User talk:Ombudsman/Archive04

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Please do not edit or post replies to this page, it is an ARCHIVE. This archive page covers the dates between January 1, 2007, and December 31, 2007.

Please post replies to the current main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to, as necessary. Thanks. Ombudsman (talk) 00:53, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous discussions: Archive 1 (February 26, 2005, to December 31, 2005), Archive 2 (January 1, 2006, to June 30, 2006), Archive 3 (July 1, 2006, to December 31, 2006)


Contents

Poor Breggin article![edit]

Hi Ombudsman!

I hope everything is going on well with you since our last communication.

I’ve just written in Peter Breggin’s edit summary: “Scuro’s copyedits are extreme POV! Article badly requires a tag (BTW, Barlett’s web cite is NOT a reliable source)”.

Perhaps you may want to take a look at the incredibly POV insertions of a new editor in that article. (I just wrote a similar letter to Anarchist42.) I no longer have Breggin in my Watchlist (I’m overwhelmed in real-life work). Do you have an idea which editor could be willing to watch that article?

--Cesar Tort 03:40, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

List of Articles Related to Quackery[edit]

Care to weigh in here? Always interested in your side of things... [1] Levine2112 00:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

This vote has changed locations and the page title has changed. Care to weigh in here? Levine2112 21:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

AfD Nomination: Pilots for 9/11 Truth[edit]

An editor has nominated the article Pilots for 9/11 Truth for deletion, under the Articles for deletion process. We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the nomination (also see What Wikipedia is not and Deletion policy). Your opinions on why the topic of the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome: participate in the discussion by editing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pilots for 9/11 Truth. Add four tildes like this ˜˜˜˜ to sign your comments. You can also edit the article Pilots for 9/11 Truth during the discussion, but do not remove the "Articles for Deletion" template (the box at the top of the article), this will not end the deletion debate. Jayden54Bot 17:17, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Rating the ToK[edit]

Hi. I'm trying to get members of the Psychology Project to get together and rate the both the quality and importance of the Tree of Knowledge System, along with discussing ways to improve the article. Hope you're interested. Have a great day! EPM 14:50, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric Survivors Movement[edit]

You recently reverted a merge of this page into Consumer/Survivor/Ex-patient Movement, with no discussion and only an edit comment to explain. The merge suggestion tag had been on the page since December (with a brief interlude when it was replaced with an outright deletion tag) and the rationale for the merge had been clarified on the talk page, with other suggestions or objections requested, several times since then, before anything was done. No objections or alternative suggestions were raised, by you or anyone else. Therefore, your reversion of this careful work feels quite offensive, and against Wikipedia guidelines. I would like to discuss and establish a consensus - please would you engage in discussion on the article's talk page? I'm going to clarify further the rationale for the merge there. EverSince 10:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric survivors movement[edit]

If you look in the history of the page you reverted you will see there was a merge discussion, so your rv may not have been exactly proper. Vees 19:23, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Also, that is by no means a minor edit. Vees 19:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

David Ayoub[edit]

Before we get deeper into what could quickly turn into an edit war, let's discuss the section that you find problematic on the talk page of the article. Maybe we can make it better, so it doesn't appear like a personal attack to you. Oh, and please don't make the section headlines haliographic. They are descriptive as they are, and NPOV. --Kristjan Wager 08:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies[edit]

Seeing that you are an active member of the WikiBiography Project, I was wondering if you would help lend a hand in helping us clear out the amount of [unassessed articles] tagged with {{WPBiography}}. Many of them are of stub and start class, but a few are of B or A caliber. Getting a simple assessment rating can help us start moving many of these biographies to a higher quality article. Thank you! --Ozgod 21:40, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter[edit]

The March 2007 issue of the Biography WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you. Mocko13 21:57, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Request for peer review[edit]

The article Clinical psychology has just been listed for peer review. You are invited to lend your editing eyes to see if it needs any modifications, great or small, before it is submitted to the Featured Article review. Then head on over to the peer review page and add your comments, if you are so inspired. Thank you!! Psykhosis 20:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Jonathan's Law[edit]

Please note that the initial article has been deleted per WP:BLP, as there was a clear statement that death had been caused by negligence or worse and this was not referenced. Please do not reinstate it unless it has cast iron references. Tyrenius 03:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The edit history is on the talk page, which will suffice for GFDL purposes. If you have any further issues with this article, you can join in the discussion on AN/I.[2] Please do not reinstate the deleted material unless you can provide proper substantiation. Tyrenius 04:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

As I've said, please discuss on AN/I per link above. You need inline citations. I have left a guide to this, but you have deleted it with the edit summary of vandal. Tyrenius 06:18, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for providing the cut and paste, but please understand that does not suffice; failure to restore the missing edits prevents examination of the actual edits, which need to be available to ensure the transparency of evidence essential for removing any hint of mystery about the errors that caused the article to be mistakenly deleted -- even though the sources were so plainly evident in the original post. As well, the disappearance of the intermediate edits gives the appearance of possible cloaking. As for your odd reiteration about citations, application of WP:BLP seems irrelevant, since Jonathan has met a premature demise, and the entity that evidently hastened his death is only a 'person' in a strictly legal sense (due to dubious court decision that created such a thing as corporate personhood). Beyond the stretch of the imagination that you are asking for, inline cites certainly can be useful, especially when requested for particular points; it is often surprising to find out what others seek in terms of citations (all too often these are instances of graffitti or vandalism), but the almost mind bending stretch you have asked about --with the benefit of hindsight-- never came to mind. On the other hand, your hasty deletion of the article and edit history has created a mystery about whether or not the sources were provided initially, since currently that evidence has disappeared down the memory hole. Your canned citation template was apparently well meaning, but somewhat superfluous, except for its relation to the now-mysterious edits that took place over on the Jonathan's Law page -- edits that are now cloaked. Since your actual remarks were retained, and an explanation has been provided above, it should be plenty clear enough that the edit summary in fact referred to an ongoing problem with an editor who wore out his welcome here on this page a very long time ago; just as clearly, the summary was not a reference to your actual comment, which was in fact retained. After dozens of similar incidents on this page, the ongoing problem referenced by the summary still has not died down. The exact relationship --between the missing edits on the Jonathan's Law article and that ongoing problem-- has in fact disappeared down the memory hole, but hopefully just temporarily. Until that edit history is restored, the exact nature of that relationship will remain a mystery. Thank you in advance for correcting the problem promptly. Ombudsman 01:35, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL[edit]

Please do not leave edit summaries calling good faith edits vandalism. [3] Tyrenius 04:30, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Midgley has been told numerous times he is not welcome here, and has been asked repeatedly to desist vandalizing this page. There is no need to put up with edits that lack any clear inclination toward civility. Ombudsman 05:02, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Your username[edit]

Hi Ombudsman. This is a courtesy note to tell you that your username has been brought up at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User names. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with the username policy. -- zzuuzz(talk) 16:03, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Username discussion[edit]

RFC discussion of your username (Ombudsman)[edit]

Hello, Ombudsman, and thank you for contributing to Wikipedia! Wikipedia has a policy on what usernames editors can use. Unfortunately, concerns have been raised that your username may be incompatible with that policy. You can contribute to the discussion about it here. Alternatively, if you agree that your username may be problematic and are willing to change it, it is possible for you to keep your present contributions history under a new name. Simply request a new name here following the guidelines on that page, rather than creating a whole new account. Thank you. -- Ryanpostlethwaite 19:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Please don't template the regulars. I'm sure Ombudsman knows about the process. Wooty 19:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
Nothing wrong with templating the regulars, it is important to notify people of the discussion. The discussion has ended, with a consensus that your name is fine. Some users have made suggestions for you in the discussion which can be found here. HighInBC(Need help? Ask me) 22:06, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement[edit]

For your information, your recent editing, with reference to your probation, is being discussed at the above page. --Tony Sidaway 20:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Link to Wikipedia Review forum[edit]

Hello, per Wikipedia:Harassment#Types_of_harassment/posting of personal information, links to Wikipedia Review are disallowed. It is an attack site that cannot be linked to, advertised, or promoted, supported by previous ArbCom decisions. I've removed this link and promotion of a hostile site that attacks and attempts to out the IRL identities of Wikipedians from your user page, per this:

"Posting information on, or implying how to find, or simply posting the address of a website which publishes such information is also harassment, regardless of whether the posted link is live or just a bare URL. This is because it places the other person at unjustified and uninvited risk of harm in "the real world" or other media. This applies whether or not the person whose personal information is being revealed is a Wikipedia editor.""

Thanks for your understanding. - Denny (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Really now, you deserve thanks for bringing attention to both the discussion forum you've mentioned -- and to the mounting waves of newspeak hostility that have come to plague the Wiki. The fact that the Wikipedia Review has become an invaluable resource for third opinions with regard to the Wiki is not so surprising in and of itself, but what is amazing is how the Wiki has dealt with WR, such as the terminology you have used. If your apparent definition of what consititues an 'attack site' holds any water, then the Wiki's RfC and RfAr processes would render the Wiki itself an attack site, as these faulty dispute resolution processes often seem to resemble little more than digital versions of public stocks. Ombudsman 01:48, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

framing merger proposal[edit]

Please see Talk:Framing (social sciences)#Proposed merger of Framing effect into this article for a merger proposal with an article you started - Framing effect. Grumpyyoungman01 10:38, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The WikiProject Biography Newsletter: Issue II - April 2007[edit]

The April 2007 issue of the WikiProject Biography newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you BetacommandBot 19:39, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

Process flaws on MONGO RfC[edit]

Hi Ombudsman, thanks for your thoughtful edit summary in endorsing my summary. I thought I had read the instructions for filing RfCs closely, but it's my first one, so I may have made some mistakes. I'd be interested to hear what I've done wrong so far, and, of course, in an elaboration of the "public stocks" analogy. MONGO has raised similar concerns, calling the whole thing a form of harassment, a "low blow", and such like, while also calling my "canvassing" into question. I haven't been able to find the policies (nor even the precedent) that I'm violating. Since there is a good chance I'll be taking it to ArbCom, process flaws are of course a major issue for me. I hope you can help. Best, --Thomas Basboll 15:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of the FDA[edit]

The page has been temporarily restored so we can reach a consensus on the fate of the content. I've suggested we keep the vote open for five more days.-RustavoTalk/Contribs 00:38, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Talk:The_Gene_Illusion[edit]

Hi Ombudsman,

I have no experience at all how to fight against article deletions. This article by the main debunker of psychiatric genetic theories deserves to stay in Wikipedia. Which steps would you recommend?

Cesar Tort 03:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Image:Mindfreedom.gif[edit]

Hello, Ombudsman. An automated process has found and will an image or media file tagged as nonfree media, and thus is being used under fair use that is in your userspace. The image (Image:Mindfreedom.gif) was found at the following location: User:Ombudsman/images. This image or media will be removed per criterion number 9 of our non-free content policy. The image or media will be replaced with Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg , so your formatting of your userpage should be fine. This does not necessarily mean that the image is being deleted, or that the image is being removed from other pages. It is only being removed from the page mentioned above. All mainspace instances of this image will not be affected Please find a free image or media to replace it with, and or remove the image from your userspace. User:Gnome (Bot)-talk 22:29, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Biography Assessment Drive[edit]

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive!
Crystal personal.png

WikiProject Biography is holding a three month long assessment drive!
The goal of this drive is to eliminate the backlog of unassessed articles. The drive is running from June 1, 2007 – September 1, 2007.

Awards to be won range from delicacies such as the WikiCookie to the great Golden Wiki Award.
There are over 110,000 articles to assess so please visit the drive's page and help out!

This drive was conceived of and organized by Psychless with the help of Ozgod. Regards, Psychless Type words!.

Talk:Stephen Barrett[edit]

I hope you don't mind my reminding you that Polling is not a substitute for discussion. I'll hope you'll describe your viewpoint and how it relates to the many policies and guidelines that have been discussed. I'm looking forward to your further contributions! -- Ronz  23:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies[edit]

A project of which you are a listed member, Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies, is currently being considered for deletion in accord with wikipedia's deletion policies. Please feel free to take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject Health controversies. Thank you. John Carter 22:22, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Notability of Natalie Rogers[edit]

A tag has been placed on Natalie Rogers, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article appears to be about a person, group of people, band, club, company, or web content, but it does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not assert the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag) and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Realkyhick 22:09, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Natalie Rogers[edit]

A "{{prod}}" template has been added to the article Natalie Rogers, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest 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. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. 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. Realkyhick 16:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

With a few exceptions (such as relatives of heads of state), notability is not inherited. Realkyhick 18:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Eric Fombonne[edit]

Please see my comments here about this edit. Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:31, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Since you haven't bothered to respond to my concerns ([4], [5]), I'm restoring my edits to the Eric Fombonne article. Please don't revert again without responding on the talk page first.
Also, please don't ever cite this page again as a source for a scientific claim. This sort of nonsense seriously damages Wikipedia's credibility.
I notice that you've been placed indefinitely on Probation and requested not to make "tendentious" edits to articles concerning medical subjects. Unless you want to be banned, please take the time to read and understand Wikipedia:Verifiability (especially the stuff about sources) and stop re-inserting anti-vaccine claims from dubious sources. You are, of course, free to make whatever claims you like so long as they are backed up by reliable sources. Sideshow Bob Roberts 14:43, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for taking time to spell out your justifications for deleting relevant content. Among the problems with your reasoning is that the questionable nature of Fombonne's research findings revolve around his legal entanglements, such as his role in the vaccine court Autism Omnibus Proceedings as a witness for the respondents, as well as his outspoken role in debates over the vaccine injury epidemic. Fombonne is the one making questionable scientific claims --that needs to be addressed for npov-- and not just in medical journals. On the other hand, the principals at the National Autism Association involved with questioning Fombonne's research methodology are among those who were selected by the CDC, apparently at the behest of Julie Geberding, for its vaccine safety Blue Ribbon Panel. Moreover, your concern about the Wiki's credibility is admirable, but that sort of trustworthiness is hindered more by rampant double standards, expert worship, and Wikilawyering, not to mention abuses of process, such as the attempt to whitewash the biological psychiatry article. The Wiki's strengths derive from transparency and the application of npov principles, insofar as it can be ensured that content is not entirely beholden to the bias of prevailing orthodoxy or abusive Wikilawyering. Perhaps it is just coincidental that both Fombonne and the Post Autistic Economics movement both apparently hail from France. Ombudsman 20:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I really don't know what to make of this. If you've made a relevant point, I can't see what it is. Nothing you've just said justifies your violating Wikipedia:Verifiability, which is one of Wikipedia's core content policies.
Are you suggesting the Eric Fombonne article has been compromised by "rampant double standards, expert worship, and Wikilawyering, not to mention abuses of process"? If so, please give specific examples and I promise I'll do my best to address the problem.
As for the "questionable nature of Fombonne's research findings", if there's any truth to this you should have no problem finding a reliable, published source to support your claims. If it's just something you've read on the internet (or in any other self-published source) please don't repeat it here at Wikipedia - even on your own talk page.
As for your "Thanks for taking time to spell out your justifications for deleting relevant content", I spelled out my justification in my original edit summary. Please don't imply that I deleted relevant content without explaining why. Sideshow Bob Roberts 23:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Reverting unwarranted, unexplained, or just plain abusive deletions while ticking the minor edit box is habit forming, especially when dealing with deletionist anons. Thanks for the update on the current status of the minor edit guidelines set forth after, presumably, lengthy disputes on the matter. The relevant passage is here: "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances. When the status of a page is disputed, and particularly if an edit war is brewing, then it is better not to mark any edit as minor. Reverting blatant vandalism is an exception to this rule." What constitutes a 'disputed page', or 'an edit war brewing' expecially on an article that has otherwise been dormant for some time, is unclear in the particlular case you've mentioned. What is clear is that there is a grey area here -- nothing nearly as clear as the violation of npov evidenced by the repeated removal of the valid tag from the biological psychiatry article. Ombudsman 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
There's no grey area here. Wikipedia:Minor edit is perfectly clear:
"A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
The passage you've quoted is a warning to be extra careful not to mark any edit as minor if the status of a page is disputed or an edit war is brewing, but the basic principle I've quoted is simple and uncontroversial (and I can't find any evidence of "lengthy disputes on the matter" - after all, it's just basic manners).
I drew your attention to this last week - I even took the time to quote at length from Wikipedia:Minor edit - and 36 hours later you marked this edit as minor. If this was an honest mistake, it seems to me that the classy thing to do would be to apologise, rather than to attack other editors as "deletionist" or "abusive", as if this somehow justifies anything you might do. Sideshow Bob Roberts 19:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of David Ayoub[edit]

David Ayoub, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that David Ayoub satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ayoub and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of David Ayoub during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sideshow Bob Roberts 20:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

I notice that, while you haven't made any effort to explain why David Ayoub is notable, you've found the time to canvas at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Running. Please note the AfD discussion is not a majority vote. If you believe Ayoub meets one or more of the criteria laid out at WP:BIO or WP:PROF, please explain why at the deletion discussion page. Sideshow Bob Roberts 04:09, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

that this

Your user page[edit]

Hi Ombudsman, I've removed this, which is completely inappropriate for a Wikipedia user page. Please read Wikipedia is not a soapbox, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, and Wikipedia:User page (especially this part) — Wikipedia's not the place for this sort of polemic.

I'm particularly concerned that this material appears to violate an official policy on the English Wikipedia: Never use materials that infringe the copyrights of others. Apologies if I'm mistaken here, but I see no indication that this material is in the public domain or has been released under GFDL.

Regards, Sideshow Bob Roberts 04:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Ralph Nader[edit]

At this article, I'm mystified why you want to keep the first half of the quote from the Altantic ("He made our cars safer"), but you believe the second half is POV ("he made George Bush president"). You can't have one without the other.

In any case, this isn't POV. It's a statement from a major magazine. Did you read the footnote? The Atlantic gathered 50 historians to assess American's 100 most influential people. I'm sorry that the Atlantic is at odds with your views on Nader, but the Atlantic is a reputable source, so including this quote is not POV. Griot 00:29, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week[edit]

WikiProject Pharmacology is currently organizing a new Collaboration of the Week program, designed to bring drug and medication related articles up to featured status. We're currently soliciting nominations and/or voting on nominations for the first WP:RxCOTW, to begin on September 5, 2007. Please stop by the Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week page to participate! Thanks! Dr. Cash 17:52, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week[edit]

Aspirin has been selected as this week's Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week! Please help us bring this article up to featured standards during the week. The goal is to nominate this at WP:FAC on September 10, 2007.

Also, please visitWP:RxCOTW to support other articles for the next COTW. Articles that have been nominated thus far include Doxorubicin, Paracetamol (in the lead with 4 support votes so far), Muscle relaxant, Ethanol, and Bufotenin.

In other news:

  • The Wikipedia:WikiProject Pharmacology main page has been updated and overhauled, to make it easier to find things, as well as to highlight other goals and announcements for the project.
  • Fvasconcellos notes that discussion is ongoing regarding the current wording of MEDMOS on including dosage information in drug articles. All input is welcome.

Dr. Cash 00:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Pharmacology Update[edit]

Here's a brief update in some of the recent developments of WikiProject Pharmacology!

  • Aspirin has just completed its two week run as the first Collaboration of the Week! Many thanks to those editors that contributed; the article got a lot of good work accomplished, and in particular, much work was done in fixing up the history section. It's still not quite "done" yet (is a wikipedia article really ever done?), but after two weeks I think it's more important to push onwards with the development of the new collaboration of the week program. I will be fixing up Aspirin in the next few days and possibly nominating it for either GA or FA status.
  • Please remember that Wikipedia is not a forum for discussing or dispensing medical advice amongst users. Specifically, talk pages of articles should only be used to discuss improving the actual article in question. To help alleviate this situation, the template {{talkheader}} may be added to the top of talk pages, reminding users of the purpose of such pages. Additionally, unsigned comments and comments by anonymous users that are inappropriate may be removed from talk pages without being considered vandalism.

You are receiving this message because you are listed as one of the participants of WikiProject Pharmacology.

Dr. Cash 04:56, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your kind message![edit]

Hi Ombudsman,

Thank you very much for your warm and positive message. Very much appreciated. To be honest I feel a little bit like I'm in the belly of the beast, but then a kind and reasonable response from a seasoned Wikipedian brings me good cheer! I will be sure and study the links you gave me. Best wishes Angela Angela Kennedy Angela Kennedy 12:43, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the Simon Wessely page[edit]

Hi again Ombudsman,

I'm sorry to bother you with this: but an even more ludicrous situation has arisen now on the Simon Wessely entry. Because an Admin has blocked the talk pages to new users, it is impossible to rebut his most recent claims. This may give the impression that what he says his correct and indisputable, or agreed to 'by consensus', when this situation is nothing of the sort. At least two of the people who have tackled the admin, 'JFW', recently on the Simon Wessely talk page are newbies'. One is Alpinist (who's been blocked from posting anything on Wikipedia at all) and myself- already called a sock puppet on the Neutrality page, where I went to for some advice (none as yet forthcoming and it's been a couple of days). I feel this makes a mockery of any claims to neutrality in Wikipedia. Surely people can see that? I don't know what to do about this situation, and wonder if you had any advice. Many thanks Angela Kennedy —Preceding unsigned comment added by Angela Kennedy (talkcontribs) 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

It is not at all fun to respond to this sort of situation, and the Wiki should not be allowed to become the routinely hostile editing environment that it often is in hotly contested subject areas. Unfortunately, you might just have to be patient and wait a few days, since you are new editor, until you can post on protected pages (not sure about the waiting period), or until the punitive protection is lifted (after an indefinite period that might last longer). JFW's behavior is reflective of the double standards, pervasive in certain segments of the Wiki, that have (at times) been enforced by the ArbCom; this manifestation of privileged behavior is typical of how any organization's acculturation processes reflect the strengths and weaknesses of its leadership. The apparently downward spiral of the ArbCom process, which often resembles nothing more than public stocks, has been disappointing to witness. Favored stakeholder groups have, in certain cases, benefited more from ArbCom proceedings than expected; as a result, some groups of editors have been allowed to brazenly abuse a variety of the Wiki's core processes, despite the transparency of the digital traces left behind. Resolving the underlying problems will likely entail finding and implementing effective measures for encouraging the Wiki's leadership to set a better example. In the meantime, when you encounter impasses like you have found on the Simon Wessely page, it seems that for the short term patience and humor are perhaps about the best easily implemented salves, aside from the practicality of avoiding conflict keeping the focus primarily upon content issues, even if it means allowing editorial progress to slow down virtually to the point of working on only one or two sentences at a time. Open conflict generally just seems to benefit favored groups of editors. The above may not sound as encouraging as it could, but the good news is that the transparency of edit histories sure can, theoretically, create a silver lining for the long term. In comparison, the Wiki in general (even if not on the chronic fatigue syndrome and Simon Wessely pages right now), still looks great compared the spam proffered via most other media, which generally appear much more thoroughly dominated by corporate cultures. Sure hope you can find a way to have some fun, too, as levity seems to be about the best supplement for patience at times like this. Ombudsman 03:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ombudsman, thank you for your advice and understanding here. I'm hoping we can sort out the primary problem on the Wessely entry, which is regarding the potential publication of these unsubstantiated claims of 'harassment' of Wessely, which the Gibson Report foolishly gave air to without establishing veracity. I feel a tiny bit more optimistic we can now. Best wishes Angela Kennedy 12:08, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Angela, Ombudsman, I have written to Dr Ian Gibson, MP, Chair of the now disbanded Gibson Inquiry panel and requested that he provide a reference source for the statement regarding Wessely's having "retired" from CFS research; that he confirm the date beyond which Wessely was understood by the GSRME panel to have ceased undertaking research studies in the field of CFS research; that he provide the provenance of the information on which the panel based their comment that Wessely is said to have retired from [CFS] research "possibly due to extreme harassment he received from a very small fringe section of the ME community". Dr Gibson has also been asked to clarify whether it is the case that the panel formed its views in this matter through the direct wording of Prof Wessely's letter, that is, did the panel effectively paraphrase Prof Wessely's own words? Or did the panel form its own views on this matter on what they considered Prof Wessely was saying to them in his letter, in more general terms? Or did the panel form its own views based on discussions and material other than that provided by Prof Wessely in his letter? Please bear in mind though, that Parliament is still on summer recess and that there has also been a Labour Party Conference, this week, so I am not necessarily anticipating an early response from Dr Gibson. MEagenda 21:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Psychiatric abuse[edit]

Hi everyone,

How do I get an article I've written assessed for importance? The title is 'Psychiatric abuse', and I would appreciate feedback from somebody on making the article more balanced, as it now has an NPOV tag on it (from a user who really would like it deleted). S. M. Sullivan 04:43, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for Comment/Scuro is being deleted[edit]

She has deleted other editors' (non-personal attack) replies from article talk pages e.g. Psychiatric abuse , however, I found no proof that she did it again today, after being warned by 2 differnt editors, even though another one of my talk posts vanished. Scuro denies that she deleted the last one and I suspect a computer glitch. S. M. Sullivan 22:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your welcome![edit]

Here come the tildes: Sardanaphalus 03:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

GMC hearing[edit]

Hi Ombudsman. I wondered if you might be interested in this website? [6] It seems to be -by far- the best account that I have read so far.--Aspro 16:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, and Martin Walker's reports are quite revealing about the General Medical Council's impression of a kangaroo court. Ombudsman 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Attempt to remove talk page comments by MastCell[edit]

Hi again Ombudsman,

This has happened on the Simon Wessely talk page:

"Talk page use

This is a Wikipedia article talk page. Per the talk page guidelines, this page is to be used to discuss specific improvements to the Wikipedia article. It is not a forum to argue, debate, scold, advocate, etc for a particular point of view. Discussion should focus around what reliable sources have verifiably had to say on the topic, and how to present this information neutrally and without undue weight. The principles of the biography of living persons policy apply on this talk page as well as the article, and unsourced negative information may be removed. In the interest of bringing this talk page back a little closer to its intended purpose, I'm going to begin removing comments that misuse this talk page as described above. MastCell Talk 16:29, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Whoa there! : ) MastCell, which comments do you think are NOT relevant? The attempt to establish whether Gibson is a reliable source for allegations about 'harassment' of Simon Wessely? The discussion of whether criticism of actions or claims of someone constitute personal attack or 'harassment'? What this article needs to do to stay NPOV? I thought the talk page was EXACTLY the place to thrash out these issues and would inevitably involve argument and debate, inlcuding opposing POVs and rebuttal. It happens all over Wikipedia! I think your intervention here would be premature and ill-advised, because you have not in any way demonstrated yourself as a suitable arbiter of whether such an intervention is even required! I think the very least you should do is discuss it properly with other people first.Angela Kennedy 16:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Much of this talk page consists of unsourced argumentation and speculation about various issues, in the manner of an Internet debate forum or blog. The solution is to narrowly focus and limit comments here to specific changes or improvements to the article. There is such discussion going on here, but it's drowned out by noise. The signal-noise ratio needs to improve. I'm happy to ask other admins to also watch this talk page (in fact, I already have), but I think they'll agree that enorfcing the talk page guidelines is a good idea here. MastCell Talk 16:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

But the talk page guidelines don't seem to actually indicate support for what you are proposing. Angela Kennedy 17:10, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Can this guy actually do this? Is there a way we can seek protection of the talk page? Any advice gratefully received... Many thanks and best wishes Angela Kennedy 17:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

In addition to Angela's concerns above, please take a look at [7] where 'these people', apparently including Angela, are accused of harassing mr. Wessely, by someone who refuses to properly sign his posts. Guido den Broeder 21:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

NAMI/Randall Hagar[edit]

I notice you removed the link on the NAMI page that went to Santa Clara County NAMI and what happened there with Hagar. As Hagar was a lobbyist for AB 1421 and oppressive laws like it, and since interested parties such as yourself haven't started individual NAMI pages to include local disputes such as the one with Hagar, and since you haven't taken the time to reply to queries such as this on the NAMI discussion page, I'll ask you here: Where does this information go?

When relevant information such as this is clouded and denied to the public, and laws as primitive as AB 1421 get passed so easily, laws that falsely imprison who knows how many people, what can be the outcome? And what is the motive?

Please explain. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.212.153.128 (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps one place for you to put a link about the issue, preferably as a citation within a content contribution, would be directly into the Laura's Law article. Text describing the matter would probably also belong in a NAMI California article, when that gets started, since Hagar was VP of NAMI California. You might even want to start a Wiki biography article on Randall Hagar. At the state level, starting an article on the California Network of Mental Health Clients remains a higher priority at this time, so if you want to expedite the creation of a NAMI California article yourself, please do so. Also, please check WP:EL for more details about handling external links. Thanks for the questions. Ombudsman 21:21, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion review[edit]

You recently commented on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Psychiatric abuse, which was closed as delete. The article has been nominated for a deletion review at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 October 5#Psychiatric abuse. Please feel free to comment on the decision there - as a contributor to the original AfD, your input would be welcomed. -- ChrisO 09:30, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject Biography Newsletter 5[edit]

To receive this newsletter in the future, please list yourself in the appropriate section here. This newsletter was delivered by the automated R Delivery Bot 15:51, 7 October 2007 (UTC) .

Hello Ombudsman[edit]

Here is a friendly reminder that we are to use the talk page to resolve differences. I welcome your input at the Chemical imbalance page.--scuro 02:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:PR, The Thriving Cult of Greed and Power[edit]

WikiProject Pharmacology Update[edit]

Here are a few updates in the realm of WikiProject Pharmacology:

  • The Pharmacology Collaboration of the Week has been changed to Collaboration of the Month, based on current participation levels. It is also more likely that articles collaborated on for one month are more likely to achieve featured quality than articles worked on for only a week or two.

Dr. Cash 22:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

Speedy deletion of National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy[edit]

Nuvola apps important.svg

A tag has been placed on National Association for Rights Protection and Advocacy, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia per speedy deletion criterion A7.

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not meet basic Wikipedia criteria may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as an appropriate article, and if you can indicate why the subject of this article is appropriate, you may contest the tagging. To do this, add {{hangon}} on the top of the article and leave a note on the article's talk page explaining your position. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm its subject's notability under the guidelines.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's 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. -- WebHamster 18:55, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free media (Image:Mindfreedom.gif)[edit]

Nuvola apps important blue.svg Thanks for uploading Image:Mindfreedom.gif. 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 18:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Corporate Personhood/personhood Debate[edit]

Hi Ombudsman,

Thank you, for your kind welcome and extremely helpful tips (and reminders)!

FYI, I created the page title "Corporate Personhood Debate" to create a place to restore the original "Corporate personhood" article and the topic it represents -- after another user had redirected the latter to "Juristic person" and moved all of it's contents to the "talk" page of an intermediate page, "Juristic person/CP". All of this appeared to me to be (possibly) motivated by a POV in favor of censoring or camoflaging the controversy.

It appeared to me like someone found a way to effectively 'delete' the Corporate personhood page without going through the process of nominating it for deletion. Perhaps this was not intentional, but as a result, the "Juristic person" page is now tagged non-NPOV because all the POV wars over Personhood/personhood are mucking up what is an important article on the legal concept, and now Wikipedia does not have good articles on either "Juristic person" (legal idea) OR Corporate personhood (controversy).

Looking for Wikipedia precedent for this, I examined another politically controversial topic, abortion, and noted that we finally achieved a 'peaceful' outcome (nutrality concensus) AND excellent content by providing separate pages for an encyclopedic entry on Abortion, and for Abortion Debate. This seemed to me to be the best way to solve the issue and restore the "political controversy" topic as a recognized element of US political landscape, while silmultaneously allowing a path to eventually achieve nutrality on the "Juristic person" legal article under WikiProject Law.

Regarding capitalization, I chose Personhood purposefully, as the debate/controversy is over the extent to which the "legal personality" of a corporation has proceeded from treating corporations properly as 'legal/juristic persons' under the law to the (opponents say) increasingly inappropriate treatment of corporations as Persons (natural human beings), thereby conferring "Personhood" status equal to that of natural persons in some important and controversial areas. I think that "personhood" versus "Personhood" is one way of highlighting the core of the debate/controversy.

This having been said...ultimately I don't think the Personhood vs. personhood is all THAT important and I >>happily<< defer to you on this matter...

Anyway, with the restoration of the original "Corporate personhood" page to "Corporate Personhood Debate", all of the talk pages seem to have been restored as well, and I commented and documented my changes on the "Juristic person" page as well, if you want to check out the history.

As a fair disclosure, my POV is first and foremost against censorship of the topic, secondly that Wikipedia presents neutral POV on both topics, (the 'thing' and the 'debate', and thirdly -- I am admittedly on the anti-Personhood side of the controversy. I am also a neophyte here and greatly appreciate your help and interest!

Again, thanks for the warm welcome and I hope you will continue to look in on the topic and keep an eye on me/others for civility and POV, and further "wiki tricks" (intentional or not).

Thanks (again),

riverguy42 15:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Bryan Jepson[edit]

Bryan Jepson, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Bryan Jepson satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bryan Jepson and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes (~~~~). You are free to edit the content of Bryan Jepson during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Sideshow Bob Roberts (talk) 03:37, 5 December 2007 (UTC)


WikBack[edit]

Thank you for registering at the WikBack. I look forward to your posts (If you didn't register, please let me know as soon as possible -- it may have been an imposter). The Uninvited Co., Inc. 00:30, 29 December 2007 (UTC)