be a proper gay community without a li'l bit o' drama! That's right. If we aren't arguing about something, then we should be asking if we're still queer. Maybe that's for the best, since we know we're still kicking. Our most recent topic is how far the role of our project should go in dipping our toes into HIV/AIDS articles. The main AIDS article was delisted as a Featured Article last month, sadly. (Sending a swift kick to WP:Medicine.) A spirited discussion is available for your entertainment on the WP:LGBT talk page about just how much of HIV and AIDS should we take on. As ever, we'll take your opinions under advisement. We're going to have to, because it doesn't seem to have been settled.
Is Pride POV?
We have a pretty cool sidebar that identifies core LGBT articles. Its symbol is the iconic gay pride flag, much like other Wikiprojects have iconic symbols denoting the topic is a core subject in a series of articles. However, a question recently arose asking if the symbol itself is not neutral. Should a pride flag show up at the top of the article on Conversion therapy? How else would anyone know the article is about queer issues? Is there another symbol that is as widely recognized and that includes all our many splintered facets? At what point do we stop asking ourselves all these questions and just go have a mint julep on the verandah and stop caring?
For the love of all that is holy, no Kool Aid jokes. However, an editor involved in pioneering San Francisco Supervisor Harvey Milk's article has included a section about the late supervisor's support of Jim Jones and the People's Temple. While it may be accurate, there is a Request for Comment regarding how much emphasis the section places on Milk's support in light of his overall political influence on the city, and indeed the rest of the United States. Milk's article is a sad one in more ways than one. It lacks the detail and heart that honors its subject. Anyone want to do a barter with me? I'll bring Harvey Milk to featured status (give me a month or two so I can read stuff), if you do something of equal value to WP:LGBT?? Make me an offer...
Queer Studies is offensive!
The established branch of study known as Queer studies was brought up as an category for deletion because an editor was offended by the use of "queer" in the title. It was overwhelmingly rejected mostly by the usernames I see here on our Wikiproject page. (A clue that I know you are out there, hiding...biding your time...) So, I wish I could congratulate you, but now I'm all confused by my sympathy for the editor who was offended. So, if you're reading this, Moni has a short memory and can't remember your username. Don't be put off by our demonstrative pushiness. Join us. We can always use involved editors.
What can you do to help the project out? Be a wiki-fairy, on many levels. There are all kinds of articles that need help. Why, just this morning I removed those ugly wikify and cleanup tags from four articles at random. If you can put [[ ]] around stuff, you can clean up articles. There's a list of articles that need attention at the top of the WP:LGBT talk page. Or you can start with the Lambda Literary Awards, where the goddess of my altar received a pioneering award, and was "reduced to rubble" by Katherine V. Forrest's wonderful speech. The 20th ceremony of the Lambda Literary Awards, which celebrates LGBT literature, took place in West Hollywood on May 29th [11]. The page needs to be updated with the new winners, to be found on the official website [12].
Why on earth would someone want to delete material about homosexuality? 'Tis truly a mystery. But these embattled articles have some random evil gnomes removing information that places these folks under our queer umbrella. Help us keep an eye out for the deletions. Take a peek at the articles, familiarize yourselves with the info, and be handy with the undo function in the article history. If tempers flare, take it to the Hall monitors and let them sort it out. Best solution is to make sure your sources are immaculate.
This month's Wiki stars
This is what I get for opening my big fat mouth and suggesting the newsletter should be revived. Here I am writing it. So, to pat self on back (*cough*) Mulholland Dr. became a featured article in May. This is A Good Thing since it is my personal declaration that there is no such thing as lesbian porn. I don't care what Benjiboi says about the video collection at goodvibes. Instead, we have hot women who connect on a deep, personal, soul-touching level, so this film should qualify as some of the skankiest porn available for lesbians. Plus, it's completely confusing and surreal! D'you think Laura Harring would care that the article is featured? I don't think so either... (Call me, Laura!)
Compulsive hoarding of templates
Once I saw a harrowing episode of Animal Planet's Animal Cops where this guy had, like, 250 cats in his house and it freaked me right out. I'm drawing a parallel between 250 cats and, well...three, really, templates in articles involving LGBT issues. Can we stick to one, maybe? In the aforementioned Harvey Milk's article there's a core LGBT template, a link to the LGBT portal, and a sidebar for LGBT rights. Jiminy! You'd think we weren't the folk to set industrial grey carpeting and track lighting in vogue. An LGBT footer was designed to link to articles of interest that aren't the aforementioned core articles. What do you think, can we have either an LGBT template for core articles, a footer for LGBT articles that are high profile but not core, or an LGBT rights template? As ever, anything's up for discussion on the WP:LGBT talk page.
It's June, Pride month. Wear sunscreen, stay hydrated, get a designated driver, then go half-dressed in the streets find a girlfriend or boyfriend, or some homo who's standing there looking lonely and kiss 'em up real good. Remember, it all started 39 years ago when a bunch of drag queens just got fed the f*ck up by the cops raiding the bar and dragging them all out to the pokey again. Rock on, queens! Enjoy your celebrations. My town's is in October, and 200 people attend. I miss Denver.
It looks like we've picked up a lot of talent lately. We have no doubt you'll be making your indelible mark on LGBT knowledge as we know it, here at Wikipedia.
In the immortal words of Miss Julie, "May all your Wiki days be bright, and may your Love Boat never turn into a Poseidon."
We miss you, Miss Julie, as well as all the others who have graced our project and are on wiki-breaks or just got fed up with all the nuttiness and went to live their lives. Get your stupid houses built and hurry up and come back. --Moni3 (talk) 16:52, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
This newsletter was delivered by §hepBot around 16:02, 11 June 2008 (UTC). ShepBot (talk) 16:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know it exists. That's about it. I think it would be great to have an article on it. Are you sure the exact name? And we need sources. Bryan HoppingT 14:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I just saw it as a redlink, so I'm completely useless. I'm guessing it isn't a medical school, but a board of specialists. Phlegm Rooster (talk) 03:18, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
An unfortunate effect of a group less active than in the past is that our articles lose integrity. This one is at Good Article Review for that reason. The talk page is quite active as a result. You have the opportunity to help. This is the corest of our core articles, and it needs some attention because it gets a lot of controversial input from many sides. If you can spare any time to edit the article, please do what you can.
Soon after we were informed that Homosexuality is being scrutinized, we heard the same for one of our few Featured Articles. As a participant of the Featured Article process, I think this is actually a good thing. The standards for Featured Articles are getting higher with time. But as a member of this project, that means that a few of ours may be de-listed unless someone can swoop in and save them. This one has to do with the designation of homosexuality as a crime in Germany. Most of this article's sources are in German. If anyone has any particular skill in this area, please lend a hand!
I know you folks think I have much experience in a gay bathhouse, and I hate to disappoint you, but I actually do not. I seem like the sort of person who likes to stroll about in a towel. Shocking, no? It appears that Ashleyvh is single-handedly addressing all the problems with this article at its GA Review. While that's pretty impressive, it's also no doubt exhausting. Can anyone help out there?
In what I hope will counter the jolt of re-evaluating three Good or Featured Articles, José Sarria and Janet Jackson as gay icon passed as Good Articles, and Black Cat Bar (famous San Francisco oft-raided gay bar) is nominated, all by Otto4711. Rock on, man. You're a machine. Good luck with your nominations. What is it about women that make them gay icons? And are there lesbian icons that aren't lesbians? How about bisexual icons? Am I the only lesbian who reacts with soul-trembling fear at the sight of Angelina Jolie?
New WP:LGBT studies member Pinkkeith has done this cool thing. If you click on that link, you'll see all the articles, categories, templates, and miscellany up for deletion. They're usually there because they're not considered to be not notable. That can be a relative concept, and sometimes it has to be argued that topics pertaining to gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender issues are notable.
It seems a recurring issue which articles to tag, and what to say about a topic that's tagged. Certainly, because an article falls under our scope doesn't necessarily make the person gay. Florida Governor Charlie Crist has been rumored to be gay in some newspaper accounts. Although we all know Fred Phelps is supergay, he won't admit it so instead he does the absolutely awfulest anti-gay things on the planet to deflect suspicion. NAMBLA, the red headed stepchild of the LGBT world, is tagged with an explanation we have yet to decide if we'll keep.
In the lurking I do around and about on Wiki, I've long been astounded at the forbearance Benjiboi has for the utterly insane. Perhaps not so much, since the message on Benji's talk page notes frequent absences due to homophobia and transphobia. But it takes some kind of ... something that I don't have to face the constant anti-gay POV Benji does.
Benjiboi is a a bit of a WikiFaerie, a WikiGnome and also a member of the Article Rescue Squadron in addition to being a LGBT project member. A few of Benjiboi's favorite links for making the wikiverse more fab are:
Becksguy didn’t start actively editing until May 2007. His most frequent tasks on Wiki include reverting vandalism to LGBT articles and creating new project-related articles. He comes from New York state, and to prove not all of us are teenagers (ha! I am so totally 15!) he's in his 60s and retired.
Becksguy considers his biggest triumph on Wikipedia so far was a DYK in December 2007 for the first-ever newspaper report on what became AIDS, in the New York Native. He's also helped save several project-related articles from deletion. His lowest moment here was getting involved in the discussion on a particular terrorism related article, thinking he could help calm the roiled waters on an extremely contentious subject with multiple edit wars and passionate editors.
Here at WP:LGBT, he creates and improves articles that present notable LGBT related subjects in a fair and balanced way, and tries to include more of the significant alternative sexuality related subjects without being an activist, and works to better source project-related articles.
On Wikipedia as a whole, he says, "I think we need to learn better what processes work for a massive collaborative project. Some of what worked well for a more informal small project doesn’t scale up well. Process is not as important when the participants know each other. We need to get more of the current members to be more active. If more members were energized, the project would be able to accomplish more. We should be, in effect, the smaller and included Wikipedia for LGBT related subjects. Overall, I wish we could focus more on content creation and improvement, and less on vandal fighting."
"A Supreme Court decision in 1958 reversed a 1956 ruling by a federal district court that U.S. postal authorities were correct in prohibiting the mailing of the Mattachine Society's ONE magazine. The lower court had ruled that ONE was not protected by the First Amendment because the magazine's contents 'may be vulgar, offensive, and indecent even though not regarded as such by a particular group ... because their own social or moral standards are far below those of the general community ... Social standards are fixed by and for the great majority and not by and for a hardened or weakened minority.'" - Michael Bronski in Pulp Friction, 2003
Thanks for being weak and having lowered standards with me. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
Newsletter delivery by xenobot 13:02, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please advise on utility to create your color-coded maps
To OsteopathicFreak: I am very impressed by the simple, color-coded maps that you have created (for example, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Osteopathic_distribution_US2.PNG). Can you please advise which program you used to create these? (I am new to Wikipedia, so forgive me if this is common knowledge...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.252.156.128 (talk) 01:09, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. You can use any program you want, including the "Paint" application that comes with windows. You can download any map you like (like the one you pointed out, or this one here) and simply color in the states as you please using the "Fill with color" tool in Paint. You might have to zoom in to get the smaller states. The white boarders between the states makes it easy to fill an individual state with the color you want. There are many more "blank maps" available on Wikipedia Wikipedia:Blank_maps#PNG_format_2 here. Hope this helps. Bryan HoppingT 03:43, 13 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Survey request
Hi,
I need your help. I am working on a research project at Boston College, studying creation of medical information on Wikipedia. You are being contacted, because you have been identified as an important contributor to one or more articles.
Would you will be willing to answer a few questions about your experience? We've done considerable background research, but we would also like to gather the insight of the actual editors. Details about the project can be found at the user page of the project leader, geraldckane. Survey questions can be found at geraldckane/medsurvey. Your privacy and confidentiality will be strictly protected!
The questions should only take a few minutes. I hope you will be willing to complete the survey, as we do value your insight. Please do not hesitate to contact me or Professor Kane if you have any questions.
As the title says, some of the text does have issues. —— nixeagle 17:31, 7 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Image copyright problem with Image:TouroULogo.PNG
Thanks for uploading Image:TouroULogo.PNG. You've indicated that the image is being used under a claim of fair use, but you have not provided an adequate explanation for why it meets Wikipedia's requirements for such images. In particular, for each page the image is used on, the image must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Can you please check
That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for each article the image is used in.
That every article it is used on is linked to from its description page.
I'm not very familiar with this issue, but I think the problem that your rationale says Touro University and the article name is Touro University California. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:23, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Wake up WP:LGBT! It's time to kick in gear and get some things done!
Project News
Wake up!
I say this to myself as much as I say it to all of us. I work a lot by myself or with individual editors who spend time at Featured Article Candidates. It seems on November 5 a fog was lifted off my brain that helped me realize that we have massive potential in this project to get things done. Take this allegory, for instance: On Wednesday, Nov. 5, 1980, my 10th-grade American history teacher started class by unfurling The New York Times. She pointed to its triple banner headline: “Reagan Easily Beats Carter; Republicans Gain in Congress; D’Amato and Dodd are Victors.” “Save this paper,” she told us. “This is the start of a whole new era.”Judith Warner from The New York Times
It definitely seems a start to a whole new era now. If planets align correctly to remind us that whatever advances we may have made in electing what appears to be an extraordinary president in the US, the moons that revolve around those planets also serve to illustrate it's not that simple. Florida, Arizona, and California all appear to have banned same sex marriage. As someone who was married in California and lives in Florida, this is particularly poignant. We seem to be at the juncture of two converging paths. If we maximize our efforts and take the right ones, we might just be able to affect some change for ourselves.
Though what we do is an interesting hobby for some, we have the power to make a difference. California's ballot initiative to ban gay marriage was a fierce fight. It's being challenged right now, but just look at how Wikipedia played a role in that: in October 2008, 360,238 people read its article. On November 5, an astounding 467,000 people read it. I commend the editors who work on that article—both those who support and oppose it. A look at the talk page shows a concerted effort to keep it civil and accurate.
What can we do?
How do you fight ignorance? With information. That's what Wikipedia is for. This project is overwhelming with 8,576 articles in its scope. We can continue to work piecemeal as we have in the past, or we can focus on goals. These are examples of areas we can concentrate on.
Current political events
LGBT Media and Literature
LGBT History
Sex and sexuality
Articles about political issues in the US and around the world that have been especially relevant within the past 5 years
Depictions of LGBT people and issues on television, film, newspapers, magazines
Topics about gay rights activism and the opposition to it
There are more than 8,000 articles to work on. Can we build a list of priorities? Can we build enough enthusiasm to work on these? What if we had editors who oversaw progress in these areas and reported to the talk page or in the newsletter? Surely someone here wants to report on the progress of sex articles.
Tony Perkins (irony) from the conservative Family Research Councilwas heartened by the recent passages of gay marriage bans. The Republican Party is without direction. What's going to take the place of a moderate voice will not be pleasant to our ears. Watching and improving articles of subjects that have opposed gay rights in the past will be of vital importance very soon, I predict.
But WP:LGBT is not a very active project
All we can do is start somewhere. The first step is answering this newsletter on the project talk page. Join in the discussion.
More things we can do
Give out more barnstars, and let each other know that what they're doing is valued.
Create a guide to stave off burnout, because editors in this project get burned out faster than others. There are many hills to climb.
Bring back the monthly collaboration project.
Participate in LGBT Peer reviews.
Get familiar with the characteristics of Good Articles and get our top priority articles to WP:GA.
Use the Newsletter, Moni3! You can suggest what to send out in the newsletter, too!
Offer research materials, copy editing, ideas, and support to your fellow editors.
Keep the project talk page informed of problems and discussions we should know about.
Proposal: Put Importance Levels on articles
If this was decided long before I was a member, maybe it's time to revisit it. Other WikiProjects, such as WP:Novels determine that some subjects have an importance category: Top, High, Mid, Low, or None (undetermined). If we decide that our most core articles, it might help to organize which articles to address first. Top importance, for example, would be Gay, Homosexual, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender, Sappho, Oscar Wilde, Stonewall riots, for example. High importance would be Homosexuality and psychology, Harvey Milk, Mattachine Society, Harry Hay, or Daughters of Bilitis, and so on. This can be a matter of discussion, or perhaps we could have someone in charge of determining these levels for all the articles we have tagged.
These are the editors I've seen working (and I know I'm forgetting a few). There's more of you out there I haven't seen. Some of you are new. We need all of you. Please help.
Miami, January 18, 1977 after the gay rights ordinance was passed: While Bryant and the others were creating the beginnings of the repeal effort, (gay activists) Basker, Campbell, Kunst, and the other (gay rights) ordinance supporters congratulated themselves on their success and then quickly disbanded... There was no organized recognition or celebration of the victory. As one activist remembered, "We just went home." They had little idea of the battle that was before them. - Fred Fejes in Gay Rights and Moral Panic, 2008
Don't go home yet, please. --Moni3 (talk) 00:10, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To stop receiving this newsletter, or to receive it in a different format, please let us know here. If you have any news or any announcements to be broadcast, do let Moni3 know.
This newsletter was sent by §hepBot (Disable) at 21:10, 12 November 2008 (UTC) by the request of Moni3 (talk)[reply]
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Fifth Pathway, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Fifth Pathway is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles.
To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Fifth Pathway, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click hereCSDWarnBot (talk) 03:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed deletion of List of osteopathic colleges
A proposed deletion template has been added to the article List of osteopathic colleges, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process because of the following concern:
No entries with their own articles. Previously just a linkfarm.
All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice should explain why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page.
Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised because, even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. --Ronz (talk) 18:32, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we found a good solution. --Ronz (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The sentence is a bit obscure for those like me who are not familiar with making such a clear distinction between "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine", but on a second reading it seems quite clear. The statement is very plausible, but it would be nice to have a source for it. --Hans Adler (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know the difference, but it's not going to be clear for most readers, especially since there is no real distinction in the literature, the terminology being what it is. "Osteopathy" (when used in the USA) usually refers to "Osteropathic medicine", so saying that there are "no schools of osteopathy in the United States" isn't really accurate. Basically there haven't been any "Osteopathic" schools for a long time, since they have all converted to being "Osteopathic medicine" schools, but still retain the term "osteopathy". That transition needs to come across loud and clear. -- Fyslee (talk) 14:43, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand and share your confusion. I added one reference from the AOA, though I'm not sure if that fully supports the statement. However, it is a true statement. There are in fact no schools of osteopathy in the United States. I think its very important to make it clear, osteopathy outside US and osteopathic medicine in the US are so different as to be nearly unrelated at this point. (In fact, they have a very acrimonious relationship.) That lack of clarity has ruined the Osteopathy article, and created many edit wars. By moving all the US content to "Osteo med in the US," perhaps the Osteopathy article can finally improve. Thoughts? Bryan HoppingT 15:20, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that something needs to be done to clear up the confusion. Part of the problem is that RS aren't very clear about the distinction. The sentence in question does need to be tweaked to avoid confusion. Here's a try:
"There are currently no schools of osteopathy in the United States, since all the osteopathic schools have been transformed into schools of osteopathic medicine."
You're welcome to try your hand at it, but something needs to be done. -- Fyslee (talk) 04:31, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sure you've read the article on Homeopathy - every sentence there is criticised and no defense is being allowed. I'm new here (although I'm not a noob). Can you mediate/arbitrate and make that article more NPOV or at least tell me how to get someone mediate/arbitrate, without getting blocked/banned?. Not even a POV tag is being allowed on the article. Please help!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for uploading Image:TouroLogo3.PNG. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Talk:Doctor of Medicine. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. It is not usual to template regulars, but your insistence on placing a censor tag is getting ridiculous. You are at 3RR. Don't go further.
