User talk:Leuko/Archive August 2006
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Personal Attacks from Banned Users
who do you think you are?
Leuko.. who the hell are you and who made you an authority on what should and shouldn't be included in the SCIMD page? From what i can see you are only adding things to the page that can be used negatively against their students and hurt them. If you would do some research on the pages and the people you are helping (ie azskeptic) you will see that he is already the target of several lawsuits pending and future, for doing such things as what you are doing. I'm simply leaving out negative things being put onto their wikipedia article that was the result of actions of "azskeptic". I'm trying to show the positive things about the school and help them with the future while you seem to be on a mission to try to ruin the lives of these people?
if you are so confident in what you are posting then please post your real name and contact info as i'm sure the students of the school would be much more than will to at least attempt to sue you for slander and defamation at the very least.Gubica 04:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a sad attempt at influencing the truth by threatening lawsuit. --Azskeptic 22:44, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not hear to help or hurt anyone. I am here to ensure that Wikipedia articles are as accurate as possible, including all verifiable information, be it positive or negative so that future students can make a fully informed decision whether they should attend the school or not. If the purpose of the St_Christopher_Iba_Mar_Diop_College_of_Medicine is to only exalt the positive and sweep the negative under the rug, then the article should be deleted as patent advertising in accordance with Wikipedia policies. Also, you have been warned for your comments in accordance with WP:NPA. Please don't do it again. Leuko 18:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Leuko, please refrain from changing the SCIMD article without a consensus on what is to be done... I think this needs to be a group decision. Please do not change the article again as I have given you very obvious privacy reasons and some technical reasons on the discussion page.... Sir, you doing this takes time out of my day for reverting the post back to normal. I would strongly appreciate for the third time to discuss it on the talk page until a decision is made, before finally reverting it. Thanks and now I have to go check on that Rectal bleed on North 8.--Vtak 21:46, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't really see why there needs to be a consensus on it. Without citations, the content is clearly in violation of WP:V, since no other editors can verify your claims. Have fun on the proctology service. Leuko 00:12, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Well as i have said before man, it can be checked but we are not gonna do it without the graduates' permission... all other minor colleges are doing that here, however, how come we are the only singled out ones? The reference to a graduate without his/her permission in the article is a violation of Wikipedia's Five Pillars as well... its not proctology service, called HSO and its his case now, med cannot bovie.--Vtak 00:47, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Since we keep going around in circles, and obviously do not agree on the correct course of action, I've solicited a 3rd opinion to see what a neutral party has to say on the matter. Leuko 01:31, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Diplomacy please
Please try to be diplomatic in your edit summaries (like St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine). Removing information from an article isn't vandalism per Wikipedia:Vandalism, and remember it's always preferable to discuss disputes instead of reverting edits and starting an edit war. Diplomacy can go a long way sometimes. Fagstein 02:10, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Sorry, but I read WP:Vandalism differently:
Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of articles (sometimes replacing the removed content with profanities) is a common vandal edit
A user has already be blocked for the continued blanking vandalism of significant information from the article, and now it looks like he is continuing with anon ip's. I am sorry, but I believe I have been very diplomatic, and have not resorted to personal attacks. Leuko 02:16, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- thank you for your input... this is exactly what the "article" needed. The parts of the article that are being removed are not significant parts and rather are blatant negative attacks. While i agree that lying to prospective students is not correct, why must negative parts be highlighted? Keep the "facts" (and i use this word lightly with this group) positive and help the school advance and produce better and more qualified physicians. Prospective students can always call up their own state board, or the school's offices and ask questions. If anyone has proof that the CURRENT administration or school officials are lying to students (prospective or current) about possible licensure issue or charter issues or anything for that matter then yes the school should have something formally brought against them. From what i see the school has been and is currently being investigated by the GMC. Should the GMC find problems that are beyond repair then the school will be closed, and then no need to bash anymore because the school will fade away. Portraying the situation as constantly negative helps no one at all. Help correct the problem instead of being a problem (I'm looking at 2 of you and you know who you are) and portray the positive side of things that several students despite this situation have gone on to be very successful. thank you again for impartial imput. Azrealist 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Encyclopedias reflect reality,not positives alone. --Azskeptic 18:26, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- Nowhere did I see a blatant negative "attack." In accordance with WP:NPOV all sides (both positive and negative) surrounding an issue must be presented. I fail to see how including verified facts which are verified as reality can be an "attack." Also, I see nothing on the GMC page that indicates an investigation is on-going. AFAIK, the investigation is concluded and the decision is final. Sweeping reality under the rug does future students no good at all - they should be fully informed before investing the massive amounts of cash that medical school costs. If the intent of the article is to only portray the positive, and hide the issues, then the article should be deleted, since its purpose is blatant self-promotion, and not fit for an encyclopedic entry. Leuko 23:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Leuko, I bring up verifiable information about Mr Hughson and you call that a personal attack. Since when is something verifiable, your words and rules, an attack. Again, I have presented in the discussion forum information you choose to ignore. This is blatantly siding with Mr. Hughson who is verifiably, under investigation for his role with Oregon ODA in collusion. He has no credentials anyone can verify and is nothing more really, than an unenlightened consumer claiming all kinds of expertise he should not lay claim to!! If you like, I can arrange a conference call with the students attorney firm in NJ and we can discuss the issues so that you can understand far more than you currently do depending only on web citations and the like. The real story is far more in depth than you currently know and Mr. Hughson is way behind the curve. --Doctorcane08 18:09, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- I am not "siding" with anyone, only with the facts which I can verify. I am not interested in speaking with any attorneys, since even if what they say is true, it is likely not verifiable, since they would be trying to make a case, and nothing has been proven yet. Leuko 19:50, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Request for Mediation
 |
A Request for Mediation to which you are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine.
|
United Streets Dopeboyz of America
I don't think this qualifies for speedy deletion, the group's members have an apparent notability, over 2 million google hits between them. User:Pedant 07:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- See reply on the article's talk page. Leuko 08:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Global Personal Initiatives
Just FYI, I originally agreed with you that the article should be speedy-deleted, but I double-checked WP:CSD and "This is advertising/spam" is specifically listed there as something that isn't a valid speedy-delete reason. Kickaha Ota 19:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
- Oops, sorry, missed that, thanks for the heads up. I'll change it to just plain delete. :-) Leuko 19:26, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Ralph Winter (judge)
You prodded the article Ralph Winter (judge). I made some changes to it (removing some of the attacks and adding some references), and removed the prod. Regards, TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:20, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Mediation
Mediation is a waste of time. If we could work through this without admin input we would have done it by now, obviously we can't. Arbitration is what will allow a final ruling about the validity of .gov sources that use unverified and undocumented research and sources as well as all the other issues regarding this article and allow for a final entry to be constructed for SCIMD. Spike 01:55, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
True, mediation requires that editors be willing to go through the process and work towards an amicable solution. I'll put in the arbitration request. Leuko 17:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine
I added the {{unaccredited}} template and removed from the UK medical school templates, "Spike" is (of course) edit warring over it. Feel free to pitch in, and feel free to add to the WP:RFAR. Just zis Guy you know? 21:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher
Hello,
An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/St Christopher/Workshop.
On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 13:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Joel Hedgpeth
Several days ago, you prodded the article Joel Hedgpeth. Please take a look at the latest version of the Joel Hedgpeth article, and make any changes that seem appropriate. TruthbringerToronto (Talk | contribs) 15:35, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
- Looks a lot better now -- I can actually see some notability in the article vs. the first version. I've made a minor contribution of removing an extra ] on a link. :-) Leuko 16:25, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Request for Assistance
i see on your little boxes on the right side of your page that you are against personal attacks. then i ask what will be done about them. i was personally attacked mrphyzyx or something like that, on a talk page for a proposed deletion. my username is The03Era15Strong, and a comment he left for the proposed deletion of the article "43228" was that people should look at my user page. he did this because of old comments of mine left there, and he was trying to make me look bad. i have a problem with hypocrits, which is why i think you should look at this problem im having, because there is nothing i can do about it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The03era15strong (talk • contribs).
- If you feel that you have had a personal attack made against you which is a violation of WP:NPA, you can report it to Wikipedia administrators on the notice board: WP:PAIN. Leuko 01:23, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
do you have some kind of problem
why do you feel it's necessary to get this article removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tparker393 (talk • contribs).
- Please don't take it personally, but the reason why I proposed the deletion is probably listed in the proposal. It would help to know which article you are talking about so I could discuss it with you further. Also, please sign your comments using 4 tildes (~~~~), and remember no personal attacks. Thanks. Leuko 03:28, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
alright- there are some references for the Larson Plan article now- are you happy? by the way, looks like you found out my name anyway- but here's the sig as you requested, why are you wiki freaks so uptight anyway, do you think people are going to care about this in a few years, when the world is reduced to ash and rubble? Tparker393 03:40, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
- Please be civil. Like I said before, please don't take this personally. Please see my comments re: the references on the article's talk page. Leuko 03:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
You remove my link
You remove my link http://card-magic.blogspot.com because you think it's a blog. Do I talk about current events? Do I talk about my life? It's not a blog FYI. It just have a blogspot domain so you think it's a blog. The site is a collection of card tricks that users submitted.
- Well, it's still a non-notable website on blogspot (so yes, technically it is a blog by format). You note that you put it there because it's your site. According to the External Link guidelines, you should not link your own sites because of POV concerns. If it is notable/useful to the Wikipedia community, then another, neutral editor will add it. Also, your link not be in WP since it is link spam. Prominently on the top of your page is advertising which you get paid for. Using WP to increase your Google PageRank, visitors, and ad revenue are not acceptable. Leuko 19:07, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Howard Barnett Source
Following your recent reversion of my edits to the Howard Barnett article, I contacted the article's creator User:Rougher07, and suggested that he cite a source which is compliant with Wikipedia policies governing NPOV and reliable sources. --TommyBoy 21:23, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. Now why didn't I think of that? :-) Leuko 05:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
