text:
Talk:Naturopathy

"Recommend against"
The above conversation has digressed, so starting a new section about one specific statement: Naturopathic practitioners commonly recommend against following modern medical practices, including but not limited to medical testing, drugs, vaccinations, and surgery.

There are four sources currently supporting that statement. Three of them are studies of students, not naturopaths, and one of them says the opposite: Most chiropractic and naturopathic students are not averse to vaccination. The Skeptical Inquirer source doesn't seem to support the statement at all. None of them mention recommending against surgery or medical testing that I can see.

That's a pretty bold statement painting with a very broad brush, so unless the sources support it, this sentence should be removed, in my opinion. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I can see some arguments either way about sourcing this to studies of naturopathy students, although to the extent that those sources are about what naturopaths are taught, what training they have when they go into practice, they may be legitimate. However, the SI source is chock-full of examples of naturopaths rejecting modern medical practices. So I don't read it the way that you do. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Are we reading the same SI article? I just read the whole thing again and I still don't see anything like that. Practicing alternative therapies and promoting them is one thing. It's a very different thing to recommend against getting surgery or a vaccine. That implies a level of malice would require some good sources. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 17:36, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * "Being a naturopathic physician, I believe in the body’s ability to heal itself. The body can do this very effectively when it is kept healthy. By taking extra good care of yourself and possibly working with a natural health practitioner, you can stay resistant to colds and the flu every winter. Remember, there are many routes to immunity besides obtaining a flu shot." One can quibble that this isn't a formal recommendation not to get a flu shot, but it's clearly recommending against getting one. --Tryptofish (talk) 17:46, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Even if you accept that logic for that one person's statement, where do we get "commonly"? and "surgeries?" Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Seems to be a lot of sourcing on this e.g. I guess they want to sell what they can (which doesn't include surgery), while also being dishonest about it (we don't oppose surgery!). Why not strengthen the sourcing if you feel the point isn't made well enough? Bon courage (talk) 18:10, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * We could also tweak the wording of the sentence, instead of completely removing it. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:16, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * That's a Consumer Reports owned contributed piece with no named author, so not sure how reliable. I can't imagine finding a reliable source for this since it seems like a somewhat exceptional claim that would need something more than a consumer reports PR piece. They commonly recommend against surgery when? In what cases would they tell a patient or the public to not get surgery? Maybe I'm completely wrong. And as Tryptofish suggested, I'd be fine rewording it somehow. Like, they "commonly prefer alternative treatments to conventional medicine, in general, including resistance to surgery and vaccines depending on the patient's needs or the practitioner's opinions." Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Alternatively: they "commonly encourage alternative treatments that are rejected by conventional medicine, including resistance to surgery or vaccines for some patients." --Tryptofish (talk) 19:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * @Tryptofish I think this is great, for what it's worth. It'd be nice to have better sources, but this wording seems much more accurate to me. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 19:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any objections to going ahead with that wording? --Tryptofish (talk) 21:03, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * No. —Alalch E. 21:04, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
 * This seems more encyclopedic in tone, and is better supported by the sources. I say go for this. >> boodyb  talk 17:40, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * It's already been implemented, but I guess nobody said so here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * The straining at the least to whitewash the page in the face of the sourcing is puzzling. The WaPo source is fine. Nothing exceptional about quacks quacking. Bon courage (talk) 19:39, 19 October 2023 (UTC)

"No factual merit"
Citation Atwood2003 does not support the claim in the lede that "The diagnoses made by naturopaths often have no factual merit."

I adjusted the language to "The diagnoses made by practitioners of naturopathic medicine and the treatments proffered often lack evidentiary support." -- which is what the article supports. The article makes no claim of "factual merit" (or similar terms) but instead focuses (as it should, given its focus on the scientific method) on scientific evidence to support the treatments and diagnoses of naturopaths and naturopathic doctors (just saying naturopaths implies there is no difference in the modalities used by these practitioners). It seems unencyclopedic to insert the unsupported notion of "factual merit" when it's perfectly possible to explain the cited information using the idea of scientific support. Nonetheless, @Hipal removed this reference.

The revert was made as part of a large reversion of my edits, which I'm not contesting here (I'll be suggesting some of other edits in the body, not the lede, as was suggested by the other editor, and suggesting that some of the other information reverted to in the lede also more appropriately belongs in the body). However, this line change was not addressed by the reverting editor, and is not explained by their note regarding the other information not being appropriate for the lede.

I'd also add that the secondary citation (ref name AAFP) is wholly inappropriate for the language quoted. It relates only to the training of naturopaths/NDs vs MDs/DOs, and quite literally doesn't even mention diagnosis or treatment. It should be removed as support for this statement.

I'm requesting some consensus on making the above described changes. >> boodyb  talk 16:47, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up. I removed the large expansion to the lede, suggesting some of the material may be WP:DUE in the article body. I didn't look any closer. --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * If the source doesn't say "no factual merit" or similar, it should not be in the article, and by the way, sounds a little like a phrase you'd hear on Dexter's Laboratory, not in an encyclopedia. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 18:18, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Rev 1185574518 claims Ledebomb - needs discussion
I really don't think my edits were a ledebomb -- the altered material is literally uncited, lacks encyclopedic tone, and is plainly incorrect in one case (two states vs three states).

What I propose in lieu of the uncited paragraph is consistent with the general statements of the previous paragraph, but improves tone, offers some basic citations, and removes some information better suited for the body (which has subsequently been added -- a consideration suggested by Hipal (e.g., information about naturopathic education/schools, etc)).

Statements like "lax regulation" are generally not supportable (without a citation, what are we supposed to infer from a qualitative word like "lax"). Instead, I offer some supported context first -- describing that some state certify practitioners, under various titles, and the describe that other states are more permissive in their regulating, and do not require board certification for practicing as a "naturopath." I left in the reference to "tightly regulated" only because that could at least be supported by the mere existence regulations versus states without regulation.

I'm struggling to see how my edits were a lede bomb. This article struggles in tone, from both directions -- from editors who seem to support naturpathic practice, and those who doubt it. I'm trying not to take a position here, I just think unsupported/uncited statements that imply bias ought to be improved and cited, where possible. Otherwise they should just be taken out. I've tried to avoid just removing that kind of material, since it seems finding citations and adjusting it as necessary is more in the spirit of appropriate editing. >> boodyb  talk 17:57, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I prefer the shorter version, especially without the name dropping. I suggest identifying the changes at a smaller level. Currently, it's difficult to see all that's been changed much less figure out the justification for everything. --Hipal (talk) 18:21, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 December 2023
Add links to give a mire balanced overview. https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-naturopathic-medicine 105.209.150.182 (talk) 06:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate.  Delta  space 42 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Restructuring the lead
I visited this article to gain further knowledge on the subject as a layperson. However within 2 seconds into the article I sensed an acute force deterring me from proceeding. I attribute such experience to the blend of descriptive and judgemental statements upon inspection.

In the leading section the first paragraph already imposes the subject a generally dissuading tone. With the pejorative word "pseudoscientific" being the first blow, the next two ambivalent statements (Difficult to generalize...; The ideology...) are then followed by a negative judgement (The ethics...) culminating with the even scathing "quackery".

I acknowledge my limit as a layperson and I have no intention in altering the wording but I do recommend a restructuring. It would be optimal if the descriptive and judgemental statements be separated into discrete paragraphs with the former preceding the latter. Inserting judgemental statements early on can be perceived as shoving in opinions and, as worded in an earlier discussion, setting an agenda. I cite the French version article as a good example for reference. Seanetienne (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

 * Hi,, we do have an agenda already set, see WP:PSCI and WP:LUNATICS. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * And that's utter disrespect from you, Mr @Tgeorgescu. It is a consuming job to ward off conspiracy theorists and anti-science groups alike. However this time you have clamped down on the wrong person. I have no particular interest in alternative medicine and my attitude is ambivalent.
 * I have seen elegant treatment of problematic subjects and I regret that the equivalent cannot by be applied here. By your passive-aggressive wording labelling me a "lunatic charlatan" and cherry-picking my word choice it is apparent that you are already blinded by deep prejudice.
 * I hereby reject all your insinuation of all sorts. I shall not be commenting until someone tries to understand first instead of dismissing right away. I have done my fair share of input as an minor editor. Seanetienne (talk) 18:06, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hi,, I have never called you a lunatic charlatan. I made previously no reference to your own person. Unless you are actively an author of medical pseudoscience, you have no reason to feel offended by the words of Jimmy Wales. I never said that the words "lunatic charlatans" apply to you, nor did I say I am Wales. It is difficult for me to comprehend why do you think that the essay WP:LUNATICS applies to your own person. Wales's opinion is Wales's opinion. You seem to take it personally when either it isn't me who wrote the opinion (I'm not Wales), or I am simply not writing anything at all about your own person. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:13, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry this got off-topic from the intention of the opening post, but it's probably not a good idea to link to the "lunatics" essay in these kinds of discussions. WP:PSCI (as well as WP:MEDRS) are probably better choices. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Recent edits
I think the recent major rewrite of the page,, may have seriously introduced a false balance and may not have consensus. For the moment, I won't revert it myself, but I think it may have to be reverted if other editors besides me object. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:19, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I object as well, but the content seems to have already been reverted. Perhaps the editor will come here to seek consensus? JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * With three of us objecting, I'm happy with the revert, for now. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:41, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Hello, I was the one editor that made recent changes. To be clear, I am not a paid editor and I don't have a strong bias on this topic. In fact, I am generally skeptical of alternative medicine though have recently become more curious about it as I personally explore some health issues. I was very surprised when I found both this page and the functional medicine page on Wikipedia to be so completely lacking in neutrality on the topics. In no way did I attempt to hide or minimize the many criticisms of naturopathy, but it seems plainly obvious to me the article in its current format really does not follow Wikipedia guidelines. I spent some real time researching legitimate sources that could help provide a more balanced. My goal in doing so was to help the article be more in line with the pillar "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view."
 * This pillar states: We strive for articles with an impartial tone that document and explain major points of view, giving due weight for their prominence. We avoid advocacy, and we characterize information and issues rather than debate them. In some areas there may be just one well-recognized point of view; in others, we describe multiple points of view, presenting each accurately and in context rather than as "the truth" or "the best view"
 * The editor who reverted my edits seems to think that this topic has just one well-recognized point of view, or that that the view that naturopathy is only "quackery" has such prominence any disagreement with this violates the principle of due weight. This is not backed up by credible claims but rather seems like the editor has an axe to grind on this topic. This also seems to be contradicted by the fact that many US states and other nations offer formal license and regulatory frameworks for traditional medicines, which I also cited by linking to a list of states that currently license. It had previously read that "Naturopathy is prohibited in three U.S. states (Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and tightly regulated in many others. Some states have lax regulations, however, and may allow naturopaths to perform minor surgery or even prescribe drugs."  This is not neutral, not does it give any credence to the legitimacy that a regulatory system confers.
 * In introducing a more balanced tone I was careful to cite from legitimate, mainstream and credible sources such as a report published by the World Health Organization (WHO). Indeed, in this report, the WHO Director-General writes that "Traditional and complementary medicine (T&CM) is an important and often underestimated health resource with many applications." In flatly rejecting this, the editor completely ignores whole huge segments of the global population who very much do rely on traditional medicines. Implying that there is consensus that it is "quackery" seems to be a very western centric point of view.
 * I am going to revert back to the changes I made because I stand by them and believe that I was meticulous in my observance of rules and made a good faith effort to improve the article. Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 12:37, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I am going to revert back to the changes I made You shouldn't. There are three editors objecting to the changes so there is no WP:consensus for them. Wait and see how the discussion develops. Robby.is.on (talk) 12:41, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It was problematic from a whitewashing/WP:GEVAL perspective. So not a good idea. Bon courage (talk) 12:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I think we're now at five editors objecting to the change, and one supporting it, so this is WP:1AM. Also, believing that one is "right" is not an accepted reason to edit against WP:CONSENSUS. And I want to explain that the WP:NPOV policy does not say that we have to give similar prominence to every POV, and thus editors here are not claiming that the "quackery" perspective in the only recognized POV. We're saying that we should give WP:DUE weight according to the preponderance of reliable (in this case, WP:MEDRS) sources.
 * I'm open to the possibility that we should include some increased coverage of favorable perspectives, but I would want to be able to examine them one-by-one. I'm perfectly willing to discuss making some changes, here in talk, as opposed to just putting the changes en masse on the page without prior consensus. Wikiwriter, if you'd like to list here the changes that you think are most likely to gain consensus, with sourcing, I'd be happy to discuss them. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:18, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * —yup, the rely on such medicines because effective medicine is very expensive and many countries would go bankrupt through making it widely available to their population. Sad, but true. And it does not stop 99% of the traditional medicines from being quackery. E.g. the Cambodian government recognized that cupping therapy is WP:CB, but also that it is widely used in their country. tgeorgescu (talk) 18:42, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Echoing the comments of Tryptofish I suggest, Wikiwriter43103840, that you present your desired content on this Talk page, one item at a time, so that it can be discussed amongst interested editors and a consensus - one way or another - achieved. Throwing everything into the article at once is simply not going to work. I note also that you should restrict your comments to content, and not on your opinion(s) of other editors, as your comment above (seems like the editor has an axe to grind on this topic) is unhelpful and could easily be interpreted as a personal attack (see WP:PA). JoJo Anthrax (talk) 20:12, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Agree. Wikiwriter43103840 would be best off working on this talk page making edit requests or something similar, identifying all changes in POV and the references that support such changes. --Hipal (talk) 20:40, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * OK, apologies for just reverting without further discussion.
 * Here are the changes that I made and why I made them:
 * The current opening reads as follows: " A wide array of pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing" are employed by its practitioners, who are known as naturopaths. Difficult to generalize, these treatments range from the thoroughly discredited, like homeopathy, to the widely accepted, like certain forms of psychotherapy."   Not only is this non-neutral, but it also is self contradictory.  How can it be both "a wide array of pseudoscientific practices" and also include "widely accepted" treatments?  I suggested opening with a description that acknowledges the debates about it but does not immediately draw a conclusion.  I included reference to the WHO report to back up my suggestion that a more positive POV deserves prominence alongside what is already there.
 * The claim that "The diagnoses made by naturopaths often have no factual merit" is not supported by the citations provided. The citations could be good sources to legitimize a claim that naturopathy does not rely on the scientific method, or even that what it advises is often not supported by medical research, but to flatly claim that the diagnoses often have no factual merit seems to misrepresent the citations, unless I am missing something.
 * The following is also problematic: "Naturopathy is prohibited in three U.S. states (Florida, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and tightly regulated in many others. Some states have lax regulations, however, and may allow naturopaths to perform minor surgery or even prescribe drugs." Why not just acknowledge that some states permit it and regulate it while others prohibit it? It does not seem like the purpose of this article to pass judgement ("lax") on public policy relating to the topic, the role of the article should be to describe public policy from a neutral perspective, and then describe various lobbying efforts focused on changing policies.
 * The language I replaced it with attempts to explain that naturopathy is not one single approach or way of doing things. It includes fully licensed medical doctors who are also trained in naturopathy and use it as a form of complimentary medicine to totally dangerous anti-vax crazy people who are peddling things that could hurt people.   I tried to encompass all of that, and to explain that it is debated.  In my mind this was expanding on what is already here.   What do you all think?  Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 21:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * NPOV isn't half-way between science and pseudoscience. NPOV sides with science and shuns pseudoscience. tgeorgescu (talk) 21:31, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don’t think a Wikipedia article is about “siding” at all. It’s about explaining the world as it is.  The purpose is not to stake out a position.  I’m not sure why you seem to have it out for me.  Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You have the mistaken idea that NPOV sides with science and shuns pseudoscience is open for rational debate, and that you would be allowed to disobey it. No, it is a matter of website policy, namely WP:PSCI, you might want to read it.
 * Wikipedia has no unfettered access to . But it has unfettered access to scientific publications. tgeorgescu (talk) 17:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You are unkind.  Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 02:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that Wikipedia has WP:RULES, so our WP:RULES are not open to rational counter-argumentation, at least not at this talk page. This is not the place for changing the WP:RULES. Editors at this talk page cannot change the rules of the game. Not being aware that Wikipedia sides with mainstream science is extremely naive. tgeorgescu (talk) 19:15, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
 * One last time, per WP:PA, please restrict your comments here to article content, not on your opinions about other editors. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I feel the need to say, also, that tgeorgescu should be more willing to engage collegially with suggestions by Wikiwriter, who I feel had a somewhat valid reason for feeling treated unkindly. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:00, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The few past days, I did not really engage with their positive claims, but I was sensing that they do not understand how Wikipedia works. tgeorgescu (talk) 01:48, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this post. My recollection of the edit was that more was changed than what those three points refer to, and what you've posted is more of a rationale than a proposal for revised text. But I'm happy to work with it for now, focusing on more limited corrections if any are needed.
 * I could support rewriting those sentences to "A wide array of practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing" are employed by its practitioners, who are known as naturopaths. Difficult to generalize, these treatments range from the pseudoscientific and thoroughly discredited, like homeopathy, to the widely accepted, like certain forms of psychotherapy." I could also support "A wide array of often pseudoscientific practices branded as "natural", "non-invasive", or promoting "self-healing" are employed by its practitioners, who are known as naturopaths. Difficult to generalize, these treatments range from the thoroughly discredited, like homeopathy, to the widely accepted, like certain forms of psychotherapy." The second of those simply introduces the word "often" before the word "pseudoscientific".
 * I could support rewriting that sentence to "The diagnoses made by naturopaths often have no basis in science and are often not accepted by mainstream medicine".
 * I could support rewriting the second sentence to "Some states, however, allow naturopaths to perform minor surgery or even prescribe drugs."
 * I'm very pro-science, but I can agree that there is some editorializing in the current versions of those three passages, and I'd be willing to go that far if other editors agree. I don't think any of the changes I described really shift the POV significantly, but they make the language more encyclopedic and professional. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I think this a good start. I need to spend more time on this and when I can I will be glad to propose further changes here in this discussion. Thanks for this.  Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 00:37, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Regarding the suggestions of Tryptofish, I like the first sentence of point 1, and the sentences in points 2 and 3. They are accurate and, importantly, carry an encyclopedic tone. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 06:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Naturopathy, or naturopathic medicine, encompasses a variety of treatment methods, including dietary and lifestyle changes, stress reduction, the use of herbs and dietary supplements, homeopathy, manipulative therapies, exercise therapy, practitioner-guided detoxification, and psychotherapy and counseling. Naturopathy often finds itself at the center of debate because its practices frequently lack a rigorous scientific basis.
 * Many in the scientific and medical communities categorize it as an alternative medicine form, emphasizing the pseudoscientific nature of some of its methods, such as homeopathy, which are widely discredited. Despite these challenges to its validity, naturopathy is also recognized by some, including the World Health Organization (WHO), which advocates for an integrative approach that combines the best of traditional and conventional medical systems.
 * The field of naturopathy employs a diverse array of practices, described by practitioners as "natural," "non-invasive," or promoting "self-healing." This diversity ranges from methods without scientific support to those accepted within some regions of mainstream medicine, like specific forms of psychotherapy. The spectrum of practices complicates the generalization of naturopathic medicine's efficacy and scientific standing.
 * The basis of naturopathy includes various sources, from accredited educational programs to traditions rooted in vitalism and folk medicine. Its controversial nature stems not only from the debate over its scientific validity but also from differing regulatory landscapes across the globe. For example, the practice faces outright prohibition in a few states in the United States. In contrast, others offer licensure or registration that may permit a range of activities, including minor surgery and prescribing medications. Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 11:45, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Sorry my intro got cut off. Here is my attempt at a re-write.  Thoughts? Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 11:46, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

I prefer the revised sentences presented above by Tryptofish. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Tryptofish's rewrite takes on a more encyclopedic tone. @Wikiwriter43103840, you have done a lot of rewriting which may necessitate new source requirements, and a bit too wordy for these purposes, IMO. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 16:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I've enacted those edits: . --Tryptofish (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, some of the current sources would suffice and others would take some digging to be exact (I have them in mind but would want to find specific page numbers, etc). Before I did that work I wanted to bring this draft to this group.  Could you help me understand what is not encyclopedic about my re-write? Is there anything that in there that others think would be additive to the current article, even without using the entirety of it? Wikiwriter43103840 (talk) 14:06, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * You're writing is fine, in my opinion. I just meant that your style was a little wordier, for example, Naturopathy often finds itself at the center of debate because its practices frequently lack a rigorous scientific basis. Your thoughts were heard and considered, and these types of articles are difficult spaces, as they tend to draw editors who have strong opinions/feelings about how the subject is presented, so no reason to be discouraged. Pyrrho the Skipper (talk) 14:50, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I provided an answer to your question on your Talk page, as doing so here might be inconsistent with article Talk page guidelines. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 16:32, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I read JoJo's reply on your talk page, and I think it's a very reasonable explanation.
 * I'll try to add some further explanation to the comments already made. The first thought I have when reading your suggested text is to ask myself: why would we need these changes? You can see from the changes that I recently enacted on the page, that I approached it as trying to fix things where I believed there was a valid reason to fix it. A lot of what you propose here moves content around, but I'm not seeing what problem it solves.
 * For those things where I do see the reason why, I'm having the same reaction as Pyrrho and JoJo. The sentence that Pyrrho quotes just above strikes me as a little bit WP:PEACOCK, because "center of debate" comes across a little like "center of attention", and I think that's hyperbole. The paragraph that begins "Many in the scientific... " is where I particularly see a false balance of POV. First, "many" is an understatement. Second, by saying that they "emphasize" the negative aspects, it comes across as implying a little bit that there is a choice happening to emphasize those things while ignoring more positive things, which isn't supported by most sources. Third, when you say: "Despite these challenges... ", you make it sound like we would be saying, in Wikipedia's voice, that the "truth" would be breaking through. Although I'm not opposed to giving some additional weight to the WHO position (somewhere on the page, not sure about the lead), I wouldn't want to give it equal WP:WEIGHT with the more critical views. After all, after the recent corrections, we already do make it clear that there are things like some types of psychotherapy that are accepted as mainstream. None of what I've just described is really bad, more like just not enough of an improvement on what we have now. And in subtle ways, it seems to me like POV-pushing, because the changes in tone and emphasis trend in one direction. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

title: Talk:Naturopathy


text:
U.S. Route 93

U.S. Route 93 (US 93) is a major north–south 1359 mi   U.S. Numbered Highway in the western United States, that connects U.S. Route 60  (US 60) in Wickenburg, Arizona, with British Columbia Highway 93 at the Canadian border (north of Eureka, Montana). The highway passes through Kingman, Arizona; Las Vegas, Nevada; Twin Falls, Idaho; and Missoula, Montana.

Route description

 * AZ
 * 199 mi
 * NV
 * 527 mi
 * ID
 * 351 mi
 * MT
 * 288 mi
 * Total
 * 1365 mi
 * }
 * 288 mi
 * Total
 * 1365 mi
 * }
 * }

Arizona
US 93 begins at US 60 in Wickenburg, a small town approximately 50 mi northwest of Phoenix. 30 mi northwest of Wickenburg, US 93 passes through a large forest of Joshua trees and is thus labeled the Joshua Forest Parkway of Arizona until it reaches Wikieup.

From there, it heads north, eventually merging with Interstate 40 (I-40) to head west to Kingman. US 93 then splits from I-40 in Kingman and heads north to the Hoover Dam. Chloride is located off this highway, and Santa Claus is on the western side, about 15 mi before the Chloride Road intersection.

This highway was known to be one of the deadliest routes in America until recently. The years of improvements have made it a much safer road to travel, according to the Federal Highway Administration.

Nevada

US 93 enters Nevada where Interstate 11 (I-11) currently begins: on the Hoover Dam Bypass. I-11 / US 93 then winds its way west-southwest through Boulder City before merging with U.S. Route 95 (US 95) past the interchange with Nevada State Route 173. These three routes (I-11 / US 93 / US 95) then curve northwest toward Las Vegas. US 93 exits at the Las Vegas Spaghetti Bowl interchange just northwest of downtown, heading northbound concurrently with Interstate 15 (I-15). Those two routes then run in a northeasterly direction through North Las Vegas until they exit the metro area, where US 93 diverges from I-15 at Apex to head north toward Great Basin National Park. Near there, the highway joins with the combined US Routes U.S. Route 6 / U.S. Route 50 (US 6 / US 50) to run northwest toward Ely. In Ely, US 6 first departs and heads west toward Tonopah. Then, shortly thereafter, US 50 departs US 93 to continue west toward Fallon and Reno (via U.S. Route 50 Alternate west, U.S. Route 95 Alternate north, and Interstate 80 [I-80] west) and Carson City. Upon reaching Lages Station, U.S. Route 93 Alternate (US 93 Alt) splits off in a northeasterly direction toward West Wendover. The main route of US 93 continues north from Lages Station, intersecting I-80 at Wells before crossing the Idaho state line on the north edge of Jackpot.

Between State Route 318 and Majors Junction (US 6 / US 50), US 93 is designated a Nevada Scenic Byway. From Ely to Schellbourne Ranch, US 93 is part of the Lincoln Highway, the first road across the United States.

Idaho

Shortly after entering Idaho, US 93 crosses U.S. Route 30 as it before running through the northern edge Twin Falls. North of here, the highway crosses the Snake River Canyon via the Perrine Bridge en route to an interchange with Interstate 84. US 93 passes through Shoshone and runs concurrently with U.S. Route 20 / U.S. Route 26 (US 20 / US 26) before reaching Arco. The highway then turns northwest (leaving US 20 / US 26) to enter the Big Lost River valley through Mackay.

Just south of Challis, US 93 becomes the northern leg of the Salmon River Scenic Byway as it heads toward the town of Salmon. From there, the highway follows portions of the Lewis and Clark Trail and passes through the Salmon-Challis National Forest before entering Montana.

Montana

US 93 enters Montana from Idaho at Lost Trail Pass and travels north descending through the Bitterroot National Forest. The highway continues along the Lewis and Clark Trail into the Bitterroot Valley towards Missoula, passing through Darby and Hamilton. At Lolo, U.S. Route 12 (US 12) joins from the west and they run concurrently northeast for 7.537 mi, where US 93 heads due north on Reserve Street in Missoula. US 93 then joins Interstate 90 (I-90) and runs concurrently westward for 5.352 mi to Wye, where it heads north.

From Wye, US 93 continues north through the Flathead Indian Reservation, where its signage includes the historic Salish and Kutenai names for towns, rivers, and streams. Portions of this section run along the CSKT Bison Range. North of the reservation, US 93 traverses the western shore of Flathead Lake, the largest freshwater lake west of the Mississippi River. North of the lake the highway runs through the cities of Kalispell and Whitefish, traveling through the Flathead National Forest and the Stillwater State Forest before reaching its terminus at the Canada–US border near Eureka. On entering Canada, the roadway becomes British Columbia Highway 93.

The portion north of Hamilton travels through one of the most densely populated areas in Montana. This section also serves as a popular north–south connection between Yellowstone National Park and Glacier National Park. As a result, the road tends to become more congested between Hamilton and Whitefish. A popular bumper sticker in Montana reads, "Pray for me, I drive Hwy 93!"

Total US 93 mileage in Montana as of 2013 is 287.919 mi: 90.763 mi from the Idaho line to Reserve Street in Missoula via corridor N-7 (C000007) (includes 7.524 mi concurrency with US 12), 5.369 mi via corridor N-92 (C000092) (Reserve Street), 5.384 mi concurrent with I-90 and MT 200 (C000090) and 186.403 mi from Wye to the Canadian border via corridor N-5 (C000005) (includes 27.215 mi concurrency with Montana Highway 200).

History
US 93 was not one of the original U.S. highways proposed in the 1925 Bureau of Public Roads plan. However, the revised numbering plan approved by the American Association of State Highway Officials (AASHO) on November 11, 1926, established US 93 from the Canada–US border north of Eureka, Montana, south through Montana and Idaho to a southern terminus at Wells, Nevada.

US 93's original northern terminus was a few miles west of its current terminus, along the Kootenai River at the Gateway Port of entry. This was the case until around 1934, when US 93 was routed along its current route.

AASHO, at its June 8, 1931, meeting, approved a southerly extension of US 93 south to Glendale, Nevada. By 1932, the Nevada Department of Highways had marked the continuation of the highway using the routing of several preexisting state highways.

At the request of the Arizona State Highway Department, the AASHO route numbering committee approved another extension of US 93 in 1935. This shifted the southern terminus south to Kingman, Arizona, by way of Las Vegas. Nevada officials again extended the route along preexisting highways; however, they may not have signed the extension right away as it was not shown on Nevada's state-published maps until 1939.

Until 1993, US 93 ended a short distance north of Wickenburg, Arizona, at a junction with U.S. Route 89. When US 89 was decommissioned in the area, the US 93 designation was carried on into Wickenburg.

A highway segment opened on October 19, 2010, in the area of Hoover Dam; the Hoover Dam Bypass replaces a segment of US 93 over the dam that had been closed to truck traffic due to security concerns since the September 11 attacks in 2001. The bypass crosses the Colorado River on a bridge downstream of the dam. The bypass eliminated the permanent truck detour through either Laughlin, Nevada, or Needles, California, that had been in place since 2001.

Future
US 93 (with US 60 to the southeast of Wickenburg) is currently the shortest and most direct route between Las Vegas and Phoenix, two of the fastest-growing cities in the United States. Upgrades of US 60 and US 93 to expressway status are scheduled between Las Vegas and Phoenix. Most recently, in the 2012 Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act, the United States Congress officially designated a new Interstate freeway corridor between the two cities as Interstate 11, which would mostly or completely replace US 93 in Arizona.

A new U.S. Route 93 Alternate was built to bypass through traffic around downtown Kalispell, Montana, from 2010 to 2016. Currently, US 93 through Kalispell is Main Street and Sunset Boulevard, a 25 to 45 mi/h arterial. Three segments of the bypass comprising a total of 4.5 mi were completed and opened to traffic from 2010 to 2013. The remaining 3 mi opened October 28, 2016. The southwest 3.2 mi segment of the bypass is currently only two lanes, and is slated for expansion to four lanes with two additional grade-separated interchanges when funding permits.

Major intersections

 * Arizona
 * in Wickenburg
 * east-northeast of Kingman. I-40 and US 93 travel concurrently to Kingman. I-11/US 93 are proposed to travel concurrently to Phoenix.
 * in Kingman. I-11/US 93 are proposed to travel concurrently to Las Vegas, Nevada.

 * Nevada
 * from Boulder City to Las Vegas. The highways travel concurrently to Las Vegas. I-11/US 95 are proposed to travel concurrently to Tonopah and Reno.
 * in Henderson
 * from Las Vegas to North Las Vegas. I-15/US 93 travels concurrently to northeast of North Las Vegas.
 * in Majors Place. The highways travel concurrently to Ely.
 * in Wells

 * Idaho
 * east of Filer. The highways travel concurrently to Twin Falls.
 * north of Twin Falls
 * in Shoshone. The highways travel concurrently to Arco.
 * in Carey. The highways travel concurrently to Arco.

 * Montana
 * in Lolo. The highways travel concurrently to Missoula.
 * in Missoula. The highways travel concurrently to Wye.
 * in Kalispell
 * at the Canada–United States border north of Eureka

Boulder City business
U.S. Route 93 Business (US 93 Bus.) is a business route of US 93 in Clark County, Nevada. The route provides access to Lake Mead and downtown Boulder City from Interstate 11 (I-11). The route was originally part of mainline US 93 before it was realigned around Boulder City along I-11.

Lages Junction–Wells alternate
U.S. Route 93 Alternate (US 93 ALT) is an alternate route of US 93 in northeastern Nevada. The southern terminus is at Lages Station in northern White Pine County, where it separates from US 93. The route continues north to West Wendover where it joins Interstate 80 (I-80). US 93 ALT follows I-80 west to Wells, where it terminates at an interchange with US 93.

US 93 ALT provides a shortcut from central Nevada to Salt Lake City, Utah via eastbound I-80.

Twin Falls business

U.S. Route 93 Business (US 93 Bus.) is a 8.110 mi business route of US 93 in Twin Falls County, Idaho. The route provides access to downtown Twin Falls. A majority of the route is concurrent with U.S. Route 30. The route was originally part of mainline US 93 before it was realigned around most of Twin Falls.

Kalispell alternate
U.S. Route 93 Alternate in Montana is an alternate route of US 93 that bypasses the central business district of the city of Kalispell.

Shoshone–Challis alternate
Between 1926 and 1977 a road between Shoshone, Idaho, and Challis, Idaho, was also labeled US 93 Alternate. This stretch of road is now designated as part of US 93. The pre-1977 routing of 93 between those points is now designated as Idaho State Highway 75.

Cultural references
US 93 (Highway 93) features in the title track from Montana Cafe, a studio album by American country music artist Hank Williams Jr., released by Warner Bros. Records in July 1986.

US 93 is referenced in the song "Killer Road" by Iowa blues band The Unidynes from their 1996 album Once in a Blue Room.

Metal band Avenged Sevenfold included the stretch of US 93 between Kingman and Wickenburg, in Arizona, in the music video for their song, "Dear God". Many clips of the highway, and landmarks along the stretch of highway, are portrayed from the band's tour bus in the video.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: U.S. Route 93


text:
The Object of My Affection

The Object of My Affection is a 1998 American romantic comedy-drama film directed by Nicholas Hytner, and starring Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd. The film was adapted from the novel of the same name by Stephen McCauley and the screenplay was written by Wendy Wasserstein. The story is centered around a pregnant New York social worker who develops romantic feelings for her gay new friend and decides to raise her child with him, and the complications that ensue.

It was filmed in 1997 in various locations around New York City, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The film received mixed reviews and was a moderate box office success grossing $46.9 million against a production budget of $15 million.

Plot
Social worker Nina Borowski is a bright young woman living in a cozy Brooklyn apartment. Nina attends a party given by her stepsister Constance and her husband, Sidney. There Nina meets George Hanson, a young, handsome, and gay first grade teacher. Nina tells George that her stepsister is constantly trying to fix her up with somebody from higher society, completely ignoring the fact that Nina has a boyfriend, Vince. During the conversation, Nina offers George a room in her apartment as she has just heard from his boyfriend, Dr. Robert Joley, that George is looking for somewhere to live. George, not knowing about Robert's plans, is taken aback and heartbroken, and after the party the two split up. George accepts Nina's offer and moves into her apartment.

The two soon become best friends; they watch films together and go ballroom dancing. Everything is great until Nina announces that she is pregnant. Vince, the baby's father, wants to marry her, but his constant control drives Nina crazy; she leaves him and George offers to help raise her child. For some time, they live together in her apartment in Brooklyn. Everything is perfect again until Nina finds that her love for George is growing every day, especially after he tells her he had a girlfriend in high school, leading her to believe they might develop a romantic relationship.

One afternoon, George and Nina are about to have sex when George gets a phone call from Robert who tells him how much he has missed him and invites him away for the weekend. George is confused but agrees to go. Nina feels threatened and gets jealous. George and Robert do not re-establish their relationship, but George meets Paul James, a young actor, and the two are attracted to each other and have sex. Meanwhile, Nina is staying with Constance at a vacation mansion and is extremely moody. She has a horrible time and decides to head back home and asks George to return as well. Her purse is snatched on the way and a friendly police officer, Louis, gives her a ride home.

Nina decides to invite Paul and his older acting mentor with whom he lives, Rodney, for Thanksgiving after a rather prickly brunch with a late arriving George, his brother Frank and his brother's latest fiancée. After the evening winds down, Paul stays the night with George, resulting in a heated argument between George and Nina, and heartache for Rodney.

At Frank's wedding, they continue their discussion as Nina has begun to realize the reality of the situation. Nina fully explains to George her feelings for him. George, who loves Nina as his best friend, tells her that, ultimately, he wants to be with Paul. A few hours later, Nina gives birth to a beautiful girl she names Molly. Vince, ecstatic, visits her in the hospital, but when he leaves to complete paperwork, Nina and George remain alone with Molly. Nina asks George when he plans to move out to which he replies that he doesn't know. She asks him to move out of her apartment before she gets home from the hospital, stating that it would hurt her too much to have him stay any longer knowing that he doesn't love her the same way she does him.

Eight years later at George's school, everyone goes to see Molly in a musical production that George has directed. George is now the principal of the school. Nina is now in a relationship with Louis, and George is still with Paul, both of them now happy. Rodney is also there, still considered 'one of the family' by Louis and Nina. Nina, George, and young Molly (who refers to George as her "Uncle George") walk together, hand-in-hand, on their way to get coffee and talk.

Production
The shooting took place from June to July 1997, in New York. Winona Ryder was initially offered the role of Nina, but turned it down so Uma Thurman was cast opposite Keanu Reeves but both dropped out. Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd were cast instead.

Box office
The Object of My Affection was released in US theaters on April 17, 1998, and took in $9,725,855 during its opening weekend, coming in at No. 2 at the box office in 1,890 theaters, averaging $5,146 per theater. The film went on to gross $29,187,243 in the United States alone, over a span of five weekends. The film continued to open in European countries throughout the fall and winter of 1998, and ultimately grossed $17,718,646 outside of the United States.

Critical reception
Critical reaction to the film was mixed. Roger Ebert gave the film two stars, saying: "The Object of My Affection deals with some real issues and has scenes that work, but you can see the wheels of the plot turning so clearly that you doubt the characters have much freedom to act on their own." Ruthe Stein of the San Francisco Chronicle said the film "occasionally borders on being too clever. But that's a small quibble about a movie that gets so much right."

The film holds a rating of 53% on the review aggregation website Rotten Tomatoes based on 59 reviews. The site's consensus states: "Despite heartfelt performances from Jennifer Aniston and Paul Rudd, The Object of My Affection suffers from too many plot contrivances and frequent turns into rom-com sappiness." Metacritic gave the film a weighted average score of 51% based on 18 critics.

Accolades
In efforts of the film it received a GLAAD Media award nomination for Outstanding Film (Wide Release), and won the London Critics Circle Film award for British Supporting Actor of the Year awarded to actor Nigel Hawthorne.

title: The Object of My Affection


text:
Chess as mental training

There are efforts to use the game of chess as a tool to aid the intellectual development of young people. Chess is significant in cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence (AI) studies, because it represents the domain in which expert performance has been most intensively studied and measured.

New York–based Chess-In-The-Schools, Inc. has been active in the public school system in the city since 1986. It currently reaches more than 30,000 students annually. America's Foundation for Chess has initiated programs in partnership with local school districts in several U.S. cities, including Seattle, San Diego, Philadelphia, and Tampa. The Chess'n Math Association promotes chess at the scholastic level in Canada. Chess for Success is a program for at-risk schools in Oregon. Since 1991, the U.S. Chess Center in Washington, D.C. teaches chess to children, especially those in the inner city, "as a means of improving their academic and social skills."

Research
Research has shown that chess can have a positive impact on meta-cognitive ability and mathematical problem-solving in children, which is why several local governments, schools, and student organizations all over the world are implementing chess programs.

There are a number of experiments that suggest that learning and playing chess aids the mind. The Grandmaster Eugene Torre Chess Institute in the Philippines, the United States Chess Federation's chess research bibliography, and English educational consultant Tony Buzan's Brain Foundation, among others, continuously collect such experimental results. The advent of chess software that automatically record and analyze the moves of each player in each game and can tirelessly play with human players of various levels, further helped in giving new directions to experimental designs on chess as mental training.

History
As early as 1779 Benjamin Franklin, in his article The morals of chess, advocated such a view, saying:

"The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of the mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess, in which we have often points to gain, and competitors or adversaries to contend with, and in which there is a vast variety of good and ill events, that are, in some degree, the effect of prudence, or the want of it. By playing at Chess then, we may learn:

1st, Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action ...

2nd, Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action: - the relation of the several Pieces, and their situations; ...

3rd, Caution, not to make our moves too hastily..."

Alfred Binet demonstrated in the late 19th century that good chess players have superior memory and imagination. Adriaan de Groot concurred with Alfred Binet that visual memory and visual perception are important attributors and that problem-solving ability is of paramount importance. Thus, since 1972, at the collegiate level, the University of Texas at Dallas and the University of Maryland, Baltimore County both recruit chessplayer-scholars and run scholastic outreach programs in their respective communities.

title: Chess as mental training


text:
Talk:Pope Marinus I

Untitled
an encyclopedia we mustn't name

 * What is that? If you really can't name it, could we have an explanation of what this cryptic statement means, at least? — AdamRaizen 21:14, 2003 Aug 6 (UTC)

 * I believe means Encyclopedia Britannica (oh no, I spoke the secret word!), because the actual name is copyrighted, even if particular editions no longer are. Adam Bishop 21:23, 6 Aug 2003 (UTC)

 * Apparently trademarked, not copyrighted (copyright a single word?) according to Encyclopædia Britannica. Or maybe we can't name it because of Wikipedia-Britannica rivalry? — AdamRaizen

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 02:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

title: Talk:Pope Marinus I


text:
User talk:Jnc

DO NOT LEAVE MESSAGES HERE. I AM NOT READING THIS PAGE, AND DO NOT WANT ANY MESSAGES LEFT HERE. I have gone on indefinite Wiki-break (if you want to know why, please see my User: page). If you need to contact me, please email me.

Old stuff moved to:

 * Ship names to User_talk:Jnc/Ships
 * Village Pump stuff to User_talk:Jnc/VP
 * Edit Count Table stuff to User_talk:Jnc/EditCount

 * Old stuff from 2003 in User_talk:Jnc/2003
 * Old stuff from the first half of 2004 in User_talk:Jnc/2004A
 * Old stuff from the second half of 2004 in User_talk:Jnc/2004B
 * Old stuff from the first half of 2005 in User_talk:Jnc/2005A
 * Inactive stuff from the second half of 2005 in User_talk:Jnc/2005B
 * Inactive stuff from the first half of 2006 in User_talk:Jnc/2006A
 * The normal contents of my Talk: page, including active stuff from the second half of 2005, are in User_talk:Jnc/Old

Hi this is not an email and I know it
Hi, I came to your talk page because of User:Jnc/TooManyBoxes - wanted to say, I enjoyed it. I read your user page and was sad. I thought User:Jnc/AstronomerAmateur was very instructive. I am not emailing you, because ... well doesn't matter but it isn't my preferred method of correspondence with fellow wikipedians, and this can wait til if and when you get back. If then, you are looking for support, leave me a note on my talk page, I would be only too pleased to learn something new. I am sad that you no longer feel up to "getting out" some of the "unbelievable quantities of trivia and rubbish" you have accumulated. The project is frustrating, but think of the alternatives.--A Y Arktos\talk 10:26, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon
Hello,

An Arbitration case in which you commented has been opened: Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Requests for arbitration/Israel-Lebanon/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, --Tony Sidaway 19:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Archive 1 Talk:Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol
I've added the "prod" template to the article Archive 1 Talk:Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at Talk:Archive 1 Talk:Enhanced Interior Gateway Routing Protocol. You may remove the deletion notice, and the article will not be deleted, but note that it may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. TheRingess 18:11, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Non-free use disputed for Image:DaveBrubeckQuartetAtCarnegieHall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DaveBrubeckQuartetAtCarnegieHall.jpg. However, there is a concern that the rationale you have provided for using this image under "fair use" may be invalid. Please read carefully the instructions at Non-free content and then go to the image description page and clarify why you think the image qualifies.

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 00:54, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image (Image:Firbankgrammarlogo.jpg)
Thanks for uploading Image:Firbankgrammarlogo.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images 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 any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. BetacommandBot 09:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of List of people known by middle name
List of people known by middle name, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that List of people known by middle name satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/List of people known by middle name and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of List of people known by middle name during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Spellcast 05:11, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Booting (chat room slang)
Booting (chat room slang), an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Booting (chat room slang) satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Booting (chat room slang) and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Booting (chat room slang) during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. M2Ys4U ( talk ) 16:33, 6 October 2007 (UTC)

Slates
A Proposed Deletion template has been added to the article Slates, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but this article may not satisfy Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and the deletion notice explains why (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). You may contest the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion in your edit summary or on its talk page. Also, please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Even though removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, the article may still be deleted if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria or it can be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached. If you endorse deletion of the article, and you are the only person who has made substantial edits to the page, please add db-author to the top of the page. Fabrictramp 20:50, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Slates
Slates, an article you created, has been nominated for deletion. We appreciate your contributions. However, an editor does not feel that Slates satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Slates and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Slates during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Fabrictramp 17:22, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Bombing of Dresden
Hi, as one of the editors of Bombing of Dresden in World War II, would you mind commenting here about a possible name change? There is a proposal to call the article simply Bombing of Dresden. Cheers, SlimVirgin  (talk) (contribs) 14:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Disputed fair use rationale for Image:DaveBrubeckQuartetAtCarnegieHall.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:DaveBrubeckQuartetAtCarnegieHall.jpg. 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 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 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 (talk) 20:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Welcome back
I'm glad to see you're editing again. Welcome back. Raul654 (talk) 15:52, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

WP Computing
Greetings. You are receiving this note as you are a member of this WikiProject. Currently there is not much of activity in the project and I am hoping to revive the project with your help. I have made a few changes to the project page Diff. You are welcome to make suggestions of improvement / changes in the design. I have also make a proposal to AutoTagg articles with WikiProject Computing for the descendant wikiprojects articles also. Please express your opinion here --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 12:49, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion regarding Early computers task force
Discussion regarding Early computers task force can be found here --  TinuCherian  (Wanna Talk?) - 08:56, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Little context in Remote Access Quarantine Client
Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Remote Access Quarantine Client, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Remote Access Quarantine Client is very short providing little or no context to the reader. Please see Wikipedia:Stub for our minimum information standards for short articles. To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Remote Access Quarantine Client, please affix the template 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) 03:40, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for November 28
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Barry Ten, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Barry Island Railway (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ* Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 12:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of André Danthine for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article André Danthine is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/André Danthine until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. JFHJr (㊟) 06:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English. Since you had some involvement with the Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. TheChampionMan1234 06:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfU listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RfU. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RfU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. - TheChampionMan1234 04:28, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

File:YachtReliance.jpg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:YachtReliance.jpg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why it has been listed (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry). Feel free to add your opinion on the matter below the nomination. Thank you. . signed:Donan Raven (talk) 14:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

MfD nomination of Talk:RfD
Talk:RfD, a page you substantially contributed to, has been nominated for deletion. Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Talk:RfD and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Talk:RfD during the discussion but should not remove the miscellany for deletion template from the top of the page; such a removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Si Trew (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Template:Deletedarticle listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Deletedarticle. Since you had some involvement with the Template:Deletedarticle redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. Steel1943 (talk) 13:46, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Contests
User:Dr. Blofeld has created WikiProject Africa/Contests. The idea is to run a series of contests/editathons focusing on each region of Africa. He has spoken to Wikimedia about it and $1000-1500 is possible for prize money. As someone who has previously expressed interest in African topics, would you be interested in contributing to one or assisting draw up core article/missing article lists? He says he's thinking of North Africa for an inaugural one in October. If interested please sign up in the participants section of the Contest page, thanks.♦ -- Ser Amantio di Nicolao Che dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 01:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia:RfU listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect RfU. Since you had some involvement with the Wikipedia:RfU redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. SST flyer  13:00, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Two-Factor Authentication now available for admins
Hello,

Please note that TOTP based two-factor authentication is now available for all administrators. In light of the recent compromised accounts, you are encouraged to add this additional layer of security to your account. It may be enabled on your preferences page in the "User profile" tab under the "Basic information" section. For basic instructions on how to enable two-factor authentication, please see the developing help page for additional information. Important: Be sure to record the two-factor authentication key and the single use keys. If you lose your two factor authentication and do not have the keys, it's possible that your account will not be recoverable. Furthermore, you are encouraged to utilize a unique password and two-factor authentication for the email account associated with your Wikimedia account. This measure will assist in safeguarding your account from malicious password resets. Comments, questions, and concerns may be directed to the thread on the administrators' noticeboard. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

A new user right for New Page Patrollers
Hi.

A new user group, New Page Reviewer, has been created in a move to greatly improve the standard of new page patrolling. The user right can be granted by any admin at PERM. It is highly recommended that admins look beyond the simple numerical threshold and satisfy themselves that the candidates have the required skills of communication and an advanced knowledge of notability and deletion. Admins are automatically included in this user right.

It is anticipated that this user right will significantly reduce the work load of admins who patrol the performance of the patrollers. However,due to the complexity of the rollout, some rights may have been accorded that may later need to be withdrawn, so some help will still be needed to some extent when discovering wrongly applied deletion tags or inappropriate pages that escape the attention of less experienced reviewers, and above all, hasty and bitey tagging for maintenance. User warnings are available here but very often a friendly custom message works best.

If you have any questions about this user right, don't hesitate to join us at WT:NPR. (Sent to all admins) .MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English. Since you had some involvement with the Linguistic comparison of Chinese and English redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. -  C HAMPION  (talk) (contributions) (logs) 04:15, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Administrators' newsletter - February 2017
News and updates for administrators from the past month (January 2017). This first issue is being sent out to all administrators, if you wish to keep receiving it please subscribe. Your feedback is welcomed.

Administrator changes
 * Gnome-colors-list-add.svg NinjaRobotPirate • Schwede66 • K6ka • Ealdgyth • Ferret • Cyberpower678 • Mz7 • Primefac • Dodger67
 * Gnome-colors-list-remove.svg Briangotts • JeremyA • BU Rob13

Guideline and policy news
 * A discussion to workshop proposals to amend the administrator inactivity policy at Wikipedia talk:Administrators has been in process since late December 2016.
 * Pending changes/Request for Comment 2016 closed with no consensus for implementing Pending changes level 2 with new criteria for use.
 * Following an RfC, an activity requirement is now in place for bots and bot operators.

Technical news
 * When performing some administrative actions the reason field briefly gave suggestions as text was typed. This change has since been reverted so that issues with the implementation can be addressed. (T34950)
 * Following the latest RfC concluding that Pending Changes 2 should not be used on the English Wikipedia, an RfC closed with consensus to remove the options for using it from the page protection interface, a change which has now been made. (T156448)
 * The Foundation has announced a new community health initiative to combat harassment. This should bring numerous improvements to tools for admins and CheckUsers in 2017.

Arbitration
 * The Arbitration Committee released a response to the Wikimedia Foundation's statement on paid editing and outing.

Obituaries
 * JohnCD (John Cameron Deas) passed away on 30 December 2016. John began editing Wikipedia seriously during 2007 and became an administrator in November 2009.

Discuss this newsletter • Subscribe • Archive

13:38, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

An Taoiseach listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect An Taoiseach. Since you had some involvement with the An Taoiseach redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. --Nevé–selbert 16:41, 15 June 2017 (UTC)

Invitation to Admin confidence survey
Hello,

Beginning in September 2017, the Wikimedia Foundation Anti-harassment tool team will be conducting a survey to gauge how well tools, training, and information exists to assist English Wikipedia administrators in recognizing and mitigating things like sockpuppetry, vandalism, and harassment.

The survey should only take 5 minutes, and your individual response will not be made public. This survey will be integral for our team to determine how to better support administrators.

To take the survey sign up here and we will send you a link to the form.

We really appreciate your input!

Please let us know if you wish to opt-out of all massmessage mailings from the Anti-harassment tools team.

For the Anti-harassment tools team, SPoore (WMF), Community Advocate, Community health initiative (talk) 19:52, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

High-Jump Boots listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has asked for a discussion to address the redirect High-Jump Boots. Since you had some involvement with the High-Jump Boots redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion if you have not already done so. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:16, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:LaylaCover.jpg
Thanks for uploading File:LaylaCover.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image 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 images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in section F5 of the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. --B-bot (talk) 17:39, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Remote Access Quarantine Client

The article Remote Access Quarantine Client has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern: "Not notable"

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the page to address the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 20:07, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

ArbCom 2019 special circular

This message was sent to all administrators following a recent motion. Thank you for your attention. For the Arbitration Committee, Cameron11598 02:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Administrator account security (Correction to Arbcom 2019 special circular)
ArbCom would like to apologise and correct our previous mass message in light of the response from the community.

Since November 2018, six administrator accounts have been compromised and temporarily desysopped. In an effort to help improve account security, our intention was to remind administrators of existing policies on account security — that they are required to "have strong passwords and follow appropriate personal security practices." We have updated our procedures to ensure that we enforce these policies more strictly in the future. The policies themselves have not changed. In particular, two-factor authentication remains an optional means of adding extra security to your account. The choice not to enable 2FA will not be considered when deciding to restore sysop privileges to administrator accounts that were compromised.

We are sorry for the wording of our previous message, which did not accurately convey this, and deeply regret the tone in which it was delivered.

For the Arbitration Committee, -Cameron11598 21:03, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Nomination of David Clark (guitar player) for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article David Clark (guitar player) is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/David Clark (guitar player) until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Paisarepa (talk) 02:54, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Administrators will no longer be autopatrolled
A recently closed Request for Comment (RFC) reached consensus to remove Autopatrolled from the administrator user group. You may, similarly as with Edit Filter Manager, choose to self-assign this permission to yourself. This will be implemented the week of December 13th, but if you wish to self-assign you may do so now. To find out when the change has gone live or if you have any questions please visit the Administrator's Noticeboard. 20:06, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users
Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

New administrator activity requirement
22:52, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"Prussian holocaust" listed at Redirects for discussion
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Prussian holocaust and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 May 8 until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

WP:COI and WP:NPA
An IP has asserted that you are the subject of the Noel Chiappa article which you continue to edit. If you are this person as seems likely, you should declare your conflict. Either way, please don't add any material to that article without reliable sources to back them up.

In addition, we can do without the name calling. As an admin, you really shouldn't be doing any of this and you know that if this continues you could be blocked from editing at least that article. Toddst1 (talk) 14:12, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

ArbCom 2022 Elections voter message
 Hello! Voting in the 2022 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority 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 in the 2022 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:24, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Pending suspension of administrative permissions due to inactivity
Established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have not made any edits or logged actions in the preceding twelve months. Because you have been inactive, your administrative permissions will be removed if you do not return to activity within the next month.

Inactive administrators are encouraged to rejoin the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to rejoin the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.

Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrative permissions and inactivity reminder
This is a reminder that established policy provides for removal of the administrative permissions of users who have made fewer than 100 edits over a 60-month period. You are receiving this annual reminder since you have averaged less than 50 edits per year over the last 5 years.Inactive administrators are encouraged to reengage with the project in earnest rather than to make token edits to avoid loss of administrative permissions. Resources and support for reengaging with the project are available at WikiProject Editor Retention/administrators. If you do not intend to be engaged with the project in the foreseeable future, please consider voluntarily resigning your administrative permissions by making a request at the bureaucrats' noticeboard.Thank you for your past contributions to the project. — JJMC89 bot 00:20, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Endocentric environment for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Endocentric environment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Endocentric environment until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. JMWt (talk) 09:39, 21 May 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Exocentric environment for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Exocentric environment is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/Exocentric environment until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished. Shreevatsa (talk) 13:15, 28 May 2024 (UTC)

title: User talk:Jnc


text:
User:Imc

/sandbox

title: User:Imc