User talk:Naturstud

Deleting Natural Remedies

Could you weigh in on the Onion Juice Therapy debate? http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Onion_Juice_Therapy#Onion_Juice_Therapy Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by JamesMMc (talk • contribs) 01:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Getting started
A tutorial • Our five pillars • Getting mentored How to: edit a page • upload and use images
Getting help
Frequently asked questions • Tips Where to ask questions or make comments Request administrator attention
Policies and guidelines
Neutral point of view • No original research Verifiability • Reliable sources • Citing sources What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Policy for non-free content • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability

The community
Build consensus • Resolve disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Community Portal • Village pump Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists
Writing articles
Be bold in editing • Develop an article The perfect article • Manual of style Stubs • Categories • Disambiguation Pages needing attention • Peer review
Miscellaneous
User name • User pages • Talk pages Clean up: General - Spam - Vandalism Join a WikiProject • Translation Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

|}

The "half-a-barnstar", for cooperation!

You are hereby awarded ...

		The Half Barnstar
		For cooperation and compromise above and beyond in the editing of Medical degree! Good job! :-) Fr33kman^{talk APW} 00:48, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medical degree - MEDCOM

Hi. Can I ask you not to edit the article or the talk page until the case has been submitted and begun? I feel that this would be most appropriate. Thank you! fr33k man -s- 02:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please, going around now and continuing to argue on the talk page, or updating what you've said; will be noticed by MEDCOM. Just a thought :-) fr33k man -s- 02:52, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Case submitted

Hi, the case has been submitted for you both. Can you kindly go to the case page and edit the section (Parties' agreement to mediate) and add your agreement to MEDCOM mediation below my sig. Please use the format "#Agree. ~~~~". Please do not edit the rest of the page, except for the section (Additional issues to be mediated) where you can put additional issues to be mediated if you wish: please be brief and neutral if you add issues. I need to caution you that any further edits to the page or further argument on the talk page may cause MEDCOM to reject the case (their rules, not mine). Thanks! fr33k man -s- 19:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: I've since learned that MEDCOM is not binding, but still should be done prior to any binding processes (eg: ArbCom), As such, I still think that you should go with MEDCOM. fr33k man -s- 19:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to bug you, but there is a time limit on agreement for the MEDCOM case. Thanks! fr33k man -s- 17:49, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Request for mediation not accepted

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted.
You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Medical degree.

For the Mediation Committee, WJBscribe (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to perform case management.
If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

Listed at MEDCAB

I have listed the dispute at WP:MEDCAB as per the MEDCOM mediators suggestion. This is not binding and if you do not wish to take part in MEDCAB, please let the MEDCAB mediator know this when they take the case and they will drop it. As a member of MEDCAB I now need to abstain from partaking in this case. I will be available to the MEDCAB mediator if they require clarification on a point. Thank you both and good luck! fr33k man -s- 00:00, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation

I apologise for not having yet contacted you with regards to the mediation. I will be hoping to work with the two of you in coming to an agreement. I know that communication hasnt given any success but i hope to help out :) I you have any questions feel free to ask. Seddσn ^talk ^{Editor Review} 21:51, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations!

You're doing a swell job with the article on Naturopathy. I hope you can do something for the article on Homeopathy as well. As of now, if someone reads just the intro to that article, they will most certainly avoid Homeopathic treatment. You can take some inputs from the Encyclopedia Brittanica and Citizendium (en.citizendium.org/wiki/Homeopathy) if you like.

Hi, and thank you for your yeoman's work on the naturopathic medicine article. I am a new editor and placed my first post on the Naturopathic Medicine discussion page a few days ago, going head to head with Sciencewatcher. I added a new section at the bottom of the page called "Unproven Treatments." Sciencewatcher replied quite civilly, and today I added a very, very long rant about what is scientific vs. unscientific, what is "proven" vs "unproven," the limits of the scientific method, and so forth. It doesn't help the article any, but I feel better. Would you like to make any suggestions about where I could best contribute to improving the naturopathic medicine article? Or the homeopathy article. Or do you have any other advice or suggestions? --Little Flower Eagle (talk) 21:28, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Naturopathic education

I do not fault you for citing that talkpage discussion just now, but another point occurred to me since I stated that not using Atwood MedGenMed in that section. Anyway, hopefully we can continue amicable and productive discussion over at Talk:Naturopathy now. - Eldereft (cont.) 15:36, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV tag on Homeopathy article

Dear Naturstud, I'm sure you know that the article on Homeopathy is policed by the skeptical critics and that the article is an attack piece. They aren't even letting us insert the POV tag on the Homeopathy article. I hope you can do the needful (or they may next target the Naturopathy article). Thanks in advance for the help.-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! Talk about canvassing! Take it to the article itself and discuss it there. -- Fyslee (talk) 15:20, 28 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure you've read the article on Homeopathy - every sentence there is criticised and no defense is being allowed. I'm new here (although I'm not a noob). Can you mediate/arbitrate and make that article more NPOV or at least tell me how to get someone mediate/arbitrate, without getting blocked/banned?. Not even a POV tag is being allowed on the article. Please help!-NootherIDAvailable (talk) 11:06, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]