Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 02:02, 9 August 2006

Archives
July 2006

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[REDACTED] 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages 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 Misplaced Pages'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 Misplaced Pages: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)

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)