User talk:Ombudsman

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. Previous discussions: Archive 1 (26 Feb 2005 to 31 Dec 2005)

Picture of the day

The greater white-fronted goose (Anser albifrons) is a species of goose in the family Anatidae. It is closely related to the lesser white-fronted goose, which is smaller. The greater white-fronted goose is migratory, breeding in northern Canada, Alaska, Greenland and Russia, and winters farther south in North America, Europe and Asia. The greater white-fronted goose has a length of 64 to 81 cm (25 to 32 in), a wingspan of 130 to 165 cm (51 to 65 in), and a mass of 1.93 to 3.31 kg (4 lb 4 oz to 7 lb 5 oz). Males are typically larger in size, and both sexes are similar in appearance – greyish brown with light grey breasts dappled with dark brown to black blotches and bars. Both males and females also have a pinkish bill, and orange legs and feet. This greater white-fronted goose was photographed in flight in the Central Valley of the US state of California.Photograph credit: Frank Schulenburg

Archive – More featured pictures...

Please feel free to leave a message

Re: Pentagon question

Wow - I'm the first to leave a message after the archiving! In reply to your question about the Pentagon, as far as I know, Wikipedia does not have an article specifically about the pentagon being hit... There's some discussion at The Pentagon and some of course at September 11, 2001 attacks, but I couldn't find a link on either one to an article specifically about the pentagon on 9/11. I'd say go ahead and start one if you have the time and engergy, and of course present the official view along with other explanations. I was just reading an article the other day at Jim Hoffman's site where he says the Pentagon likely was hit by a large plane, but that the plane was probably blown up just immediately prior to its impact and most of the damage in the building was caused by other explosive charges. [1] [2] [3] [4] You may find those interesting if you haven't read them already...

Talk with you later. Happy new year! Blackcats 09:11, 1 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just butting in, but all those 'the plane was blown up' things should go under conspiracy theories. There is some great computer modeling that shows how the damage that was done was done without needing to add lone gunmen on a grassy knoll..

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn't have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane – particularly the large amount of fuel onboard – can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building."

--DoctorMike 18:05, 6 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lily Loat

You have inserted the given links into a number of articles. It is hard to see where they are appropriate or not. Please follow proper procedures if you find fault with their removal. Thanks! Cyberevil 04:25, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, alright. Discuss it with the parties deeply involved in this. Cyberevil 05:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year!

Since we've been just going back and forth on this one, I thought that we'd best ask for a little external perspective! I've started the RfC over at Talk:Thimerosal InvictaHOG 05:40, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS: If you look at the MMR vaccine website, you will see that I made no response to your assertions about hazing rituals...which do not exist anyway...but oh well. InvictaHOG 06:02, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I'm not being obtuse on purpose - perhaps my unfamiliarity with British history is on display here. I am still unsure what your point is with the Whitehall studies or the French economists! There are many studies showing a variety of health differences between people of different socioeconomic backgrounds. I don't know if there were some proven medical cover-up or something that's just not covered in any of the Whitehall articles? I'm still at a loss a month later as to how it relates to whale.to. And the French economists - is it just that some people in an entirely different field were insensitive in their naming of their movement? How does that relate to me, to medicine, etc? Just as an example of people doing questionable things? An example of a hierarchy (which I'm most certainly NOT at the top of!)? It's just not readily apparent what you meant. I don't object to conversation, which must be conducted - it is important to discuss at length any concerns that vaccination is responsible for disease. I have always only objected to the whale.to site as an example of important information presented in a confrontational and off-putting manner. You call it color, I see it as an attack. Simple as that. As for the hazing, I didn't respond because it was ludicrous in my experience. I don't deny that it has happened or that it still happens elsewhere because I can't be everywhere at once to make sure. I can only say that I have never experienced the rituals that you described and am therefore not "brainwashed." I have no contacts with drug companies - they are not allowed in our hospital, our clinics, etc. I refuse all dinners, trinkets, etc. because I believe strongly that they should have no role in medical decisions. I know that there are many problems with medicine, but I do not feel that I am one of them. I, like you, just seek the truth. I just prefer that the truth not be wrapped in angry, accusatory prose! You know that I haven't deleted the other links...if we dispensed with the constant insertion of whale.to, we could get down to the more important things at hand! InvictaHOG 19:09, 2 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I posted this to the MMR vaccine RfC, but I wanted to let you know that I thought of a compromise on whale.to! I think that you already noticed that I copied the speech and book by Lily Loat into Wikisource. I hope you see that this is a show of good faith vis a vis the content (though not the tone!) of whale.to! InvictaHOG 09:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the barnstar

Thank you for the Barnstar. --Arcadian 14:15, 3 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CITE - external links as sources

Ombudsman, you kindly expanded American Medical Student Association [5]. However, you did not cite any sources. There is a list of external links, but it is unclear whether these links support your additions, and which link would support which statement. Please review WP:CITE and consider using footnotes.

Similarly, on Medical resident work hours you quote Dr Richard Corlin without mentioning the source, the OSHA rejection is unsourced, and the ACGME policies are unlinked. Again, if the sources are buried in "external links" could you please trace each statement to its proper source? Thanks for your help. JFW | T@lk 09:16, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

Thank you for your welcome, hope to be able to make some interesting contributions in the future. Cheers! --Serrano 20.02, 7 January 2006

And more thanks

Hey, thanks for the barnstar. I'm flattered. How'd you even notice me? I'm still around but I'm not very visible these days. Isomorphic 04:06, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, no particular reason for my comment on his page. I was just going through a few of the candidates, noticed that a new user had set himself up to take a beating, and wanted to soften the blow. It's easy for newcomers to Wikipedia to put themselves in awkward positions like that, not realizing how the community works. I used to see lots of newbies do that on Requests for Adminship. Isomorphic 04:21, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ombudsman- recommended reading

I thank you for your unbiased vote on the Edward Smith VfD. I looked at your user page, and I see that your fields of interest coincide somewhat with those in which Edward Smith has made discoveries. Have you yet read the articles that the page (Edward Smith (psychologist)) links to, and the articles that those articles link to? I recommend that you do so because you personally are likely to value the information. The information is not just enlightening, but it is also useful. I request that you give me feedback on this matter, either here or on my talk page. IrreversibleKnowledge 19:22, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic enterocolitis

Please adopt a less slanted approach to this topic. There are entries that are being made by you that do not meet a reasonable standard of verifiability. I like Andy Wakefield and have injoyed a number of conversations with him, and I treat autistic kids, so I am not an anti-Autism individual. However, as an encyclopedia the topics should not be backed up by comments by reporters. They certainly should not have descriptions of proposed research in the field. If this keeps up I will put it up for arbitration and deletion. Steve Kd4ttc 21:51, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the entry in my talk page. I responded there. Also, I copied the thread of discussion into the autistic enterocolitis talk. I would like to continue the discussion there. Regards, Kd4ttc 23:11, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Medical intern / AMSA

Dear Ombudsman,

I have written the reason for my removal of the see also link to American Medical Student Association from Medical intern on the latter's talk page.

Cheers, --Daveb 08:39, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply on my talk page: I have made a further reply there. Cheers, --Daveb 09:14, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Epidemiology as a causal inference

Thank you for tidying up my editing. That is kind of you. 86.10.231.219 23:02, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MMR stuff should not be in the Epidemiology article

Pushing the MMR stuff into the epidemiology article is inappropriate. The MMR studies do not do anything to advance the understanding of epidemiology. The place to put information on the studies of MMR is in an article about that issue. The epidemiology article is not the place where every article that is epidemiological should be referenced. At this juncture you have the option of naming the article where the material will go. If you don't take advantage of that you will find that someone else moves the material. Take advantage of creating an article with a name you like. Kd4ttc 02:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagreed with this comment from Kd4ttc and I set out some reasons [[6]]. Overall, a controversial topical example of this kind is not only something the lay person can relate to but it also highlights and is an opportunity to look in detail at the strengths and weaknesses of epidemiology. The reasons given for excluding it really do not pass muster. The Invisible Anon - 16:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Autistic enterocolitis

I have to say I was disturbed to see such inaccurate information placed by others in "Criticism" [[7]] on this page.

As I see you have been working on this page and trying to get it into proper shape. I thought I should let you know I have spent a little time tidying up that section and hope the quality of the editing is satisfactory to your eye. It is disturbing that information on such an important topic was so abysmally inaccurate. Basic facts were just wrong and the opposite of the reality. I cannot understand how it could have been allowed to get into such a state in the first place. This is not criticism of your efforts and I hope you approve of the edited text and appropriate references.

There is other inaccurate information also, but this was screaming out in pain for a cure. 86.10.231.219 20:47, 29 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks and discussion

Hello, thanks for your words of encouragement. My attempts to add what I consider relevant, useful information to the Template:Infobox Senator has been met with opposition. I have put forth my argument at Template talk:Infobox Senator. Perhaps you would like to contribute to the discussion? Potatoe 03:33, 30 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Skeptical to medical claims community

Ombudsman, it may turn out that we may disagree on a number of issues in the future, but the experience on Anti-vaccinationists leads me to believe that we need a more unified, disciplined approach to make sure that articles about medicine, alternative medicine, medical issues and controversies, etc., are balanced and accurate. I am going to create a user template that categorizes those of us who object to blind faith in the current state of medical science and think that objections to it are duly noted. Do you agree with this, and would you like to participate? --Leifern 16:22, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Joke's RfA

Hi Ombudsman, thanks for your support in my (successful) RfA! –Joke 16:23, 7 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]