I have added a paragraph to the introduction and re-written "Background and causes" and "health effects". As major references, I have added my main publications that contain a lot of facts, also contradictory. One of them can be downloaded. I have done some small corrections at other places. Ingrid Eckerman Ineck (talk) 14:17, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! Yes, Allopathic is a POV term in Europe and the Americas, where it was coined. It is an incorrect term for medicine generally, meaning "other suffering", but was coined by the founder of homeopathy as a derogatory term for the heroic medicine practised at the time. Apart from limited use by DOs in the USA, the term is considered (very) insulting by doctors in most of the Western world at least, and by wikipedia naming policies we should use the name most understood and generally applied by practitioners themselves. In some countries it is used to distinguish between modern evidence based medicine and locally based traditional medicine (although this is not universal, and is often disputed), but the major use is the pejorative utilised by practitioners of alternative medicine (osteopathy, homeopathy, etc) and quacks. Thanks, Verbal chat 10:03, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See also homeopathy and allopathy, which may be merged with allopathy. Verbal chat 10:05, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for putting the sources that I removed unknowingly. Although I have lots of edits (vandalism reverts) I'm totally inexperienced with writing; I didn't realize it already had a newspaper reference so I did a google search and put in what I found. --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 20:19, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the caption of the photo to "Union carbide MIC plant"; please make any further changes if needed. Thanks --Unpopular Opinion (talk) 04:36, 8 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

		The Indian Barnstar of National Merit
		User:Ineck this barnstar is in recognition of your efforts to improve Bhopal disaster article. Thanks a lot! Happy editing! --KnowledgeHegemony talk 17:47, 17 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hej Ingrid!

I took the liberty to edit a link on your user page, to what I think you intended. You had left it as an "external link" to the entire Swedish wikipedia, when you tried to link to the article Teosofiska ungdomsgruppen.. Instead, I employed the rather smart shortcuts for making an "internal link". I think this is what you really wanted; if not, you'll just have to revert my edit...

I'll explain precisely what I did and what its effects are. What I wrote was the following:

[[:sv:Teosofiska ungdomsgruppen|]]

Now, this is what it does:

1. The double brackets   [[ ]]   identify it as an "internal wikimedia project" link.
2. The prefix   sv:   identifies the link target as an item from the Swedish wikipedia.
3. However, if I only wrote   sv: , then the effect would be to define the Swedish article as a sister page to your user page, which is not at all what you want. Therefore, I preceded the prefix by an extra colon, thus:   :sv: , which makes wikipedia interpret it as an "ordinary" wikipedia link.
4. The name   Teosofiska ungdomsgruppen   becomes both the link name (the blue, clickable text on your user page) and the specific part of the link target name.
5. However, if I left it at that, the prefix   sv:   would be visible; the link would appear as this link does:   sv:Teosofiska ungdomsgruppen . This may be avoided by putting a vertical bar  |  after the target name, followed by the text I want to become clickable. However, there is a shortcut: Since very often what we want is the name of the target, but without the prefixes, this is precisely what the wikimedia interpreter inserts, if we write a bar without any text between it and the concluding double right bracket, thus:   |]] . Thus, this is what I did.

So, doin' the wp linkin' may appear to be an art or a science all by itself; but, actually, the ideas are pretty simple. Once you get used to them, you'll feel that they are rather natural, and be irritated in other, non-wiki contexts when you remember that you don't have access to these smooth functions. At least, I do now and then.

Live well!

JoergenB (talk) 22:37, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ingrid, Hej San Thank you for the excellent article on Bhopal. I wonder if you could add a bit about the people who moved closer and closer to the plant. It was my understanding (which might be wrong) that the plant was zoned industrial, but that this was not enforced, so that the area right up to the fence had dwellings. Also, you did mention that the piping and valves had been changed from stainless to carbon steel. If that's correct, it is hugely important and could be cited as the cause alone (I'm a chemist), although the circumstances greatly worsened the disaster. Thanks, ^^^^Mark Bergseid —Preceding unsigned comment added by Saleemsan (talk • contribs) 17:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

HEJSAN, MARK! I cannot write to you because you did not sign in the right way (with four tildes ~). I am sorry, but I did not read this until today, half a year later. It is true that people have moved up around the plant area, most of them after 1984. Before 1984, there was at least a road between the wall and the basti.

Yes, carbon steel was used instead of stainless steel in the pipes. If you have more information about this, please contact me by ingrid/at/eckerman.nu.

Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 20:59, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 10:20, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some editing to the Environmental Persistent Pharmaceutical Pollutant article. It is a good article that was overdue for being created.I have added {{nofootnotes}} to it. Can you add the references as inline citations? Cheers. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:30, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

--- Thank you Alan! Yes, as I said in the discussion, I will come back and fix the references. I managed to add the two portals. It looks professional! Ingrid Eckerman (talk) 19:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

	The Writer's Barnstar
	Wow! You've done just amazing work at Bhopal disaster. I've improved your version and is now close to GA but your work is absolutely superb. I really appreciate it TheSpecialUser TSU 15:54, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ineck! I fear that if I undid myself, there will be two losses. First of all, the state in which the article was, it was looking like a report and not an encyclopedia entry. There are certain guidelines and rules to follow, if you are writing at encyclopedia, known as WP:MOS which the article never did as far as structure was concerned. And that is what I've changed. Second, your work on the article won't get the praise it should get unless it follows MOS. I aim to bring the article to WP:GA status and undoubtedly, I'll mention your name in the nomination page since you are the editor with most number of edits. I know that previous version might be good to read if someone just wanted to know the points from a report and not encyclopedia. I am stressing so much on MOS for the reason to see that it gets GA status. Ineck, what you have done is just amazing on the article but it needed touch up which is done now. Getting an article to GA status is good but bringing the article to it is even better which you've done till today. I'd just request one more thing that please don't add anything to Further reading as it is not in accordance to WP:EL and as stated, this is not a report but encyclopedia. I hope you understand my point and would accept it. You are an valuable asset to the community especially for your work at the article. Cheers! TheSpecialUser ^TSU 21:19, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And I've add the portal. TheSpecialUser ^TSU 03:51, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhopal disaster, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Warren Anderson (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) 15:12, 24 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Bhopal disaster, an article that you may be interested in, has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the good article reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Gulbenk (talk) 02:50, 25 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ingrid - I'm a Canadian, and a Rosalie Bertell fan. I noticed the conversation on the Bhopal Disaster page. It seemed like you were getting some industry flak. Did you find a good editor willing to help with references and pictures? "Balance" is always such an issue. Merely quoting newspaper quotes of unsubstantiated industry claims is not adding balance, or even reliable information. If the industry wanted to come clean, they could, but are still hiding behind their paid spokespeople. They have millions of dollars to splash their version everywhere. The balance we need is the contrasting view from people who are often volunteers...

Anyways - I support you to keep plugging away. I'm willing to help, if you need it. I often edit for clarity and style. I know a few experienced editors who I could ask to help if you feel you need it.

cheers, and best wishes.

Ben — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billyshiverstick (talk • contribs) 04:26, 17 February 2014 (UTC) .[reply]

Thanks for your nice words, Ben. What I have been thinking of is going back to the July 2012 version, with very much material of different kind. That gives everyone better possibility to judge themselves. I might also publish the chapters of my book The Bhopal Saga, including all references, on the net. This will happen when I have a boring period. Otherwise, since they added that you must be logged in to make changes to the article, nothing very bad has happened. Also, the changes are so large, so the text is not any longer mine.

217.210.126.99 (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, if you want help, I am also most willing to be help on the article. Thank you for work you have done. I see also industry flak which is sad to see, because people who say you are bias against industry also don't realize that they are bias for industry. I appreciate your work and wish to help you make the article good into the future. ElectraGrrl (talk) 12:33, 19 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Bhopal disaster, you added links pointing to the disambiguation pages Mortality and Cohort (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) 08:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability 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, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:19, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ineck. Voting in the 2016 Arbitration Committee elections is open from Monday, 00:00, 21 November through Sunday, 23:59, 4 December to all unblocked users who have registered an account before Wednesday, 00:00, 28 October 2016 and have made at least 150 mainspace edits before Sunday, 00:00, 1 November 2016.

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 2016 election, please review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ineck. Voting in the 2017 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23.59 on Sunday, 10 December. All users who registered an account before Saturday, 28 October 2017, made at least 150 mainspace edits before Wednesday, 1 November 2017 and are not currently blocked are eligible 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 2017 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 18:42, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent article submission to Articles for Creation has been reviewed. Unfortunately, it has not been accepted at this time. The reasons left by DoubleGrazing were:

This submission is not adequately supported by reliable sources. Reliable sources are required so that information can be verified. If you need help with referencing, please see Referencing for beginners and Citing sources.

The content of this submission includes material that does not meet Wikipedia's minimum standard for inline citations. Please cite your sources using footnotes. For instructions on how to do this, please see Referencing for beginners. Thank you.

Please check the submission for any additional comments left by the reviewer. You are encouraged to edit the submission to address the issues raised and resubmit after they have been resolved.

• If you would like to continue working on the submission, go to Draft:Bertil Egerö and click on the "Edit" tab at the top of the window.
• If you do not edit your draft in the next 6 months, it will be considered abandoned and may be deleted.
• If you need any assistance, or have experienced any untoward behavior associated with this submission, you can ask for help at the Articles for creation help desk, on the or use Wikipedia's real-time chat help from experienced editors.

DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ineck! Having an article draft declined at Articles for Creation can be disappointing. If you are wondering why your article submission was declined, please post a question at the Articles for creation help desk. If you have any other questions about your editing experience, we'd love to help you at the Teahouse, a friendly space on Wikipedia where experienced editors lend a hand to help new editors like yourself! See you there! DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:08, 8 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Ineck. This is a bot-delivered message letting you know that Draft:Bertil Egerö, a page you created, has not been edited in at least 5 months. Drafts that have not been edited for six months may be deleted, so if you wish to retain the page, please edit it again or request that it be moved to your userspace.

If the page has already been deleted, you can request it be undeleted so you can continue working on it.

Thank you for your submission to Wikipedia. FireflyBot (talk) 10:07, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]