User talk:Uglypuss

Talk page deletions

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments, as you did at Talk:Semmelweis Society, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. MastCell ^Talk 01:27, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have replied to your post at Editors Assistance Requests.Drew Smith What I've done 01:40, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of interest

If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about in the article Semmelweis Society, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with;
participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors; and
linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam).

Please familiarize yourself with relevant policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. For more details about what, exactly, constitutes a conflict of interest, please see our conflict of interest guidelines. Thank you. --Orange Mike | Talk 02:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from WP:EAR

Greetings: I am one of four corporate board members. You will find my name in these corporate documents: [1].

Our website at [2] also reflects the membership of our current board.

We don't know who edited these pages, but our President, Roland Chalifoux, is a practicing physician in West Virginia. Whoever posted a reference was not hyperlinked and there is no information to support this claim. There was controvery, but it was related to individuals who wrote things that now appear in this entry.

Semmelweis is an organization that fights retaliation against physicians. Your website is being used to perpetuate retaliation. Help! (e-mail redacted) Clark Baker (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What article are you reffering to? Is the inserted information sourced or unsourced? If unsourced is the information truely libelous or merely incorrect? Are you familiar with our policies on conflict of interest, biographies of a living person, and what wikipedia is not?(all hyperlinks lead to the relevant policies) Also, we have no way of really verifying who you are. Even if we could, information from you would be considered a "Primary Source" (see WP:RS for more info on sources) and we generally use "Secondary", and even "Tertiary" sources. While "Primary" sources aren't strictly forbidden, they are discouraged, and generally very difficult to verify. One of the founding priniples of wikipedia is "Verifiability, not Truth." Glad to be of service.Drew Smith What I've done 01:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not include contact details in your questions. We are unable to provide answers by any off-wiki medium and this page is highly visible across the internet. The details have been removed, but if you wish for them to be permanently removed from the page history, email this address. —/Mendaliv/^2¢/_Δ's/ 14:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are not very clear, but the controversy you appear to be referring to is the alleged revocation of Dr. Chalifoux's license in the state of Texas. This fact is referenced to this article in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram. I cannot read the whole article without paying but the lede is enough to verify the claim. If this is actually untrue, then you need to provide a reliable source which makes that clear and the article can then be amended. I presume it was not hyperlinked because it against our guidelines to hyperlink to sites requiring payment to read. As for who edited the page, you can find this out by clicking on the "History" tab of the article. In this particular case the information in question was inserted in this edit by User:Keepcalmandcarryon quite some time ago (July 2008). SpinningSpark 20:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to User:Spiningspark for informing me of this discussion. I concur with the above that reliable, verifiable sources are needed for this and every other article on Wikipedia. As far as I know, such sources state that Chalifoux was allegedly involved in at least one death, and that, as a result of this and other complaints, Chalifoux's medical license was revoked in Texas. Keepcalmandcarryon (talk) 23:53, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Biographical material

This is the last warning you will receive for your disruptive edits.
The next time you violate Wikipedia's biographies of living persons policy by inserting unsourced or poorly sourced defamatory or otherwise controversial content into an article or any other Wikipedia page, as you did to House of Numbers, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia. MastCell ^Talk 04:34, 13 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]