Stay off my talk page with your bs comments. It's clear you're in the gang of all promoting that badly written silly-looking article about the chiropractor, so don't post comments on my talk page as if things are otherwise. He is creating serious doubts about having degrees with his behavior, thanks for making me realize that by joining the pool. --IP69.226.103.13 (talk) 19:43, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to comment here. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dig, I felt compelled to defend you. I have noticed and admired your work on Drsjpdc's articles. Too bad he can't learn. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:56, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DigitalC

I note here that you conclude that "it is a clear case of outing" because of the release of:

• "the city where the editor goes to school" being released" and
• "the name and profession of User:Drsjpdc".

Please note that the former was disclosed by User:Waynethegoblin in this edit and the latter has been acknowledged by that editor on countless occasions. Hence the conclusion of outing from these facts is not justified. Please refactor your comments. (Note that if there are other, factually accurate, reasons you conclude that outing has occurred, it's fine with me that you include those—I'm only requesting you remove the false premises.)

Thanks, ^Bongo_matic 23:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC) Should you wish to reply, please do so here. I will watch this page for a few days, so no {{talkback}} or other comment on my talk page is required.[reply]

I believe you misread my comments. It was not the city or the name/profession release that caused the attempted outting. But the release of an alleged relationship between the users, when coupled with information that was available (listed above) allows one to determine the alleged name of User:Waynethegoblin. I still believe that releasing information about that relationship is a clear case of attempted outting, and as such, will not refactor it. DigitalC (talk) 02:05, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To make it even more clear, since I feel that my meaning is not being conveyed by my word: If you were to say that User:ExampleX was my brother, that would not be a case of attempted outting, because I have not released any personal information about myself, and you could not attempt to determine who User:ExampleX is. However, if User:ExampleX had posted on their user page that their name was Fred Flintstone, and they lived in Victoria, Texas, and you then said that User:ExampleX was my brother, I think that would be a clear case of attempted outting, as it would be easy to determine my real life identity from that information. In this case, there is much information that has been publicly released by User:Drsjpdc, and that is acceptable. However, alleging a relationship between that user and User:Waynethegoblin, is unacceptable. DigitalC (talk) 02:20, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still not 100% sure what you're getting at, but am convinced it isn't a misrepresentation of the facts. I would appreciate you rewording the original comment to clarify as I think my (wrong) interpretation is both the one most readers would have. ^Bongo_matic 04:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are being discussed here. You may or may not wish to comment. I still stand by my defense of you. As to the issue being discussed there, I don't think further discussion is going to solve the matter. There is a deadlock that must be broken by outside involvement at the RS/N. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:49, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article under the title Naturopathy is almost entirely about Naturopathic Medicine (the title Naturopathic Medicine has 0 content).

IF the article is about naturopathic medicine it should be under the Naturopathic Medicine title - The content was transferred to the correct title, so the reader sees what they have alwasy seen only in the correct article.

When naturopathy has been sufficiently edited to accurately reflect naturopathy (as opposed to Naturopathic Medicine) then the redirect can be removed and both professions will be fairly represented.

What is your objection?--Ndma1 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is your opinion that the article under the title Naturopathy belongs at the title Naturopathic Medicine. The content was not correctly transferred from what I can tell (the edit history was not ported over), and there was no community consensus for the redirect. In fact, there was already objection to the proposal on the talk page, but you went ahead and did it anyway. Consensus is extremely important on wikipedia. DigitalC (talk) 00:50, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The redirect was added at 23:12 on Jan 24, 2010

(cur) (prev)  23:12, 24 January 2010 Ndma1 (talk | contribs) (52,005 bytes) (←Redirected page to Naturopathic medicine) (undo) 

The "objection" was posted on talk 30 minutes later:

Naturopathic Medicine is part of Naturopathy. However, if you have sources that explain a difference that could be a proposal. Redirecting the article is not a proposal. QuackGuru (talk) 23:42, 24 January

Therefore your assertion: "In fact, there was already objection to the proposal on the talk page, but you went ahead and did it anyway."

Is does not appear to be factually correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndma1 (talk • contribs) 02:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On this article, you say the common name should just be in the lead, well, you are wrong. The basic format is to put the first, middle, and last name in lead sentence. Take a look at most biographical articles. Also, when you reverted that edit of another user, you undid some constructive edits they made. Tinton5 (talk) 20:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DigitalC. You have new messages at Mattopaedia's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Hey there DigitalC, thank you for your contributions! I am a bot alerting you that Non-free files are not allowed in the user or talk-space. I removed some images that I found on User:DigitalC/sandbox/fix/draft/. In the future, please refrain from adding fair-use images to your user-space drafts or your talk page. See a log of images removed today here, shutoff the bot here and report errors here. Thank you, -- DASHBot (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The study used as a ref does not allow one to make the conclusion that they improve low back pain as there was not control group.--Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:04, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I only reverted your edit based on the edit summary, and provided a convience link. I did not write the original text. However, the source says "... postural control orthotics are effective in resolving chronic low back pain". It would be original research to say that we cannot include that in the article because there was no control group. However, if we followed WP:MEDRS for the entire section, and used some high quality sources (for instance the guidelines of the american family physicians) instead, that would probably be better. DigitalC (talk) 00:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Resource Exchange/Resource Request#Verify text has been completed. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 21:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, DigitalC. You have new messages at Shell Kinney's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

-- Brangifer (talk) 00:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]