User talk:Ombudsman/Archive01

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers the dates between February 28, 2005 and December 31, 2005. Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to, if necessary. Please add new archivals to User talk:Ombudsman/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. Ombudsman 00:20, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to the Wikipedia

Welcome, newcomer!

Here are some useful tips to ease you into the Wikipedia experience:

• First, take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial, and perhaps dabble a bit in the test area.
• When you have some free time, take a look at the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines. They can come in very handy!
• Remember to use a neutral point of view!
• If you need any help, feel free to post a question at the Help Desk
• Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Also, here are some odds and ends useful from time to time:

• Wikipedia:Policy Library
• Wikipedia:Utilities
• Wikipedia:Cite your sources
• Wikipedia:Verifiability
• Wikipedia:Wikiquette
• Wikipedia:Civility
• Wikipedia:Conflict resolution
• Wikipedia:Brilliant prose
• Wikipedia:Pages needing attention
• Wikipedia:Peer review
• Wikipedia:Bad jokes and other deleted nonsense
• Wikipedia:Village pump
• Wikipedia:Boilerplate text

Feel free to ask me anything the links and talk pages don't answer. You can most easily reach me by posting on my talk page.

You can sign your name on any page by typing 4 tildes, likes this: ~~~~.

Best of luck, and have fun!

Also, thanks for the help over at Randi Rhodes: I didn't want to contribute to an edit war anymore. Just FYI, even though it seems like an open-and-shut case of original research, I'm opening a survey in the talk page just to kill this dispute off before it begins.

Thanks again! – ClockworkSoul 16:16, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Originally posted on User_talk:ClockworkSoul

Your warm welcome and pointers are much appreciated. Already need help redirecting a mis-titled new article about TMAP http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Medical_Algorithm_Project . The article also needs refinement to improve neutrality while preserving factual integrity. Thanks again! Ombudsman 17:37, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• My pleasure. Now, what exactly do you need to do with the article and its redirect? Do you need it renamed, or just have a redirect put in? Also, if you have time, could you lend a hand in the survey regarding the brewing edit war on Talk:Randi Rhodes? It could use some love. Many thanks! – ClockworkSoul 21:32, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It wasn't difficult to figure out how to redirect, so that's done. However, immediately after fixing that problem, the expected question about neutrality was posted at 21:24, 27 Feb 2005, by Antaeus Feldspar: (POV check -- phrases like "TMAP is a typical, corporate-sponsored "disease awareness" campaign"). Your assistance on navigating this politically loaded issue would be invaluable. Thanks, Ombudsman 21:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Yikes. I'll go over it and do what I can. This may need a few eyeballs on it to really scrub it clean, though. – ClockworkSoul 21:55, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm very happy to hear that. :) It's a start, right? I'm glad I could offer what little help I could. – ClockworkSoul 06:10, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hey, my computer isn't that good, but your picture on Koko(gorilla) didn't show up. Howabout1 00:28, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Exceptional Newcomer Award

For exhibiting a dedication to NPOV beyond your experience, I hereby present you with the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Show it with pride! ClockworkSoul 06:15, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC) (KC)

For exhibiting a dedication to NPOV beyond your experience, I hereby present you with the Exceptional Newcomer Award. Paste the template onto your user page, and wear it with pride!

So....what do you think?

You pointed out that there was a need for NPOV on the ADHD article. I did the best I was able. Whatcha think of the result?*Kat* 17:11, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

My pleasure. *Kat* 20:36, Mar 28, 2005 (UTC)

Vaccine

I'll see what I can do. *Kat* 05:22, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

bold enough?*Kat* 08:05, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough. I replaced four of the external links. You're on your own as far as the "cognitive imagery and dialogue quality" is concerned though. ;-) I don't know a whole lot about vaccinations. All of the omitted original material can be found on vaccine's discussion page.*Kat*

My apologies, it was late and I was grumpy when I wrote the above. Check it out now, and tell me what you think. *Kat* 20:36, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Hello, Ombudsman. Looking over the edits made to the article, it's very clear that although they are a series of large edits, they are not vandalism. If you have any disagreement with the author, try posting them to the article's (or user's, even though he is an anon) talk page, and work it out. I find that most of our editors are rational and willing to comprimise, and I have no doubt that you can reach a mutually agreeable solution. – ClockworkSoul 23:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Have done so. A partial response from the anon makes evident the evisceration of the article was probably due to a combination of boldness and inexperience, rather than simply bad faith. The edits incorporate material from a source known to be engaged in an ongoing smear campaign against Dr. Wakefield, and salient material repeatedly has been deleted by the anon. Edits to the first sentence evidence distortion. Use of terms such as "admission" and "non-clinical" are gratuitous at best. But what is most disturbing is the fact the article is no longer about Dr. Wakefield, and his career and scientific contributions, it is now simply little more than regurgitation of detritus from the ongoing smear campaign against Wakefield. Ombudsman 23:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC) (original 23:56, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Copyright Policy

Good work creating new articles and contributing to exisiting ones. When you make contributions, be careful that you don't include copyrighted material. Copyright rules are complicated, so take some time to review Wikipedia:Copyrights. A good general rule is that most things on the internet are already copyrighted by someone else, so they cannot be contributed to wikipedia. Again, content from webpages is usually copyrighted and cannot be added to wiki. Keep up the good work, and feel free to contact me with questions. Feco

SIF copyvio

>>Would deletion of the offending passages and statement suffice for now?<<

Sure... as long as you don't use any of the group's copyrighted material... put it on the temp page per standard procedure while awaiting copyright permission/denial from the group. Feco 04:28, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thimerosal and autism

Ombudsman,

I applaud your enthusiasm and dedication to fill in Wikipedia's gaps with respect to research around the use of thimerosal and autism. I hope you might be willing to consider a few points.

• The largest part of the discussion regarding a link between thimerosal and autism probably belongs in those two articles.
• It's not necessary to repeat the entire debate or add a similar set of external links to the biographical articles of each scientist involved, except where those researchers are intimately involved. Trust in our readers to be able to follow hyperlinks when they need more information.
• The link between thimerosal and autism isn't proven, and it isn't accepted by a majority of scientists or clinicians. It is inappropriate to present honest scientific opinions that the link is unproven as being solely the result of industry lobbying or government suppression.

Thanks for listening. --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 21:51, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for weighing in on the Thimerosal article; I think it's turning out well, though some cleanup is needed. --Leifern 23:43, May 2, 2005 (UTC)

Care with article sources

Ombudsman,

I welcome the opportunity to work with you (and other editors) to produce high-quality, neutral articles. I'm sure we both agree that verifiable external sources are an important part of our fact-checking procedure.

Nevertheless, I have to express a bit of concern about the Bernard Rimland article. Although it's starting to evolve away from its original form, I fear it may have started out [1] as quite similar to the external article, Dr. Bernard Rimland is autism's worst enemy. What can I say? I'm an academic, and I get an uncomfortable, itchy feeling in the back of my skull when I see something that so closely paraphrases (and in some cases, directly quotes) another publication.

Please consult outside sources, but I would strongly encourage you to rewrite from scratch. Thanks, TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 04:33, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Autism epidemic

Hi Ombudsman. I appreciate your invitation to review the article. I'm a bit concerned about the heavy emphasis on mercury/thimerosal and MMR. Despite the opinions of a few scientists, we still don't have any good theory to explain autism, and I think our article should reflect that—there isn't necessarily a conspiracy by the pharmaceutical companies and the "medical establishment" to cover up the evils of vaccines. There are a lot of good, honest scientists and clinicians who have published solid work that shows the evidence just isn't there. (Not that they have proven a link doesn't exist, just that we lack good epidemiological or biochemical data to support one at this time.) Hopefully you'll cover other theories in more detail as you continue to revise the article...? --TenOfAllTrades (talk/contrib) 03:19, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Images

Hi. When you upload images, please be sure to include information on the source of the image, and the image copyright status using one of the Wikipedia image templates. Please add that information on images you've already uploaded. Images with no information or copyright may be deleted from Wikipedia in the future. See Wikipedia:Images and associated pages for details on how to take care of that if your not sure, and feel free to ask on my talk page if you have any questions. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi there, thanks for uploading all the images on Bryan Ferry. At present, they don't have tags, please could you add them to the images? Thanks Craigy (talk) 00:44, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

As you asked me to check your image tagging on Image:William G Steiner.jpg, I changed the tempate to PermissionAndFairUse as that seemed more appropriate to me. Cheers, -- Infrogmation 05:08, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Thanks and signature.

Hey - thanks for the butterfly barstar! Also, you forgot to put your signature on the Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/September 11, researchers, so I went ahead and added it for now. I shall try to notify others of that vote. Once again thanks, and keep up the good work. --Blackcats 18:20, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Votes for Deletion (VfD)

If you'd like to weigh in on the deletion discussion regarding Edward Yazbak, you'll need to follow the link in the VfD template at the top of the article (click where it says this article's entry, or go to Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Edward Yazbak.) Discussion and votes left on the article's Talk page won't be counted—and probably won't be noticed by the admin closing the discussion. --TenOfAllTrades(talk) 00:49, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your support

Thank you for supporting my candidacy for adminship. Kelly Martin 02:07, Jun 11, 2005 (UTC)

Insurance

If you outline on the talk page what you have in mind for the rest, I may be able to help. It has stayed pretty bad and it hasn't reached to top of my priority list to rework, but I know a lot of the things it needs, and am fairly knowledgeable in the subject and Wikipedia policy. Thanks for working on it. - Taxman ^Talk 20:45, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

W. Mark Felt

Salve!
I nominated W. Mark Felt as a WP:FAC. As you commented on the article's talk page, I'd appreciate your comments at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 14:55, Jun 17, 2005 (UTC)

Thimerosal talk page

Are you going to respond to my comments there or are you going to focus on makeing kennedy look like an idiot?Geni 02:14, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

don't waste my time with arguments by assertion.Geni 10:53, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

9/11 conspiracy theories

9/11 conspiracy theories has been involved in extensive discussions over its title. Please take a sec and say why you think that your proposed title is preferable. Thank, -Willmcw 10:02, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks

Hey Ombudsman, thanks for welcoming me into the wikipedia community and giving me the introductory info. I'll go throught it gradually over the next week or two.

Laters, --ErikStewart 14:36, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Admin Tally

You can check here to see that there are 490 admins. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 02:40, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

I sampled Special:Listadmins. Admins 200-209 and 300-309.

• 200
• Jun 21, 2005
• Jun 20, 2005
• Apr 30, 2005 (prior, Feb 17)
• Jun 21, 2005
• Jun 21, 2005
• Dec 10, 2004
• Jan 23, 2005
• Jun 20, 2005
• Sep 21, 2004
• Jun 15, 2005 (prior Jun 9)

• 300
• Jun 20, 2005
• May 19, 2005
• Jun 17, 2005
• Jun 21, 2005
• Jun 19, 2005
• Jun 20, 2005
• Jun 20, 2005
• Jun 21, 2005
• Apr 25, 2005 (prior Mar 8)
• May 31, 2005 (prior May 11)

• 12 active, 8 inactive or slightly active = 60% active

If this is roughly accurate, then the number of active admins is probably around 300 or less. (I don't know how many total editors were active in the last 30 days). While some admins involve themselves in setting policies (which anyone may participate in), others seem to confine themselves to truly janitorial work. For that reason I'm not sure if "bureaucracy" is the best way to describe the corps of admins, or the dangers threatened by their expansion. The more plausible fear, I think, is that too many admins will result in a "police state", with more sped-up deletes, heavy-handed blocks, and POV enforcement. I am certainly opposed to any movement in the direction of stifling unpopular POVs. I'm not sure that the number of admins is the major factor though. Another view, which I don't endorse either, is that having more admins broadens involvement and reduces the relative power of any one admin. I think that the most important issues are probably the rules and procedures, official and unofficial, that admins follow and/or enforce on others, Those powers should stay limited. -Willmcw 05:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

Also- Thanks for your support for my adminship. Maybe we should limit the number of admins to 500. ;) Cheers, -Willmcw 05:26, Jun 21, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for the perspective, Willmcw. Ombudsman 05:38, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• • BTW, good job on Brown Act. I'd linked to it some months ago and was surprised when the link was red. Writing the article was somewhere way down on my to-do list. You did it better than I would have. Cheers, -Willmcw 07:35, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

The New Pearl Harbor

Hey - if you could help keep an eye on the The New Pearl Harbor article I would appreciate. Someone recently inserted a bunch of unsourced (orginal research) anti-Griffin editorializing. I've reverted that now, but it would probably be good idea to keep watching that page. Thanks. Blackcats 08:26, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Autism epidemic

Just wanted to say that I agree with your latest change to the first sentence, it's better than both preceding versions. - DaveSeidel 00:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

September 11, researchers article

I note you are one of the major contributors to the September 11, researchers article. Please start merging it with the 9/11 conspiracy theories article as soon as possible, as, in accord with the VfD on the topic, the September 11, researchers article will soon be turned into a re-direct. Thanks. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:47, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hi Ombudsman. A vote was already taken regarding the title of the 9/11 conspiracy theories article, and there was no consensus for changing it. It was precisely for this reason that the September 11, researchers was created. Wikipedia frowns on POV-forks like that, which is why the VfD strongly indicated that the September 11, researchers should be re-merged into the original article. I'd appreciate it if you could help with this as soon as possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 28 June 2005 18:56 (UTC)

Hi; As people contribute to 9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers it's getting out of sync with 9/11 conspiracy theories. I understand you oppose merging the page. I see no point in me merging the new material again if you are going to insist the page be maintained. What do you think would be a useful way to proceed? Do you want it to go through another AfD? Tom Harrison ^(talk) 17:30, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthal

Please take a look at the recent edits to this article. - UtherSRG July 7, 2005 12:04 (UTC)

Peace Dove

To all participants of the WikiProject Kindness Campaign: There is a proposal on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Kindness Campaign for the Peace Dove. Please comment as you see fit. Thanks, Sango123 16:29, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Helen Gandy

You supported my nomination of the Mark Felt article and I wonder if I could get your support on another FBI article up as a FAC, Helen Gandy, who was Hoover's secretary for five decades. PedanticallySpeaking 21:04, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Re: Vandalism patrol

No problem. I didn't know you were a sock puppet. :) Sango123 20:47, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Thought police VfD

Hi, I am sincerely interested in (and completely ignorant of) the nature of your concerns, as expressed in your keep vote, regarding this and related articles. I'd appreciate any explanation you have the time and desire to give. Thanks, Xoloz 05:48, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Getting Psychotherapy into This Week's Improvement Drive

Hi there! I noticed that you contribute a lot to Mental illness, and I thought you might care to help out the Psychotherapy article. As it stands this article could use a lot of help, and thus I've taken the liberty of trying to get it to be the focus of a week's improvement drive. All we need to get it for a week's worth of focus and improvement is enough votes, so go to Psychotherapy's vote page and help out this very needing article! JoeSmack (talk) 21:21, July 25, 2005 (UTC)

Important VFD

Please see the VFD for commons:List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. This is of vital importance. This list and others like it are being pushed off of the entire Wikimedia project. It started at Wikipedia, where they were VFDd in favor of moving to Wikisource/Commons. Now they are being VFDd off Wikisource (they don't really belong there, since they are not original source texts), with people there saying they should be on WP/Commons, and it is also being VFDd on Commons, where people don't realize that Commons accepts texts (says so right on the Main Page). This will set a precedent for any user-created lists. -- BRIAN0918  22:39, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Autism Links

Thanks for cleaning those up... I should mention that I changed it to the list style so that it doesn't show up in the TOC, as someone complained about the size of the TOC a while back on Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Autism --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 08:07, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any official wiki role?

You appear to have extreme and troubling positions on psychiatric issues. Do you have any official role within wiki, or did you just give yourself the name "ombudsman" to attain credibility?--24.55.228.12 02:30, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey now that seems kind of harsh! --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 09:17, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Every editor here is cherished for their contributions. -Willmcw 09:29, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

• Thanks for inquiring. No, the user name was not chosen in an attempt to "attain credibility," under color of authority or otherwise. The Wikipedia fairly confers editors the privilege of spending their cherished two cents within reasonable bounds. Only those prone to literal, least common denominator inferences are likely to be unduly troubled. Could you be more specific regarding what troubles you about questioning the dogma of biological psychiatry and balancing the pseudoscience, undue political influence, and misleading spam marketing practices of the drug industry? Ombudsman 20:40, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Your username inaccurately implies that you hold an official position, or have powers or obligations that are different from those of other editors. Would you consider adopting a different name? --PHenry 19:16, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

• As noted above, there was not (and is not) any such intent. It should be noted that ombudsman institutions tend to arise where marked disparities in power and influence are manifest, something that is not likely to transpire any time soon at the Wiki. On the other hand, it is interesting that you should ask now, in the wake of the evisceration of the moral compass and thought police articles, and during a VfD on the expert worship article. Considering your question in the context of Wikipedia:Five pillars, common sense flexibility ranks among the primary rules to consider. So long as the principles of assume good faith and null-A) reasoning (i.e., via multi-variate triangulation) continue to prevail, there should not be anything to be unduly concerned about. In any case, please rest assured your question is understood, and that the consequences of misguided editorial pretenses will be kept in mind.

Whether intentional or not, I'm concerned about the potential for confusion. I've posted a note at Requests for comment for discussion. --PHenry 23:50, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

• Please take a look at Requests for comment. Several users have expressed confusion or potential confusion at your name, and some have mistakenly assumed that you were an official persona. I am sure that this confusion was not intentional, and it is obvious that you are a worthwhile editor and a welcome addition to the wiki. Nevertheless, would you please create a new account with a more neutral name? Yours, Radiant_>|< 14:57, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
  • Is there a reason you've ignored Radiant's request? --PHenry 00:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry for the rant

Sorry for the rant on the autism epidemic talk page... it was late :). --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 21:46, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Back Again

You supported my W. Mark Felt FAC nomination. I'm grateful though it was successful. I've got another FAC now, the next congresswoman from Ohio, Jean Schmidt. The FAC page is here. I hope to get it featured by September 6, the day she will be sworn in. I'd appreciate your support. PedanticallySpeaking 17:28, August 23, 2005 (UTC) (P.S. If you are worried about the "fair use" of her picture, when she's sworn, we'll be able to replace it with a nice U.S. government public domain photo.)

Biochemistry on WP:MCOTW

Hi! You showed support for Biochemistry, this week's Medicine Collaboration of the Week. You are invited to help improve it! — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Primates category rework

After some good discussion on the talk for WP:PRIM with User:Marskell, I've begun work on cleaning up category:Early hominids. Please come to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Primates/category rework to weigh in your opinion on what direction to take. - UtherSRG (talk) 13:13, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Mark Felt Redux

In June you voted on the featured article candidacy of W. Mark Felt, which failed. It has now been resubmitted. In the event you would like to vote on the new candidacy, it is at Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/W. Mark Felt/archive1. PedanticallySpeaking 19:00, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for support on my RfA!

Thanks for your support of my adminship!! I was surprised at the turnout and support I got! If you ever have any issues with any of my actions, please notify me on my talk page! Thanks again! Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:21, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Neanderthal again

Although the AfD debate for Neanderthal theory of autism was closed "copyvio", I note that it was also described as "original research". I suspect that the latest submission is also likely to be considered original research. I have moved it to User:Ombudsman/Neanderthal theory of autism. Please feel free to:

• work on the article there
• raise a request at Wikipedia:Votes for undeletion inviting people to view the version in user: space
• create a stub article at Neanderthal theory of autism pointing people to the Vfu debate.

-- RHaworth 07:04, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

Image source/licensing for Image:Bryanferry1.jpg

The image you uploaded, Image:Bryanferry1.jpg, has no source information. The image page currently doesn't specify who created the image, so the copyright status is therefore unclear. If you have not created the image yourself then you need to argue that we have the right to use the image on Wikipedia (see copyright tagging below). If you have not created the image yourself then you should also specify where you found it, ie in most cases link to the website where you got it, and the terms of use for content from that page. See Wikipedia:Image copyright tags for the full list of copyright tags that you can use. Unless the copyright status is provided, the image will be marked for deletion on 24 October 2005.

This message notification has been automatically sent by NotificationBot managed and run by AllyUnion. Please leave comments regarding bot operations at AllyUnion's talk page. Please direct all comments regarding licensing information at Wikipedia talk:Images for deletion. --NotificationBot 13:19, 17 October 2005 (UTC)

Chemical Imbalance Theory

Hi, Ombudsman. I apologise if it appears that my attempted edit was censoring, however, I would like to raise just a couple of points. Firstly, the page seems very US-centric. Pharmaceutical companies are not allowed to advertise in most of the rest of the world, and as such, I am surprised that such companies would talk about 'chemical imbalance' as it seems a gross oversimplification (and a misleading one because it makes a drug that changes the chemical balance seem like an obvious treatment). Secondly, this page, like a number of others, ends up effectively dealing with over-prescription of such medications. Over-prescription is definitely a problem (although again, perhaps somewhat US-centric), but does every page relating to mental illness require its re-consideration? Perhaps the page need clearer differentiation between 'chemical imbalance' as a drug-company marketing tool (and perhaps 30 year old science), and current science. Cheers, Limegreen 04:25, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

Whale.to

I am not sure what has prompted you to reinsert those spammed links to whale.to. It is a site with absolutely no linkability - it does not contain information, just truckloads of the most deluded, misguided and bizarre nonsense. What makes you link this site is worth linking to? JFW | T@lk 00:09, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

rv: please do not delete link to comprehensive website with wealth of useful material; choking off contrarian viewpoints only serves to create imbalanced pov

If this edit summary[2] is supposed to be a reply to my above message, I'm even more surprised. It is certainly comprehensive in its complete inability to cover anything of note. It is a bizarre, extreme-fringe POV that requires no cover as per WP:NPOV. Beginning with Pasteur, everybody is wrong, conspirating and evil. Please don't defend this lunacy. JFW | T@lk 00:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

You keep on reinserting those links without caring to respond to my messages above. I have absolutely no idea what makes you think edit summaries are adequate to conduct this discussion.

If you can prove that this whale.to lunacy has a significant support base I may change my mind, but for the moment I'm adhering closely to NPOV by deleting fringe stuff that needs no forum in Wikipedia. JFW | T@lk 20:53, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I have filed an RFC on your behaviour viz these links at Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Ombudsman. Please comment there. JFW | T@lk 22:55, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

revert

You just deleted various statements by others on the John Kerry talk page. Was this an accident? I am re-instating them. Derex @ 23:58, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

no prob, that's what i figured. i only even asked because things are getting very tense over on talk right now. Derex @ 00:12, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

David Kirby

Hi. You caught another mistake I made, but I'm not sure if this is one too or not. In the David Kirby page, you restored a link to [3] calling it an essential resource archive. Could you please look at that page and tell me how a link to a book's official website (which is already linked from the wikipedia article) and a "pre-order" link to amazon.com is essential or resourceful? The site also says it will be due in February 2005, and the book in question came out April 2005 - it's not a pre-order anymore. The page is over six months out of date. Indium 03:39, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the welcome note

I appreciated the welcome note you left, and I'm glad to see that my contributions are off to a good start. Thanks once more! Jkorbes 07:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Thank you Ombudsman!!!

Thank you for giving me the newcomer award. I'm so psyched!!  :) Becca77^Talk/_Email 05:11, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Thanks!

I'm not sure how you noticed it, but thank you for reverting the vandalism to my user page while I was away. I guess that's what I get for signing my messages on their talk pages. :P Indium 10:03, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

And thanks for reverting the vandalism to my contributions on the E. Fuller Torrey page! Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 01:11, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Your Ombudsman Name is Misleading

I have been reading your extremist views against psychiatry. You have no business using the name "Ombudsman" when you have no official role. I thought at first you were the wikipedia ombudsman until I read the anti-psychiatry nonsense you are spewing. It's pretty low of you to attempt to gain credibility by using an official sounding name. Wikipedia officials should force you to change your name.--24.55.228.56 03:43, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

More thanks

Thanks for welcoming me as well. I've been working on a spin-off wiki for some time, but I hope to start actually doing something useful on the rather large one now. --Dws90 15:27, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Lahore Marathon

Nice work on that, and thanks! Foofy 00:07, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Please be careful when editing talk pages

Your edit to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/Ombudsman inadvertently deleted my commment. Please take care not to remove the comments of others when editing talk pages. It is also usually best to post your replies in the talk page rather than in the edit summaries; if someone had subsequently edited the talk page I might never have known that you replied to my comment. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 15:40, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

RfC on Whale.to

You can find the RfC at WP:RFC/SCI. Hopefully we can get some outside help in mediating this edit war! InvictaHOG 19:52, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Makiling Campus Runners

hey, sorry i dont have any other way of communicating with you so sorry for editing your page... you edited the article about the makiling challenge and changed it into makiling campus runners... that's great! but please! (oh please) never attach the word running CLUB with the organization's name... the organization has resolved that issue to drop off the word CLUB from our association's name.. and besides.. it is already redundant (repeatingly over and over again one more time for the second time around!hahahah) to say MAKILING CAMPUS RUNNERS RUNNING CLUB.... ---MEYNARDTENGCO Meynardtengco (talk · contribs) 16:19, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Brainwashing and Mind Control

Please take part at the merge vote under Talk:Mind control#Merge vote --Irmgard 16:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Smallpox vaccines

Hey Ombudsman, this week's JAMA has two articles about smallpox vaccination and the success of VAERS. [4] [5]. JFW | T@lk 22:00, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

See also

The medical articles are not "biased and misleading", as you suggested on User_talk:InvictaHOG, but your vaccine pages certainly are. Your abuse of the "see also" section to create some sort of a daisy chain of your cherished topics is noticable on every page you've edited. I believe the list of vaccine topics was your creation and you should be proud it is serving its purpose! JFW | T@lk 01:27, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since you like communicating by edit summaries: "rv gratuitous deletions" is not a valid reason having been given the above explanation. Please be aware the three-revert rule is in operation. JFW | T@lk 01:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I'll spell it out: "see also" is to add topics not already discussed in the article but intimately related. Most of your "standard" see also items only have peripheral relevance, or have already been linked in the article. JFW | T@lk 01:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

See also sections

Sorry if I caused a conflict. I think that the See also on several of the pages I edited were becoming large and many of the links seemed to have nothing to do with the primary subject (other than being written by you!). I think that the list of topics is a great idea and gives people a chance to really read in-depth on the subjects of autism and vaccination, which are admittedly huge and complex topics. Since they are so comprehensive, they make sure that every viewpoint is included from multiple different angles and saves the See also sections from being a growing list of POV escalations. Some of those pages had eight different links, all of which were to pages of your own creation! I could have inserted any number of links, but I think it makes the most sense to just link to your well-maintained master lists. Let me know what you think...InvictaHOG 02:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

We can start a category: Category:Pages created and patrolled by Ombudsman. JFW | T@lk 08:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Barnstar

Ombudsman is hereby awarded the Tireless Contributor Barnstar in appreciation for your creation of the Steven E. Jones article and your excellent ongoing work to assure that issues related to 9/11 are more fairly and completely presented in Wikipedia. Keep up the great work! --Blackcats 10:35, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

AFD Alert!

The list of researchers is now being AFDed. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/9/11 conspiracy theories/September 11 researchers. I'm counter-proposing that it be kept and moved to its own page. Blackcats 23:06, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Bipolar disorder

I'm sorry you consider the bipolar disorder article to be "pseudoscience". However, since this is a serious article about a serious medical disorder, I'll have to disagree with you. -- The Anome 13:56, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks :)

... for the friendly welcome you gave. Nice. --EyesAllMine 21:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, but--  ;)

Thank you for the welcome you gave me as a "new" Wikipedian, which I find slightly confusing since I have been contributing for close to a year, LOL. I also found it a little strange that you would say me correcting factual inaccuracies in an article had "POV". Is changing the incorrect spelling of an actress' name POV? Or pointing out that a "biographical" film had documented fictional elements? Thanks, though, for the comments--you're the first person from Wikipedia who has ever contacted me. (P.S. I added a cite for the information this morning).

--jmk56

9/11 conspiracy theories

I think this article really needs to be split off into three or more separate articles. It's now a full 76 KB. I plan to officially propose this as soon as the Pentagon and WTC sections of the Researchers questioning the official account of 9/11 are finished being merged back into complete and NPOV sections of the main article. In the past there had been separate articles, but they were merged into one jumbo article for POV reasons. (I think mostly so that the antisemetic stuff would be in the same article as the research of people like David Ray Griffin). I think a good solution would be to move most of the content out of the main article (and ideally NPOV its title) and to have the stuff about jews/isreal moved to something like Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and the stuff along the lines of Griffin and Steven Jones moved to something like Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Let me know what you think....

Thanks--Blackcats 09:04, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Offensive edit summary

Ombudsman, I am responding to your edit summary on psychoactive drug: "rv: technical concerns noted; however, your objective apparently is to suppress entirely valid content, a telling hallmark of Western medicine's barbaric legacy toward natural healing practices" [6]. I do not like to be called a barbarian, and I take strong issue with your reaction. For one thing, you completely misunderstood my motives (assume good faith is an important policy). The chart in question was removed not because of some form of bias against "natural healing practices" (whatever those may be) but because it was a large lump of data without sources. Thoric actually bothered to address my concerns and provided sources, which is why I will no further object to the chart's use on psychoactive drug.

I would appreciate an apology, and I hope you realise that further personal attacks will meet with a notice on WP:AN/I. JFW | T@lk 23:40, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

Proposal alert!

I have officially proposed to split the "9/11 conspiracy theories" article, with the two most in depth areas being moved to separate articles at Allegations of Jewish or Israeli complicity in 9/11 and Allegations of U.S. government complicity in 9/11. Please check out the discussion at Talk:9/11_conspiracy_theories#Proposal_to_split_this_article . Thank you. Blackcats 21:21, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Page Move Advisory

Good day.

The article at Dan Burton is being relocated to Dan Burton (U.S. Congressman). Please update the link on your user page to reflect this move. (Folajimi 20:25, 28 December 2005 (UTC))

Edit summaries

Please refrain from lecturing other editors about wiki policy in your edit summaries: restore representative selection of links; there is absolutely no reason other than suppression for narrowing to list of vaccine topics, in violation of Wiki policy. It's a failure to assume good faith, and it's insulting.

I've trimmed the list because there's nothing about the Simpsonwood conference or the other two links that makes them more relevant to our article on the NVIC than any of the other (scores of) articles on list of vaccine topics. It slants our coverage to single those articles out as particularly relevant or important when, frankly, they're not. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 01:06, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

(from User talk:TenOfAllTrades)A great deal of harm in the form of vaccine injuries is being caused by the massive expansion of mass vaccination campaigns in recent decades. If you two are so adverse to the notion of informed debate that you must resort to deleting salient content, you should propose an RfC outlining the details of what evidently is an emerging strategy to ban see also links on vaccine articles. Ombudsman 03:01, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't describe me–or other editors–as averse to informed debate. I'm quite fond of informed debate and rational discussion; it is both tiresome and offensive to be regularly accused of censorship.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not an advocacy site. 'See also' links have not been 'banned', but it is reasonable to trim the lists of links to represent the most important and most relevant articles that are not linked within the article body. When a subset of related articles is chosen to emphasize a particular viewpoint–the view that mass vaccination is a dangerous practice, for example–it slants our coverage, and misrepresents the topic at hand.

No censorship has taken place. The articles remain intact, and are still linked where appropriate: where they are references within articles, from the list of vaccine topics, and from 'see also' lists where they are particularly relevant to a given article. The shotgun inclusion of a long list of 'see also's in every article doesn't help our readers; it only leaves them scratching their heads at why so many articles are included in the list. It creates a walled garden of articles that doesn't accurately portray the subject of vaccination.

Please refrain from insulting your fellow editors, and discuss the changes reasonably. Don't engage in edit wars. If you feel that some 'See also' links have been removed inappropriately, by all means post a request for comment regarding the articles in question. TenOfAllTrades(talk) 05:54, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

help, ombudsman!

Is there something we can do about this clown 24.55.228.56? His smug and arrogant edits are threatening several psychiatry-related wiki articles. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Please check in at "request for comment." I want this guy watched for a while. Francesca Allan of MindFreedomBC 03:17, 31 December 2005 (UTC)