User talk:Abotnick

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Abotnick! Thanks for the contributions over on the Chiropractic article. Hope you enjoy editing here and becoming a Wikipedian! Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Abotnick, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 20:52, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

I find your edits on the Chiropractic-related articles to be very biased against chiropractic. Please try to maintain some level on neutrality as recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines above. I understand if you feel strongly about the subject, and in the short time that I have been here I have seen how tough it is to remain objective in my edits. I am requesting that you practice some more consideration for neutrality in your edits. Thank you. 72.129.6.122 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What bias

You claim my edits are biased against chiropractic. What are you referring to? Most of my edits were referenced so I don't see why negative information is biased. Abotnick 01:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Remember to sign your posts by placing four tildes after them. Fyslee 05:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

>I find your edits on the Chiropractic-related articles to be very biased against chiropractic. Please try to maintain some level on neutrality as recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines above. I understand if you feel strongly about the subject, and in the short time that I have been here I have seen how tough it is to remain objective in my edits. I am requesting that you practice some more consideration for neutrality in your edits. Thank you. 72.129.6.122 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please give me the text of what you are referring to. I am not aware of any factual inaccuracies in anything that I have written. Thank you.

[edit] bias accusation

>I find your edits on the Chiropractic-related articles to be very biased against chiropractic. Please try to maintain some level on neutrality as recommended by Wikipedia's guidelines above. I understand if you feel strongly about the subject, and in the short time that I have been here I have seen how tough it is to remain objective in my edits. I am requesting that you practice some more consideration for neutrality in your edits. Thank you. 72.129.6.122 21:52, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Please give me the text of what you are referring to. I am not aware of any factual inaccuracies in anything that I have written. Thank you.Abotnick

[edit] Chiropractic references

Abotnick, in the chiropractic article, did you mean for the two references for 75% statistics for students in straight schools and the mixer school reference as well to refer to the CCE v Life papers? Or did it just get left behind from an earlier edit. Keep up the good work and good luck with your lawsuit. I hope it helps.--Dematt 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Dematt,

I'm glad that you are available to edit, I think you do a good job of maintaining objectivity.

>Abotnick, in the chiropractic article, did you mean for the two references for 75% statistics for students in straight schools and the mixer school reference as well to refer to the CCE v Life papers? Or did it just get left behind from an earlier edit. Keep up the good work and good luck with your lawsuit. I hope it helps.--Dematt 20:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes both references are from the same CCE v. Life papers. I posted them as a attached document to the press release which some people are trying hard to ignore just because I wrote it.

There isn't a lawsuit. At the present time I am pursuing a student loan defense through the US Dept of Education and will be attending the hearing regarding CCE's handling complaints I filed. Time will tell. I think it's great to be able to get a lot of this information out through wikipedia, a lot of it has been hidden and hard to get.

Thanks.

Allen

After reading the CCE v Life papers, I understand why you would be so upset. IMO, You have every right to go after them. Those of us who graduated previously from mixer schools really haven't paid enough attention to what has been going on. I had no idea this is what you guys were going through. I really hope you can turn this around, not only for you, but for the thousands of others that must be feeling the same way. How do you see it working out?
I still can't find the numbers that are quoted in the article. Am I missing something?--Dematt 02:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Dematt,

>How do you see it working out?

It's very hard to predict. I've spoken to the USDOE and they've told me that they are very reluctant to recommend not renewing CCE's accreditation because it is the only DC accreditor. On the other hand, with the press release and documented deaths there may be enough media attention to force a tough stance. Do you like the idea of thousands of Life grads practiting out there with no idea how to diagnose? I think government is moving towards a more pro-regulatory mode of operation post-Enron. I can't really see USDOE renewing recognition given the open complaints. On the other hand, CCE has ignored requests to comply so I can't see any reason to give them a second chance. So while drastic, the most logical course of action would be for USDOE to revoke their recognition.

Now regarding the 75%/25% source. I reviewed the document and couldn't find it. However, I did see a reference on pg. 22 to an earlier document. I'm certain that this earlier document where Life sued CCE is the source for that quote. I think the documents are now unsealed and they can be obtained from PACER if anyone wants to verify. In the meantime just change the reference to that original document and wait for verification.

Abotnick 12:01, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Good. I'll see if I can dig it up. I'm not so much interested for intro, but I'm really trying to get a feel for how many DC's are out there that actually practice straight chiropractic. I know several DC's here in my own town that graduated from Life but use therapies. I never asked them why, I just assumed all of them did. I did know that they had to go outside the school to learn PT, but just figured that was normal. I also realized that our state law was written in an attempt to keep out a certain type of practitioner, but I didn't realize why there was so much antagonism. I always figured, if that is what they want to do, fine. I never really thought that maybe students went to a school thinking it was one thing, only to find out they spent a fortune on something they did not agree with. I always thought we were all getting the same education. I think I'm starting to get the picture. If I'm missing anything, let me know. Also, if you find those numbers again or anything that can help me find out similar numbers, let me know Thanks. --Dematt 17:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

It's natural to want to know the number of straight chiros practicing. You might be able to find surveys in the Chiropractic Economics magazine and Dynamic Chiropractic (past issues are archived at www.chiroweb.com). However, this gets really tricky because we have DCs that were not trained in differential diagnosis trying to play doctor as mixers. To a DC like that they would think they are a mixer just if they take a course in physiotherapy and use ultrasound-even if they don't diagnose. So the surveys might not be very accurate.

I think the motive behind Life University not teaching ddx was to graduate large numbers of DCs not familiar with it who would be sympathetic to their political ambitions-increasing their power. Amazingly they had no problem with committing fraud to do it (ends justify the means). In fact, most chiropractic schools use misleading claims in internet advertising (http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html).

But yes I think you are getting the picture.Abotnick 17:22, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

That's actually part of what I was trying to put together. I was aware of the Dynamic Chiropractic numbers and was trying to see if they match at all, which would tell me that a lot of those straight graduates may not be adequately trained? If not, we have a problem that needs to be fixed... I assume that is what you are doing.. --Dematt 17:28, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes I'm trying to clean up chiropractic and protect patients. Many patients have already been hurt through failure to diagnose and mismanagement. That is unacceptable. Unfortunately, chiropractic state boards and official agencies are reluctant to accept the bad public relations consequences of owning up to the problem-forcing me to address it in wider forums.

Please let me know what you find when you finish reviewing the data. --Abotnick 20:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found anything helpful yet. Other than a lot of controversy out there:) I don't know what PACER is. Can you point me in the general direction. I'm not getting anything with web searches. Thanks. --Dematt 03:22, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure. PACER is the online data retrieval system for federal court documents. Life sued CCE in federal court so the records are accessible there. I think they cost $.15 per page. Here's a link. http://pacer.psc.uscourts.gov/ Abotnick 11:26, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I found it!!
After re-reading my diatribe on the chiro talk page discussing your experience, I think that I may have gone overboard in trying to make a point. You have every right to dump it back on me:)--Dematt 14:38, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Touche! --Dematt 21:18, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Glad you can take a little criticism. That's a good thing.  :) Abotnick 21:58, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

I was aiming for Mccready but got you instead:( You took it pretty well yourself. That's gonna leave a bruise. I'll think twice before I do that again, lol;) --Dematt 23:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Chiro lead

I like it! Good job. Now we're getting somewhere! --Dematt 23:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Problems with article...

The biggest problem with the article is that it fails notability guidelines. You referenced three articles that your forum was mentioned in. However...

  • 1. worldchiropracticalliance.org - The article isn't about the website. It only gets a passing mention.
  • 2. ncahf.org is not a media-site.
  • 3. randi.org is also not a media-outlet. In addition, it was in essence a letter to the editor.

Those three references fall under the exceptions listed under the first section of WP:WEB.

In addition, the fourth note under WP:WEB makes this point:

Self-promotion and product placement are not the routes to having an encyclopedia article. The published works must be someone else writing about the company, corporation, product, or service. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography for the verifiability and neutrality problems that affect material where the subject of the article itself is the source of the material.) The barometer of notability is whether people independent of the subject itself (or of its manufacturer, creator, or vendor) have actually considered the content or site notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial works that focus upon it.

Not only does your forum fail every notability test under WP:WEB, it also violates one of the rules involved in writing articles.

Thats why it's my opinion to delete.

Why is free-hosting a problem? It's a huge red-flag that a website is non-notable. Geo cities would be a problem too. In fact... any website that doesnt have it's own domain is extremely unlikely to ever pass WP:WEB. ---J.S (t|c) 19:22, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ace of Sevens' userpage

Hi Abotnick! I recognized that you've added a comment on Ace's userpage. For adding comments please see his discussion page. Thanks. Greetings! Morris Munroe 17:23, 4 February 2007 (UTC)