User talk:Scottalter

Hello, Scottalter, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• How to edit a page
• Help pages
• Tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} after the question on your talk page. Again, welcome!  -- Andy W. ^{(talk/contrb.)} 13:34, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beikoku Shido-kan should be in the shido-kan article. Tkjazzer 07:34, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think a history of the style migration is important. I also think there should be a difference in categories. However, I think any style that has a derivative from an Okinawan style should be linked in that article. I think we should trace a family tree almost to the person who brought the style over from Okinawa. Sorry for spelling errors. However, I do not have the history know-how or wikipedia skills to do so. I am only learning. I do not know this forum which you mentioned on my page. Could you please copy-edit this and/or copy this over to it? Tkjazzer 23:41, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Martial_Arts#CMA

brought some discussion here since it seemed more active. Please help me find passionate people to work on these family - tree / style comparison issues by searching histories of articles with me. Tkjazzer 23:45, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scott!

I found some more bio information for Sensei Iha if you are interested. I placed it in the talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Seikichi_Iha. I'll try to help write after my exam. Tkjazzer 23:17, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I read Sensei Iha lived in Los Angeles for a little bit. I live here now and am looking for his style. I am going to check out a place in long beach but I will only be able to make that drive once or twice a month. What do you recommend that I do? Tkjazzer 23:34, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I placed a comment at your category merge proposal for Category:Karate to Category:Okinawan karate, and thought I'd let you know here too. To get a bot to do a task like recatting a bunch of articles, you can ask on WP:BOTREQ, and not have to go through the whole categorization renaming procedure. Regards. Neier 23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to reply on your talk page. Tkjazzer 19:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No - just Miyahira and Iha. All of the Shorin-ryu practitioners were added by me. I don't think any others are notable enough for their own article. Something interesting that I just found is that Iha's first teacher and his major influence, Gusukuma, seems to have been a co-developer of the Shito-ryu stle. I always assumed that since Gusukuma was a student of Itosu's, that he practiced Shorin-ryu. Also, it seems that one of Gusukuma's other students (Iju) was Nagazato's (Shorin-ryu Shidokan) first teacher. --Scott Alter 00:44, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting! However, I was wondering if there are any other wikipedia users who practice Iha's style. Tkjazzer 01:35, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I linked this article to the Main article but it is quite plain. I linked an external link to the Makiwara article in case anyone has time to edit it later. I know you are going to be busy until the summer though. I just wanted to tell someone. Tkjazzer 06:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may create a Hojo undo article - I could convert the makiwara article into a Hojo undo article. This would then make a nice, not short article about conditioning. I will mention this on Talk:Shido-kan and Talk:Makiwara. You should add your comments to the respective article talk pages. --Scott Alter 06:44, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I got this post on my wall a day or so ago. I don't know if it should be incorporated or not.

" -Ok i could try but i don't no anything about Seikichi_Iha or Shorin-ryu_Shido-kan. For you minor corection, in Okinawan Karate, title for 10th Dan is Grandmaster Sōke.." Tkjazzer 06:57, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In Shorin-ryu Shido-kan, we do not use the title Soke. In fact, we just refer to Iha as Sensei (not even Hanshi). Using titles comes from modern and American karate systems influences on martial arts. It was not used traditionally, which is Shido-kan is trying to stay. --Scott Alter 14:34, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Should we incorporate this into the category scheme somehow? Tkjazzer 01:04, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How would you incorporate it? Add it to the category pages? Or do you mean expanding the template to be sorted like the categories? I think this could be nice - separating karate styles by origin here. I just changed Template:Karate schools to use Template:Navigation. If you want to break it into Okinawan and Japanese, you could use Template:Navbox generic. Also, maybe this should be renamed to "Karate systems" (or at least the title displayed in articles - as per the conventions section of Wikipedia:WikiProject_Martial_Arts). --Scott Alter 01:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note, I think would be good to completely remove Template:Major Styles of Karate. All of these are also listed in Template:Karate schools, except for Kempo. It also looks out of place as a right bar on the top of the article. --Scott Alter 01:49, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this list complete? Tkjazzer 18:21, 28 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely not. Just compare the Okinawan styles in Template:Karate_schools to the list. And I'm not even sure how in depth to go with this list. Shorin-ryu is listed, but should Kobayashi-ryu, and its offspring (Shido-kan and Shorinkan) be listed too? --Scott Alter 03:32, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I figure that you can't have too many listed if the list is really that long. I don't think anyone will object. Not super high on the priority list to get them added. I just think it's good to have links to okinawan styles to sorta make people aware of the style. Tkjazzer 06:07, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naihanchi should we link this in the kata of similar name? Tkjazzer 04:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Naihanchi is the same thing - it refers to all of the Naihanchin kata. There are articles for basically every kata. The only problem is that they are mostly written to the Shotokan versions. I recently modified the Gojushiho article to be slightly more representative of all karate, but all of them should be made more neutral. (And I don't like how all of these articles have a link to Shotokan in the "See also" section and are in the Shotokan category.) Anyway, the kata in Shorin-ryu Shido-kan should be linked to the articles and the kata articles should be made less-biased. But you might have to restructure the kata list, since the articles are about the kata series and not individual kata (ie the Naihanchi article refers to Naihanchin Ichidan, Nidan, and Sandan). Maybe keep the list as-is, but only link the first mention of each kata? I'll make these links and you can change them if you can come up with something better. --Scott Alter 05:13, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See [1] for a description of the Shido-kan kata. Teisho was created by Miyahira is unique to Shido-kan (as far as I know). There is no article on it yet. --Scott Alter 05:31, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you read the category pages, there is a differentiation between Jiu-Jitsu (bjj) and Jujutsu (Japanese) it's base on the different romanisations & is quit handy in this instance. (Also 'Brazilian Jiu-Jitsuka' is verging on nonsense and 'Jujutsuka' is used rather than jujutsu practitioners ) a brief description @ the top is the best you can do then it up to people to clean up mistakes. --Nate 14:30, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't phrase that well re-reading it. They are two different arts, so you two different categories, 'Brazilian Jujutsuka' (for Brazilians who practice Japanese jujustu) and 'Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Practitioners' for anybody who does BJJ. The key thing is that BJJ is now so different from JJJ that it's not classifiable as a style of JJJ but an art in its own right.

'Category:Brazilian Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu practitioners', is going to have to be a category if you want to split by country, the only way it can think to change it is to hyphenate to give '[country] Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners'. The use of 'ka' to denote a practitioner is Japanese so using it for a south American art would be inappropriate. (re-posted on category talk)--Nate 08:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think its a nice addition, it lists the well known styles, and makes all the main karate style pages linked together nicely. I think that either all the pages listed in the template should have it, or none, just to make things regular. RogueNinja_talk 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Either way is fine with me, I just wanted them to be consistent. Why not ask the wikiproject? RogueNinja_talk 18:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, do you have an makiwara while living in an apartment? or have you heard of anyone being able to do this? I can't cement in to the floor and I can't screw in to the wood. Any ideas? Tkjazzer 22:02, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What do you recommend for cushioning under the base? Tkjazzer 22:51, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What height board to you recommend? Tkjazzer 23:15, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How much do you sink down when you do your stance? Is the makiwara shoulder height in your stance or when standing erect in anatomical position?

54" falls at my xyphoid process when standing upright and is almost to mid sternum in my stance. Haven't gotten the wood yet - should I make it a little taller? Tkjazzer 22:04, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I stumbled across Shito ryu and I knew that those templates in the article seemed out of date, but I wanted to know where to find directions on how to properly add the correct templates - or to notify someone else about it. Are there many people at the martial arts project working on the template clean-up or is it just you? Tkjazzer 01:21, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add the martial arts template. Do I remove the major styles of karate template? Tkjazzer 01:25, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,

I have the Canadian Shido-kan DVDs (both 10th anniversary Belt Requirements) but I'm not sure if I like the way they do side-kicks. Have you seen any good tutorials or demonstrations (pictures or video) of good side kicks. I've found a lot of really large side-kicks to the head on youtube but nothing that looks like our style. Tkjazzer 01:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shuri-ryu? --03:31, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Hey Scottalter,

Here's the color-swapped Ryukyuan flag: Image:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cswb.svg You can also get it with out the border here: Image:Ryukyu Islands flag 1875-1879 cs.svg

I'm assuming you found Image:Flag of Allied Occupied Japan.svg and Image:Flag of US Occupied Ryukyu Islands.svg.

Tell me if I can do anything else. Jecowa 01:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

WKRI's history says:-

• 21:00, 25 May 2007 Scottalter (12,352 bytes) (needs history merge with WXTM, due to incorrect move from WXTM to WXRK on Jan 1, 2006)
• 06:24, 1 January 2006 ErikNY (moved WXRK to WFNY-FM: New callsign now official)
  • That is the file creation, likely by copy-and-paste or cut-and-paste

But WXRK's first (creation) edit was:-

• 05:28, 25 May 2007 Bull-Doser (18 bytes) (moved WXRK to WKRI: I heard this on R&R about K-Rock Cleveland changing its calls.)
  • and WXRK has no deleted version history before that. (The older part of Wikipedia's deleted versions archive is cleared out sometimes.)
• At 17:34 on 25 May 2007 Pb30 called for db-histmerge WXRK from WFNY-FM

• WFNY-FM now redirects to WXRK, but before 20:07, 25 May 2007 it was a separate article with a long history.

• WFNY is a disambig which points to WFNY (AM) and WXRK

Please what needs to be done to what? Anthony Appleyard 06:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's confusing. There needs to be two db-histmerges from 2 incorrect moves. One due to the incorrect move of WXTM to WXRK on 1/1/06 and the other due to an incorrect move of WFNY-FM back to WXRK on 5/25/07.

As background, we're dealing with 2 radio stations - one in NY and one in OH (both at 92.3). Here is the time line for each:

Place	pre 1/1/06	1/1/06 - 5/25/07	5/25/07 - pres
NY	WXRK	WFNY-FM	WXRK
OH	WXTM	WXRK	WKRI

Initial creation of WKRI (on 1/1/06) has the wrong description and was performed incorrectly. I just caught it yesterday, when the articles were again moved incorrectly. The current WKRI article was created by copying and pasting WXTM to a new article (currently named WKRI, but then named WXRK). So the initial description on the current WKRI should have said (moved WXTM to WXRK: New callsign now official). So the first action needed is:

• db-histmerge WXTM and WKRI

The second problem happened on 5/25/07. After WXRK was correctly moved to WKRI, WFNY-FM should have been moved to WXRK. However, the second move was done incorrectly and was given a wrong description. WFNY-FM was copied and pasted to a new WXRK, rather than moving the article. And the initial description on WXRK should have read (moved WFNY-FM to WXRK: I heard this on R&R about K-Rock Cleveland changing its calls). So the second action needed is:

• db-histmerge WFNY-FM and WXRK

I hope this clears it up, but in summary, 2 history merges needed to be completed, as described at WP:SPLICE. There should have been no new articles started at all and the article histories should follow the table above. --Scott Alter 16:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To demonstrate this better, one of the last edits of WXTM is identical to one of the first edits of WKRI. Also, one of the last edits of WFNY-FM is almost identical to one of the first edits of WXRK (the differences being some references to WFNY-FM were changed to WXRK). --Scott Alter 17:05, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• I have done this:-
  • Delete WKRI, move WXTM to WKRI, undelete WKRI.
  • Delete WXRK, move WFNY-FM to WXRK, undelete WXRK.

After each undelete I reverted past any last edits which were left as redir-to-self or similar: this tends to happen with histmerges.

There are 4 talk pages involved: I have left them alone: Talk:WXRK Talk:WFNY-FM Talk:WXTM Talk:WKRI: what should I do with them?

Anthony Appleyard 19:55, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is it possible for you to apply the changes made to the deleted WXRK back to the current article (as in any changes made to the WXRK page that existed from yesterday to today? I happened to have a cached version in my history, so I reapplied all of the changes in one edit. I'll get back to you on the Talk history. I haven't sorted that out yet. --Scott Alter 20:03, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The edit history of WXRK as it is now, will include the version that you want. If it is not the top version, it would be easy for you to find it in WXRK's history list and revert to it. Anthony Appleyard 21:09, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think you forgot to complete this. The log history for WXRK is missing the restore line. The WKRI log has 'deleted "WKRI"' and then 'restored "WKRI" (270 revisions restored)', but the WXRK log only has 'deleted "WXRK"'. --Scott Alter 21:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Sorry. WXRK now has all its versions undeleted. Anthony Appleyard 21:30, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• The talk pages are even more mixed up. They had the same problem with renaming, but to a larger extent. Some pages were blanked and started over as the talk page for a different article. Here's what I think should be done:
• completely delete Talk:WKRI
• db-histmerge Talk:WXRK and Talk:WXTM
• rename this merged page to Talk:WKRI
• rename Talk:WFNY-FM to Talk:WXRK

Then, reverting a page-blank in the current Talk:WXRK (will be Talk:WKRI) should get everything back to where it should be. --Scott Alter 20:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Please check the result. Anthony Appleyard 21:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Appleyard - thank you for straightening all this out. I think everything is as it should be! --Scott Alter 21:47, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wish you had allowed time to discuss how to handle KFRC and related articles before taking action and having an administrator perform difficult to reverse history merges. I don't know how easily these merges and possible deletions can be undone, but really there should have been a wider discussion about this before such action was taken. I'm really at a loss as what to do now, as I think the articles are in a bigger mess than before (e.g. the entire KFRC AM history is now in KMVQ-FM, which is neither where I nor you think it should be.) And there is really no way to fix this properly without separating out the historical KFRC information which has now been merged into the KMVQ-FM article. See the talk page at what is now Talk:KMVQ-FM for more of my opinion on this. DHowell 21:19, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the edit, it makes sense now Thesaddestday 03:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your idea is fine... the part that threw me off was "Brazilian Brazilian" haha, I just overlooked it and rushed through Thesaddestday 06:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scott,

I noticed you edited the flexner report. I was just wondering if you have checked out citizendium's version of the article. http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Flexner_Report

CZ doesn't have a license set-up for CZ home-grown articles so GFDL rules do not apply unless the article stemmed from WP.

I just wondered what you thought about Citizendium (CZ) in general? Tkjazzer 23:09, 27 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the use of {{infobox martial art school}} for individual schools, as well as organizations - I think that {{infobox martial art}} is only appropriate for "types" of martial arts such as those found in the {{martial arts}} template. But perhaps we can discuss some modifications to either, and reach some compromise? Bradford44 14:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I really appreciate the work you've done with allopathic/osteopathic stuff. I didn't agree with the move, as I think the term "allopathic medicine" in used 10x more frequently than "allopathy" which is hardly ever used. I recently made some major changes to the Allopathic medicine in the hopes of clarifying some points about how the term in used. I hope they stick. I think somewhere we need a table detailing the very specific differences in the two paths of becoming a licensed physician. Perhaps on the Allopathic medicine page? OsteopathicFreak 01:57, 4 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've been making an effort to add to the Category:Osteopathic medicine, so that at least it can be known what articles are already present. They are all in need of a lot of work, and many more need to be added. Just wanted to give you some idea about the breadth of this topic. Always appreciate your input on these topics. ^Touro OsteopathicFreak ^T 01:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for listing a problematic category with WP:CfD. I have, however, closed the debate and moved it to the more appropriate user categories for discussion section. See Wikipedia:User categories for discussion#Category:Members of WikiProject disease. Thanks.-Andrew c ^[talk] 05:30, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scott, it looks like there's a problem with the project template when "dab" (or its variations) is assigned as a class. It properly places the article in Category:Disambig-Class martial arts articles, but the orange box on the bottom left of the template, that contains the word "Disambig", is coming up as a red link that is trying to take readers to Category:Dab-Class martial arts articles. Could you look into this? Thanks, Bradford44 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Helllo! I hope you are feeling great. I would like to have your opinion with regards to my comments here. Your opinion would be valuable here. --Siva1979^{Talk to me} 05:08, 19 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this Iha Sensei's kobudo bojistu (sp?) style? I think it is. Is the lineage that he has on the wall at the dojo for this style listed anywhere online? I'm trying to remember the name of the Okinawan who taught this to Oshiro (sp?) as well. I hear Oshiro's teaches the same style in Redwood, CA (is that the right city??). Is Oshiro on wikipedia? Does the Iha Sensei page discuss his kobudo teachings adequately or is there room for improvement. What are you thoughts? Tkjazzer 15:41, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No it is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamanni_ryu I think which I will add to the comparison of kobudo styles. Tkjazzer 15:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the template infobox for this ryu, which is the kobudo that Iha teaches. If you have time, please take a look. I'm driving across country and just wanted to get it started. Tkjazzer 16:23, 26 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You are very welcome to act as observer and advisor. Please let me know your opinions in my talk page not directly to the parties at least not in the mediation page. Your offer is well appreciated. Daoken 11:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I was glad to see you are keeping an eye on this discussion from a distance. You have been there from my initial involvement, which began with List of medical schools in the United States. Personally, I'm happy with the overall direction that the articles Antelan and myself have been editing. I feel there's still a lot of work to do, and I value input from others, though it seems there is very little interest in articles related to the Osteopathic profession, at least amongst Wikipedia editors. As always, I would greatly appreciate any comments you have to make at any time. Particular general comments regarding my positions and editing work in general. I've read and re-read the message on Antelan's user page several times. I think one issue between us, he is very interested in medicine as science. I am very interested in medicine as a human activity and a humanistic philosophy, and the politics of medicine. Very different POV's, but both valid in my opinion. I wonder what you think about this, specially this idea that I've been promoting the agenda of some "fringe minority." Thanks for reading. User:Hopping ^T 01:53, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're willing to do this it would be great. Creation a kata infobox would probably get copied to every other Kata on Wikipedia and would be awesome also. User5802 05:15, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Those fields sound great although I think you shouldn't include the level (beginner, intermediate, advanced). There will be WAY to much debate as to what level forms are at. User5802 17:02, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shuguro Nakazato.gif. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 15:34, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:RWJMS.png. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read the instructions at Wikipedia:Non-free content carefully, then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies for fair use. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If it is determined that the image does not qualify under fair use, it will be deleted within a couple of days according to our criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 21:10, 25 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Seikichi Iha.gif. I noticed the 'image' page specifies that the image is being used under fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first fair use criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed image could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this image is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the image description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original Replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace the fair use image by finding a freely licensed image of its subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or a similar) image under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our fair use criteria. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, fair use images which could be replaced by free-licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if not used in an article), per our Fair Use policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Ricky81682 (talk) 02:36, 27 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the suggestion, I will find the time to write such an article and would welcome any assistance you may have. I will also look into an online list. The AAPS website I found has such a list, but as a hover table, not a separate page that I could find.

Since I am new to Wikipedia, is there a protocol or cultural norm for getting "permission" to modify someone's article, I did not intend to violate your format or writing style. Renaissancedoc 21:30, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Category:Medical schools in California. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Amerique^dialectics 17:29, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even the US dept of Education states that the DDS, MD, OD, DPT, etc are not equal the PhD degree and are not true doctorate degrees.[2] The MD for example is a "first professional degree" and also an "undergraduate medical qualification".[3] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwri7474 (talk • contribs) 23:14, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more appropriate title would be “first professional degree” or “professional doctorate”.

The world “doctorate” on his own however infers that it is the highest level of education possible in that field (medicine), and this is not true since an MD (US) is considered (undergraduate medical education) and residency, specialization, or a Masters in a particular field is considered (graduate medical education). An MD (in the US) merely denotes one has completed basic or an entry level medical qualification.

This is a semantic quibble. Postgraduate actually means exactly that -- after earning your doctorate. It is more closely analgous to "post-doc" or "fellow." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.92.214 (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Category:Israeli Abir, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Category:Israeli Abir has been empty for at least four days, and its only content has been links to parent categories. (CSD C1).

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Category:Israeli Abir, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 21:30, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - trying to get the backlog out of the way here. I'm prepared to whitelist the two pages that you requested if you still want them. Nudge me? Cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 13:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem - happy to help & sorry it took so long, cheers --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:39, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NicholasJonasDearGod.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:NicholasJonasJoyToTheWorld.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot (talk) 15:03, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another editor has added the "{{prod}}" template to the article UMDNJ-School of Public Health, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but the editor doesn't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and has explained why in the article (see also Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not and Wikipedia:Notability). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia or discuss the relevant issues at its talk page. If you remove the {{prod}} template, the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. BJBot (talk) 18:09, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:UMDNJ-SPH.png. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 21:16, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I "removed" the tag, because it appeared as you had already removed it yourself by putting the redirect on top of it. This essentially took away any content, so I assumed that you didn't think the speedy was necessary any more. Anyway, I've deleted the page. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 01:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Scott. When you're replacing the ClinMed tags, could you make sure that the new ones read {{WPMED|class=|importance=}}? Otherwise, the assessment script can't handle it correctly. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see that I was inspecific. It's not that assessment-related script, it's this assessment-related script that seems to cope ungracefully. It has a habit of "forgetting" the importance rating if the parameter isn't already in place. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. Some of the horse projects could use the same treatment. Please? Drop in on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Equine. --Una Smith (talk) 00:06, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Katsuya_Miyahira.jpg. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Rettetast (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The admission to programs that grant the MD degree in the US and Canada does not actually "require" a first degree. (even though most do have them). Wisconsin University MD program "considers applications from people without previous bachelors degrees". They are usually considered "Graduate Entry" programs.

The MBBS and MD degrees are 100% equivalent degrees.

PHY-993 Use of the M. D. Title: The Wisconsin Medical Society: 1) defends the use of the M.D. title by physicians who graduated with an M.B.B.S. and are licensed to practice medicine in Wisconsin; and, 2) believes in clarifying Wisconsin statute so that International Medical Graduates licensed to practice as medical doctors can use the title M.D. (HOD,0495)[4]

Here are more examples of medical programs:

Canadian: undergraduate MD undergraduate MD undergraduate MD

US: undergraduate MD undergraduate MD undergraduate MD undergraduate MD

Australia: MBBS program requires previous bachelors MBBS program requires previous bachelors MBBS program requires previous bachelors

Israel: undergraduate MD

All these medical programs regardless of what they call their degree or what they require for admissions are equal degrees in the field of Medicine. They teach the exact same things at the exact same level. Jwri7474 (talk) 05:23, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put to fine a point on this debate, an UNDERGRADUATE is someone who has not yet received ANY degree, period. A postgrad is someone who has already received a degree and is pursuing another, or an expanded, course of study. This may be at either a Master's or a Doctorate level. There are a whole range of profession-specific qualifications which are called Doctorates, including MD, DDS, JD, etc., which do not match the requirements for a PhD, which in most cases has a specific requirement to demonstrate one's ability to perform original research related to whichever field the PhD is granted in. There are places in Europe, and in the U.K. specifically, where the entry level to practice medicine is a Bachelor's degree in medicine (M.B.), which is regarded as an equivalent (and some would argue, more difficult to obtain) to a North American M.D.. Training beyond the Doctoral level is not generally referred to in the academic community as postgraduate; more often it is referred to as post-doctoral, or in some cases, as a fellowship. Only the Russians have an actual degree above the Doctorate, which they call an Academician's degree. Don't know too much about that...they are the only ones that I am aware of who are using it. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 11:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JBHoldOn.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 06:29, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. WikiProject Equine is discussing an article importance scale here. Your POV would be appreciated. --Una Smith (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Cool template, but should we add more of the coat colors articles from the category to it? (There are TONS more...) Montanabw^(talk) 00:00, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look it over. Some "color breeds" sort of span both categories, gets complicated. I like the navigation template, though. I wonder if something off of the veterinary medicine stuff would work for horse diseases? May be too complicated. Just a thought. Montanabw^(talk) 03:08, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A tag has been placed on Image:JBYear3000v2.jpg requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done under section I1 of the criteria for speedy deletion, because the image is redundant copy (all pixels the same or scaled down) of an image in the same file format, which is on Wikipedia (not on Commons), and all inward links have been updated.

If you think that this notice was placed here in error, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the page (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on [[ Talk:Image:JBYear3000v2.jpg|the talk page]] explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. - AWeenieMan (talk) 22:24, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• You tagged Emergency medical technician-intermediate {{db-move}}, providing a link to move Emergency medical technician-intermediate over this page. But that is the same page. Please what do you want to be done? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I put the wrong page name in. I should have put EMT Intermediate. I reapplied the db-move tag with the correct article. --Scott Alter 13:32, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. One of my big concerns was navigating since I didn't know how to set up TOC IDs like that. I'm going to be able to put an actual effort into it in a few weeks once finals gets over.

Thanks again, -JPINFV (talk) 01:11, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, just to point out, the reason I moved from Emt to EMT is that EMT is a proper noun, it is a title. It's the same as Doctor or Nurse and so all words within the title should be capitalized. Please put the article back as you found it, thanks! :-) fr33kman (talk) 00:29, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus here was that pages is better, so I was changing the template to reflect that. MrKIA11 (talk) 02:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JBYear3000v1.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 12:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Scottalter, and thanks for your edits to Category:Forts in Nebraska. Quick clarification: not all of the facilities included in this category were military facilities; several were trading posts, Native American-built, pioneer-built or otherwise non-governmental. Using Category:Military facilities of the United States at this level is misleading. I'm going to leave the cat until further dialog; please respond at Category talk:Forts in Nebraska. Thanks. • Freechild'sup? 03:00, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reviewing your request for rollback, I have enabled rollback on your account. Keep in mind these things when going to use rollback:

• Getting rollback is no more momentous than installing Twinkle.
• Rollback can only be used to revert vandalism only, and not good faith edits.
• Rollback may be removed at any time.

If you do not want rollback, then contact me and I'll remove it. Also, for some information on how to use rollback, you can view this page. I'm sure you'll do great with rollback, just leave me a message on my talk page if you have any questions. Happy editing! PeterSymonds (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottalter, thanks for help with the first aid (topics) template. Any other feedback on things I should do different with templates in the future? In case it didn't show, that was my first effort at creating one like that. Jclemens (talk) 19:55, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using words like "topics" in a title is usually not required, but since there was already a different template at {{First aid}} ({{WikiProject First aid}} was there), I think what you did was appropriate. Also, <noinclude></noinclude> tags should be used when dealing with the categorization of templates. This means that what is between the tags should not be included when the template is transcluded to pages. For the most part, templates should not automatically assign categories to pages it is transcluded on. Other than that, the template looks good - for a beginner or anyone else. --Scott Alter 20:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Jclemens (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I really enjoy watching you almost singly organize so many different articles on wikipedia with your template knowledge. I thought you probably already ahve seen this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Templates

but on the offchance that you hadn't I wanted to pass it along. No need to reply. cheers and thank you! Tkjazzer (talk) 01:02, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Actually, I was unaware of that project. It looks interesting, but I'm not sure what they've actually achieved...it seems mostly like a project of template-related projects. And I see that you've been editing anonymously a bit lately. I like your ideas, but most are either challenging or a lot of work to implement. --Scott Alter 21:48, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the Fire-only fire service, for all its inflated ego, is pretty much a dinosaur. East Coast fire-only fire departments are rife with tradition and testosterone poisoning, while the West Coast tends to be a lot different: better educated, higher paid, more medical. The "fire service" is really a misnomer, because for a fire/EMS department, 80% are EMS calls, and the rest are mostly car wrecks and grass fires--structural fires are a true rarity for most departments, and with current wood frame construction, any house that catches on fire is a total loss anyways! The observation that the fire service is moving to EMS departments who also put out fires is really accurate. Unfortunately, it's hard to envision a system more resistant to structural and mission changes, given the entrenched, seniority-based leadership. Yet... we are still the ones who run into the burning buildings when the need requires it, and that's a thousand times sexier than being the "Elderly Management Service." Jclemens (talk) 07:31, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree with you. For the most part, it is an issue of tradition and public image. Actually, I even consider rescue as a separate entity from fire and EMS. While fire departments are usually responsible for performing rescue, there are several towns and cities in my area where rescue is provided by EMS or there is an entirely separate rescue squad. My main issue with fire-based EMS is that, ultimately, fire is in charge of EMS - rather than them being equals within one organization. The fire chief in charge of the department often has no EMS training, yet makes decisions and has total authority regarding EMS. This puts patient care (protocols, selection of medical direction) in the hands of someone without training. Unfortunately, the command structure used in the fire department on fire jobs does not apply to daily EMS operations, which has the potential for conflict over patient care. Additionally, there are budget issues that usually favor the fire side over the EMS side. I'm sure you're well aware of some of the issues across the country. So I guess my point is that while fire departments may provide EMS and rescue, I still consider each to be its own entity. Within an individual department, EMS may be a subordinate of fire; but in the grand scheme of things, they are still totally different entities. --Scott Alter 21:36, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Eww, yuck. I'm so glad I work for a department where every officer, company and chief, has to keep their EMT certification current, and where new volunteers are often put through EMT school before fire academy. Tradition and esprit de corps should never trump giving the public, the taxpayers: our stakeholders, what they really need. It's tragic that in so many places it does. Jclemens (talk) 21:54, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will take a somewhat different position on the entire issue of fire service and EMS as a joint operation. My own experience comes as a senior officer in a major metropolitan, third service option EMS system which has existed as a municipal entity for more than 125 years. As someone who has, in large measure, been fighting this particular battle for more than thirty years now, from my perspective the biggest single factor motivating fire service pressure to take over EMS is simple economics. To be clear, with socialized medicine here, things work a little differently, and in your systems there is a sound argument in favor of fire absorbing EMS, when the current provider is a private company, (I happen to believe that there are some services which should NEVER be private...you wouldn't privatize your policing or fire protection, so why privatize EMS?) and the community can't or won't field another alternative for service delivery. Oh, and just by way of observation, it wasn't always that way with all of the fire services on the west coast of the U.S.. James Page frequently related the fact that he was under constant pressure from senior fire officials who were adamantly opposed to the concept of 'firemen giving needles', constantly trying to kill the pilot program in Los Angeles. It wasn't until the program became the subject of intense media focus that the dinosaurs stopped trying to kill it.

From my perspective, the problem in most communities is that the fire service are, in large measure, the victims of their own success. In the community where I live and work, for example, less than ten percent of the fire service's total call volume involves suppression, rescue or hazmat. Of the balance of calls, more than 60% are medical calls, and essentially, a duplication of a service that the taxpayers are already funding. In essence, how do you justify continuing to receive a grossly inflated budget and staffing to address a problem which has become rare in its' nature? How do you justify maintaining the status quo (which they desperately want to do), when the facts strongly suggest that a level of fire protection developed and staffed more than fifty years ago is no longer necessary, purely on the basis of community fire suppression and rescue? In many cases, the guys in the big red trucks looked over at the guys in the little white trucks who were doing on average four to five times as many calls, and thought to themselves....hmmmmmmmmm.

How did this evolve? Well, I should clarify that in our system, firefighters are NOT, technically, EMTs. Their level lies somewhere around what you would describe as a Certified First Responder. They have always carried medical oxygen, but stopped being summoned when community wide ALS began. Over a period of time, problems began to occur in our system (mostly hospitals being so overcrowded that paramedics could not transfer care at the E/R, sometimes for hours) and response times began to degrade somewhat. Given that there are 270 pieces of fire apparatus in our community (most sitting idle most of the time) and about 100 ambulances in service, it seemed logical to use fire apparatus as "clock stoppers" delivering at least someone to a patient who required assistance, but for whom response would be delayed. We provided them with first aid and CPR training (and made them self sufficient in these) and eventually they received AEDs. So what we have here is a group of people who, while they love to describe themselves publicly as 'doing mostly paramedic work', in fact have the same training and skill set as the average lifeguard or mall cop. Now, in many communities, fire departments are publicly insisting that they should be permitted to take over EMS because they could run the system better, or that there should be a 'paramedic' on every fire truck. Clearly, at least in my community, the argument has nothing whatever to do with their level of knowledge, skill or experience. So then, what IS their argument?

To be clear, I am not even slightly opposed to the presence of paramedics on every fire truck. There are, however, qualifiers to this statement. They absolutely MUST meet the same standards as other paramedics in the community. Paramedicine requires a great deal more education than firefighting, at least in my community, with our entry level staff required by law to have almost 10 times the training of the average EMT-B. For a description of my system and our training requirements, look at Toronto EMS. What we call a paramedic (Level III) actually requires thousands of hours of education, skills training, and preceptorship, and we are moving towards a university degree as the entry level standard for paramedics. Our own fire service is arguing that all of that education is unnecessary, and shortcuts are possible. Well, excuse me, but the law says that this is the standard, our medical community says that this is the standard, and that, is pretty much that. A similar movement is occurring in many fire services across the US, with fire services actively fighting a transition to a degree paramedic program, despite the fact that a number of other countries have already moved in this direction. Let me ask you this...would you want to be cared for by a nurse (our advanced care medics are considered to be the equivalent of RNs) who was trained to a lower standard, or by a physician who was permitted to take short cuts in their education? This argument is supposed to be about benefiting patients, and I can't see how any patient actually benefits from a lower standard of care. From my perspective, the only group who would benefit from such a development would be fire services.

We can now look at the costs involved. The first stage is simple math. While in my community a paramedic and a firefighter have approximate wage parity, there are 270 fire trucks, as opposed to 100 ambulances. Each fire truck has a staff of four, as opposed to the ambulance with a staff of two. Immediately more expensive for the community. In addition, you would still require the 100 ambulances (indeed, we could use more...we're already doing more than four times as many calls as fire), so there is really absolutely NO cost savings to the community from the proposal. To illustrate this further, about ten years ago when this argument was raised (yet again) we did a direct comparison of operating costs, by dividing budget by call volume (everything each of us does is directed in some fashion to improving emergency service, right?). At the time there were six fire departments (they have since been amalgamated) in the community, and a single EMS system. At that time, depending on which of the fire departments you were looking at, it cost four to six times as much for the fire service to service a medical call as it did for EMS to service the same call, and you had to send EMS anyway, because fire had no transport resources (and still doesn't). To be perfectly honest, I haven't been able to find a single way in which the proposal improves anything for anyone but the fire services. It doesn't result in lower costs, it doesn't result in better care, and frankly, the response time argument would be simple to fix. Simply begin to staff fire departments on the basis of their primary missions (suppression, rescue, hazmat), downsizing through attrition, and use part of the money saved to ensure that more paramedics and ambulances (those resources actually needed) are available to respond to medical emergencies in a more timely manner. And trust me, that is the LAST THING that the administrations of most fire departments want their political masters to hear! Just my thoughts. Emrgmgmtca (talk) 12:14, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thank you for the nerve root parameter. I tried to add a physical exam parameter but I don't think it worked. thank you also for the email - sorry I was cranky at 2 am. Tkjazzer (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

scott I tried adding L2, L3, L4 to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quadriceps_muscle but when I hit the edit button the nerve root parameter did not show up. Why? Tkjazzer (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• looks like we have alot in common, I look forward to working with you in the future. The EMS Wiki projection looks great! Medicellis (talk) 23:19, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott,

While I appreciate you starting a discussion on our WikiProject about changing its name, you may have noticed currently existing members were not in favor of it. The fact that the new project attains a new CD category scheme does merit the change, and you've still hijacked our project and completely changed it. I'd revert, but you've made far too many changes to take back. As much as I'd like to Assume Good Faith, you should have messaged the founders of the project before you changed it, namely me, JamieJones and John24601. You may have noticed that I had a ton of admin edits to the page. This is because I created the project page and organized it. So thanks for your edits. Really, thanks.

Isaac (talk) 11:18, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac, again I would like to state that you have not been active in any dicussion related to WP:First Aid, the project was grossly inactive with no current edits. Scott made a proposal trying to drawn in new blood and thus editors. He was being bold as wikipedia ask you to do in making changes. The change was made and there was not one negative word about the change until, 2-3 weeks post facto. I'm not sure how much interest there is in a project if you check on it every month and make no concious effort to walk the project foward. Scott made the assumption that most of the orginal editors were inactive or disinterested, as well as I did also. User:Exit2DOS2000 raised object 2 weeks after the name change and I added 300+ articles to the project. If you would have taken 2 min's to read the rest of the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Emergency medical services this was a major discussion and you would have noticed that the a concenus was reached and postedhere. Again I understand the frustration (but not the outward agression and angery) were are all civil educated adults. All edits and changes were done in WP:GOODFAITH, and I ask that you please keep your comments and tones to the same. Medicellis (talk) 13:37, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See my response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject First aid (which you claim to own, yet you haven't looked at in over a month). I have reverted all of the changes made to your project since it was converted to WP:EMS. I won't make any further changes to or even look at anything related to Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid anymore. --Scott Alter 02:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I don't own it, and I shouldn't have stated it like that. My wish was that you had messaged me and/or the other members when the dialog was happening so i/we didn't miss it. Obviously the project has infrequent activity. But personally I don't think your change will improve first aid articles any faster. Not to say your project isn't helpful, but I think your project has a different direction than the first aid one. Please don't leave if you're interested in the first aid articles, that's what the project is there for. Isaac (talk) 21:25, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that anyone active in a project would monitor what was going on at least once a week. A pet peeve of mine is to make inactive projects more active - either by expanding the scope of the project or making it into a task force of a larger project. The scope of my new project (Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force) does encompass all of first aid, since first aid is practiced by EMS. EMS provides first aid care, so all of first aid can be seen as a subset of EMS. But I do recognize that not all first aid care is provided by EMS. I figured I could make Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid more active by expanding its scope and drawing in new editors. Since there was no opposition to my proposal after 2 weeks, I went ahead and made the change. I still do not see the need for both Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Emergency medicine and EMS task force and Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid, but if you want to keep a project that will be a subset of another, so be it. I am interested in first aid articles (more from the EM/EMS than the lay person side), and I will still contribute to the articles. But I won't interfere with you running Wikipedia:WikiProject First aid. --Scott Alter 02:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:Shuguro_Nakazato.gif. I noticed the description page specifies that the media is being used under a claim of fair use, but its use in Wikipedia articles fails our first non-free content criterion in that it illustrates a subject for which a freely licensed media could reasonably be found or created that provides substantially the same information. If you believe this media is not replaceable, please:

1. Go to the media description page and edit it to add {{di-replaceable fair use disputed}}, without deleting the original replaceable fair use template.
2. On the image discussion page, write the reason why this image is not replaceable at all.

Alternatively, you can also choose to replace this non-free media by finding freely licensed media of the same subject, requesting that the copyright holder release this (or similar) media under a free license, or by taking a picture of it yourself.

If you have uploaded other non-free media, consider checking that you have specified how these images fully satisfy our non-free content criteria. You can find a list of description pages you have edited by clicking on this link. Note that even if you follow steps 1 and 2 above, non-free media which could be replaced by freely licensed alternatives will be deleted 2 days after this notification (7 days if uploaded before 13 July 2006), per our non-free content policy. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you. Do you want to opt out of receiving this notice? Rettetast (talk) 12:41, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:PVHlogo.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 23:03, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:541uf5k.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:08, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for uploading Image:JBalbum2Japan.jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'image' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "Image" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 05:09, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've posted some comments at kilbad (talk · contribs). I'm really sorry but I've caused a bit of trouble by not checking that user talk page before making modifications to the WikiProject. Also, I'm not convinced it's better off as a task force. I'd appreciate your comments over at his talk page. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 16:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How about we move the discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Dermatology task force? --Scott Alter 16:02, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to create something like a "principles of dermatology" article discussing the basics of skin, examination, and diagnosis. Is that an appropriate article of dermatology? If so, what specifically should I name the article? Kilbad (talk) 19:27, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Within Wikipedia, there have been no articles on medicine called "principles of...", so I would try to mirror what is done for other medical specialties. I think a good name for an article would be Dermatological examination or Skin examination. You can take a look at the articles in {{Physical exam}} and Category:Physical examination to guide you for a skin exam article. The basics of skin should probably be included in skin, while diagnosis would be in dermatology. --Scott Alter 20:46, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your reply. Also, I have replied with a response to your questions regarding proposed categories in dermatology. Kilbad (talk) 13:45, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right now there are two main skin disease categories, Category:Cutaneous diseases and Category:Skin diseases, and both have some subcategories. What do you think the best way to merge these two cat would be? I would like to get everything consolidated under "Cutaneous conditions" before I start to further categorize. What do you think? kilbad (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I responded to your post at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization. kilbad (talk) 15:19, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scottalter. Kilbad (talk · contribs) has asked me to ask around a few people to get their opinions on the current catagorisation tree proposed at this discussion, as he seems rather eager to get going with the work but would like a few more opinions. Any chance you could have a quick look and post your thoughts? Cheers. —Cyclonenim (talk · contribs · email) 15:22, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, thank you so much for you help with this derm cat discussion. I have put the working cat outline at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization for easy reference. I also noticed that you have edited some categorization, and I thank you for that! I am working, and have almost completed, a listing of essentially all skin diseases, and will try to have headers on that article that follow our current categorization scheme. Again, thanks for your help as the entire categorization/recategorization will take some time. Also, two questions, (1) could you see the discussion page on the link I just provided, and tell me if there is any way to completely expand the current category tree on the right hand side of that page, and (2) can you help me rename/move existing categories to the new names we have chosen (when applicable of course), like for example, "Dermatological preparations" to -> "Cutaneous pharmacology" ? Regardless, Thanks! kilbad (talk) 23:46, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I replied to your comment at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization

Thanks for your help with categorization of derm articles. kilbad (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scottalter, its great that you're filling Category:Genetic skin disease; but in the process you are removing Category:Genetic disorders, which, though similar is a broader category and serves a purpose in lieu of its wider categorization. There is no reason why both categories cannot remain in the same article, as redundancy is not occurring. Please don't remove a category just to add a different one... there is room for both wide and exclusive categorization. Thanks...--Rcej (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I definitely agree with removing the congenital cat if the transcluded is causing redundancy - so remove it from the article where its necessary; just leave the transcluded one.

But there is no good reason why the 'genetic' categories can't be on the same article. Genetic disorders includes all inherited disorders. When one browses to Wikipedia wishing to see the spectrum of all genetic disorders, why exclude Genetic skin diseases from the 'bigger picture' as well? A reasonable compromise could allow both categories together, since they represent different things. --Rcej (talk) 04:15, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Scott, you were a big help with our last round of horse template design. Would you take a look at my draft Template:Tack and offer help, edits, comments? It's still a rough draft, I'm not ready to stick it in an article yet, and in the interest of full disclosure, there has been recent creation of some competing horse equipment templates where I feel the editor has not been open to my comments or suggestions for improvement, so I am just going to work on this one and let the wikiproject folks decide later what way they want to go. Thanks for any help you can offer in any way, Montanabw^(talk) 06:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have started a discussion of categorizing pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT and would really appreciate your input. kilbad (talk) 01:03, 2 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, thanks so much for sorting out those taskforces. I think it very much strengthens the WikiProject. JFW | T@lk 21:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I have proposed some changes to the {{WPDOGS}}. I would appreciate your comments in the discussion and your help with making the changes once they are approved. Thanks, Coaster1983 (talk) 02:14, 16 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I remember the fact that you helped with the merger with pulmonology and pulmonologist articles. I did not know how much you were interested in pulmonology. I would like to know if you would be interested in joining the pulmonology task force (WP:LUNGS). We could always use more help! There are three members currently in this newly created task force including myself. Thanks for your time! --Tyrol5 (talk) 20:47, 23 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll gladly help out as I come across items to be done - I've been watching the task force page since it was created. However, I've never actually listed myself as a participant of any project/task force. I prefer not to be formally listed. --Scott Alter 06:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your feedback. I appreciate that you will help out. I completely respect the fact that you would not like to be formally listed. Thank you very much, --Tyrol5 (talk) 23:25, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support Maen. K. A. (talk) 22:51, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Scott, I've got a list of WPMED articles here that I'm thinking fit better with our "Low-importance" ratings than with "Mid-importance". I haven't looked at them in detail; in fact, I haven't even clicked on some of the articles yet. But if you wanted to take a look and remove (meaning: cut from #Candidates for downgrading and paste back into the alphabetized list of mid-importance articles above that section on the same page) anything that should stay Mid-importance, I'd appreciate having another set of eyes involved.

In the big picture, this is my list of articles that is at risk for having an improperly capitalized page name (i.e., anything that's not low-importance [and therefore perhaps a biography] and has more than one capital letter in the title). There's no rush. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:01, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just skimmed through the list, and agree with you. I like the two-fold nature of the list. I'll look more carefully at another time. Are you going to keep track of what is downgraded, or just remove it from the list? Let me know - I'll help out and follow whatever system you are using. --Scott Alter 03:17, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad to know that we're basically thinking the same direction. My plan is to mostly delete items from that list as we've "fixed" them. It's sometimes useful to re-check things after a few days, because article creators are notorious for thinking that their article is critically important to our project.  ;-) However, that can be done from the previous version, so it's okay to delete things that "should" be fixed now.

On the top half of the list, if either one of us decides that the item is correctly assessed for importance (fix if necessary) AND that it doesn't have any extraneous capital letters in its title (move the page if necessary), then it just gets deleted. If we need to pester an admin about the move, or hassle other members about content problems/merges/whatever, then you can leave a note for me by the article name, and/or start notifying potentially interested persons and/or tag the articles with clean up/merge/whatever templates.

The bottom line is that I believe that you're neither an idiot nor a jerk, so whatever you do or don't do will probably be fine with me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have been working to create an organized categorization of pharmacology articles at WT:PHARM:CAT, and, if avaliable, wanted to get some fresh feedback on that page? kilbad (talk) 18:08, 13 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I left a response to your comments and am ok moving forward with the categorization of pharmacology articles. kilbad (talk) 17:59, 15 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment would be appreciated here. Thanks --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 19:08, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking, instead of having a photo for the dermatology icon (as it is hard to find a great derm photo that scales down nicely) could we have that space read something like "DERM" inside a colored box? Similar to how the class and importance scale information is displayed? ---kilbad (talk) 00:43, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is currently possible, as it is not supported by {{WPBannerMeta}}. You'd need to ask for someone to create the functionality at Template talk:WPBannerMeta. --Scott Alter 20:30, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]