User talk:Ombudsman
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Picture of the day | |
 |
NASA astronaut Robert Curbeam (left) and European Space Agency (ESA) astronaut Christer Fuglesang participate in STS-116's first of three planned sessions of extra-vehicular activity (EVA) as construction resumes on the International Space Station. The landmasses depicted in the background are the South Island (left) and North Island (right) of New Zealand. Photo credit: NASA |
Previous discussions: February 26 to December 31, 2005, January 1 to June 30, 2006, July 1 to December 30, 2006
[edit] Poor Breggin article!
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)
[edit] List of Articles Related to Quackery
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)
[edit] AfD Nomination: Pilots for 9/11 Truth
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)
[edit] Rating the ToK
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)
[edit] Psychiatric Survivors Movement
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)
[edit] Psychiatric survivors movement
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)
[edit] David Ayoub
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)
[edit] Helping out with the Unassessed Wikipedia Biographies
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)
[edit] Wikiproject Biography March 2007 Newsletter
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)
[edit] Request for peer review
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)
[edit] Jonathan's Law
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)
[edit] WP:CIVIL
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)
[edit] Your username
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)
[edit] Username discussion
[edit] RFC discussion of your username (Ombudsman)
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)
[edit] Discussion to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Arbitration enforcement
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)
[edit] Links to attack sites
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)
