User talk:Osteocorrect

Welcome!

Hello, Osteocorrect, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Unfortunately, your edit to an article does not conform to Wikipedia's Neutral Point of View policy (NPOV). Wikipedia articles should refer only to facts and interpretations that have been stated in print or on reputable websites or other forms of media.

There's a page about the NPOV policy that has tips on how to effectively write about disparate points of view without compromising the NPOV status of the article as a whole. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome!

November 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to List of osteopathic colleges has been reverted, as it appears to be unconstructive. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Garden. 16:38, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Osteopathy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. And also the related article: List of osteopathic colleges Verbal chat 16:42, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RE: List of osteopathic colleges

Please raise this point on the talkpage of the article in question. Apologies for any misunderstanding, but please gain a consensus before adding that type of information. Sincerely, Garden. 18:23, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please also note that I know absolutely nothing about Canada, its respective osteopathic colleges, or even osteopathy in gerenal, and would prefer not to be labelled biased in this respect. Garden. 18:28, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Then why are you editing a section of Wikipedia that you no nothing about? There need not be a consensus in this matter. It is a clear and simple fact that there are no government recognized or accredited colleges of osteopathy in Canada. The Canadian College of Osteopathy provides a diploma that is recognized no where in the world for licensure that I am aware of; certainly not in Canada.Osteocorrect (talk) 21:04, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Anyone can edit." I'm only trying to help. Apologies my apparent mistake, although I'd appreciate a nicer tone in future. Garden. 21:15, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Licensure isn't the issue. Feel free to add that osteopathic training there does not give licence to practice as a physician, only training as an "osteopath" in the altmed tradition. Personally, I think osteopathy-altmed is rubbish, but claiming it doesn't exist because you don't become a doctor after isn't true either. Verbal chat 21:39, 16 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not quite getting it. Licensure is entirely the issue. What other country would allow non-licensed practitioners to practice, and to practice using professional designations already in use by an established profession? The point is that the training being provided in Canada does not give one license to practice at all. Yes, I agree that referring to Osteopathy as alternative medicine is rubbish, as the Canadian and American Osteopathic Associations would argue that it is the most comprehensive and complete system of health care in the world. I never said that these non-physician practitioners don’t exist. They have not however gone through proper channels to obtain permission and accreditation to open a training institution with provincial regulatory authorities, and as such the schools do not provide a recognized qualification. This is the point I am attempting to make. It is very important that the public understand this, otherwise the posting in Wikipedia is misleading.Osteocorrect (talk) 02:31, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US & Canada

My issue is two fold. One, there are no osteopathic medical schools in Canada. Two, American trained DOs are not recognized in all Canadian provinces. This issue should be discussed, but probably in an article about "Osteopathic medicine in Canada." I am not arguing that DOs are not recognized outside the US, I am arguing that that recognition is complex and varies by county, thus it needs to be discussed in each case.

If there was a single osteopathic medical school in Canada, or even a single Osteopathic residency training program, I would agree to your changes in the article "Osteopathic medicine in the United States." However, there are neither. And further, there colleges in Canada that claim to teach something called "Osteopathy." Further confusing the issue. I think we just need to be clear. How do you feel about the new wording? I hope it addresses your concerns. Bryan Hopping ^T 23:53, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution.

Greetings

I've read some of your discussions ([1]) and I've followed your edit history. I thought I'd WP:AGF and contact you here.

I've been fairly active editing WP in the realm of Osteopathy-related issues over the past 3 years. I have learned a lot about how to edit successfully, how to make edits that actually stick.

You seem to be trying to edit, but those edits are consistently getting reverted (by myself and others). You might find yourself encountering more success if you knew more about how WP works.

If I can help at all in this matter, let me know. Some of the guildlines I've found most helpful are WP:NPOV, WP:OR, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:CON, WP:CITE.

I hope this helps.

Bryan Hopping ^T 18:14, 31 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note. I would like to say that I feel strongly that individuals such as yourself should not be editing reference material in Wikipedia without extensive knowledge of the topic. I have several decades of involvement with the osteopathic profession in Canada and the USA and am well versed in all aspects of the profession on either side of the border. Please note that prior to 1995, American colleges of osteopathic medicine conferred the degree known as ‘Doctor of Osteopathy’. Subsequent to 1995, the American Osteopathic Association, in attempt to modernize terminology, had their colleges change the designation of their degrees to ‘Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine’. Thus, graduates of the same schools with the same comprehensive medical training will have degrees in ‘Osteopathy’ (pre 1995) or ‘Osteopathic Medicine’ (post 1995). In other words, these terms are synonymous and used interchangeably, as are the terms ‘Osteopath’ and ‘Osteopathic Physician’. There has been no change in the actual education provided in the USA. Osteopathic education continues to provided what has always been the tradition of osteopathy, and that is comprehensive healthcare, inclusive of medicine, surgery, and osteopathic manipulative treatment, just as founder Dr. A.T. Still taught a century ago. There is no legal practice in Canada of non-physician osteopathic practitioners, and those who misrepresent themselves as osteopaths in Canada without licensure, do so in violation of provincical regulations. The two schools that you list are not accredited and their graduates are not able to obtain licensure in Canada. Only thoses graduates of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine in the USA accredited by the American Osteopathic Association are eligible to practice osteopathy in Canada. Please understand that osteopathy and osteopathic medicine are synonymous in North America. They clearly mean the same thing. I am aware that the situation is different internationally, but as founded and developed in the USA, osteopathy has always been comprehensive medical healthcare, not the limited form of manual therapy that has developed in other countries which is an aberration.Osteocorrect (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. The problem appears to be one of agreeing the subject that each article describes. Over the last year or so, the editors of the Wikipedia pages relating to osteopathy have established an approach of describing osteopathy as practiced in the US in the article Osteopathic medicine in the United States, and osteopathy as practiced elsewhere as Osteopathy. While I understand your point that the two terms may often be considered synonymous in the US, and your point regarding the historical origin of osteopathy in the US, the way Wikipedia approaches naming conventions (as described in the policy WP:NAME) is to use the most commonly understood terms. Internationally, the term "osteopathy" most often describes the theory and practice of osteopathic manipulative treatment, without training as a medical doctor. For that reason, the article Osteopathy uses this definition, and makes the distinction clear in the first paragraph. It is important to note that Wikipedia is descriptive, not proscriptive. While you may think that for reasons of "correctness" (from a US-based perspective), the term osteopathy should used here to describe US-based osteopathic practice, that would be a proscriptive approach. What Wikipedia does, as described in the naming policy I linked to above, is to describe how a term is actually used, internationally, not how any given authority believes it should be used. Further, to take a purely US-based perspective on terminology that is commonly used internationally would be an example of systemic bias, which is to be avoided. So long as the article makes clear what subject it is describing, which this article does, then no reader should be misinformed by it. Ryan Paddy (talk) 09:56, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your input. The vast majority of licensed osteopaths in Canada currently in practice have a 'Doctor of Osteopathy' degree from the USA and are known to their patients as osteopaths. The legitimate osteopathic profession has been practiced in Canada for over a century now and the Canadian Osteopathic Association which represents these individuals has apparently been around since about 1926. So what the "international" osteopathic community thinks and what is reality are clearly two different things. The Wikipedia article on 'osteopathy' should and does include reference to Canada, and should reflect historic reality and what is long established legal precident, not that of someone promoting non-accredted schools that apparently operate outside of regulatory control and don't even meet the lower international standards of training let alone the highest of North American standards. It is most important to provide a complete and honest picture in Wikipedia, not provide one sided misinformation. The world is consulting Wikipedia and it needs to be honest and accurate. The truth is that any school claiming to provide education in osteopathy in Canada is misleading because they only provide a few weekends of training each of 5 years, while the rest of the international community is providing full time studies, and US schools require the full realm of osteopathic education including medicine and surgery. The provinces of Canada will only recognize this comprehensive medical education for licensure of osteopaths. I challenge anyone to find a osteopath that is licensed to practice in Canada that doesn't have a USA degree.Osteocorrect (talk) 16:49, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The article does, of course, need to provide a neutral point of view on the subject of osteopathy in Canada, backed up with suitable reliable sources. Have you considered the perspective that DOs are able to practice as MDs in many countries, as outlined in Doctor of Osteopathic Medicine, and that in that sense DOs practicing in Canada may not be enough of a special case to warrant extended discussion in the Osteopathy article? On the subject of licensing of non-DO osteopaths in Canada, I'm assuming you're not just discussing licensing as medical doctors? Again, that would not be a special case, as non-DO osteopaths cannot be licensed as medical doctors anywhere else in the world either. Like Chiropractors, osteopaths trained outside the US are usually certified by a national or state body that is separate from the medical profession. Is there any such body in Canada? If so, and if a suitable source can be found to cite, this may be worthy of mention. But the current extended and rather repetitive text is unlikely to stand. It's worth bearing in mind that this is the nature of Wikipedia - through discussion and editing from many sides, we'll find a text acceptable to the consensus of editors. I'm really not seeing that great a difference between your position and Bryan's in terms of what the "facts" are (only in terms of how you interpret them), so if you can both stop reverting each others changes wholesale and start editing specific sentences of interest based on discussion, we should be able to find an acceptable text. Please note that repeated reversion is considered editing warring, and should be avoided. Ryan Paddy (talk) 20:23, 1 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be brief, I think the most salient and easily resolved issue here is WP:NAME. I think we can all agree, the issue of naming is difficult here, since the terms "osteopath," "osteopathic physician," "osteopathy" and "osteopathic medicine" are used differently depending on context. This has created an unfortunate situation, including the controversy we seem to be engaged in here.

The answer lies is using reliable, verifiable, sources to resolve this issue. In this case, that is easy. Since there are international standards for the use of these terms, standards that have been widely accepted by the people these terms are meant to describe.

Osteopathic style guide, American Osteopathic Association

"Osteopathy should only be used when referring to the occupation of non-physician osteopaths or those trained outside of the United States."

Osteopathic International Alliance

“Osteopathic Physician” – is a person with full, unlimited medical practice rights and who has achieved the nationally recognized academic and professional standards within his or her country to practice diagnosis and provide treatment based upon the principles of osteopathic philosophy.

“Osteopath” – is a person who has achieved the nationally recognized academic and professional standards within his or her country to independently practice diagnosis and provide treatment based upon the principles of osteopathic philosophy.

The second reference seems particular noteworthy since, the Canadian Osteopathic Association is a member of the Osteopathic International Alliance (OIA). This issue is slightly more difficult in Canada since the National Canadian government doesn't license "osteopaths" nor does it regulate colleges of "osteopathy". However, the Canadian government does recognize the Canadian Federation of Osteopaths as a body that represents the interests of a "non-physician profession". The CFO does have standards for the practitioners and schools it represents.

However, I think this additional complication is very slight. As such, I would suggest sticking to the well-established naming conventions ("Osteopathy" = non-physicians. "Osteopathic medicine" = physicians.) and use brief, explanatory notes where necessary to redirect any reader confusion about naming.

I'd also suggest an article titled "Osteopathic physicians in Canada." Obviously, this topic and all associated history and legal battles should be discussed. Bryan Hopping ^T 08:12, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The entire issue here is that you're promoting unrecognized and unregulated practitioners in Canada who have basically stolen the title of another already established profession. There is no national government recognition of a Canadian Federation of Osteopaths, just as there is no provinical recognition of any of the so called schools of osteopathy that have been listed in this section under Canada. The truth is that you and I could teach a few weekends of manual therapy and issue a certificate in Osteopathy, call ourselves whatever school of osteopathy we wished, and we would be no different than the schools that have been listed for Canada. It is the provincial governments in Canada that hold the authority to regulate various health professions, and the practice of osteopathy is already regulated in many provinces in Canada, but only those US graduates with comprehensive education are allowed to be licensed to practice. It is the College of Physicians and Surgeons who license osteopaths in Canada. Take the time to specifically look at the regulations in Ontario where the colleges you mention exist. Is is very clear that no one is allowed to refer to themselves as an osteopath unless registered with the College of Physicians.

The arguement about osteopathy versus osteopathic medicine in Canada is nonsense. As I have already explained, historically and by legal precident they are one and the same. The fact that there are non-physician practitioners calling themselves osteopaths and working in Canada without a license to do so does not all of a sudden make them credible or right. Most of these individuals are doing so in direct violation of the law. Please take the time to read my references.

As far as the statement that Osteopathy is not being taught in the US, I would respond that it is the only place that it is really being taught because that is the only place that the comprehensive osteopathic education is being provided. Manual thearpy alone does not make an osteopath. I think Dr. Still (founder) would agree. Osteopathy has always included comprehensive medical and surgical training, not just musculoskeletal priniciples. The US schools and American Academy of Osteopathy continue to be world leaders in musculoskeletal principles and practice, but that does not obligate every graduate to be a specialist in musculoskeletal medicine.

Regarding the OIA, it is only a sounding board for the discussion of international interests. It has no authority with respect to recognition of credentials and has made itself clear that members need to first abide by the laws of the country within which they exist. It is my understanding for those in the profession that I have discussed this with that the COA is a member to the OIA to have a voice, but does not necessarily agree with OIA policy, nor is Canada compelled to change its well established laws regarding osteopathy just because countries outside of North America have taken a very different and shallow path.Osteocorrect (talk) 07:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did read your references. Probably the information most relevant to resolving this dispute is WP:NAME, WP:PRECISION, & WP:NAMECON. From the last guideline, "Wikipedia does not take any position on whether a self-identifying entity has any right to use a name; this encyclopedia merely notes the fact that they do use that name." Bryan Hopping ^T 08:10, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I find it most amusing that you like to quote Wikipedia policy regarding NAME, PRECISION, NPOV, etc, when you are clearly simply promoting these businesses that are masquerading as osteopathy under the guise of these non-accredited "colleges of osteopathy". With regard to NAME, we know that the term "osteopath" is a reserved title to be used only by those US graduates that are registered with a college of physicians. With regard to PRECISION, you ignore the provincial legislation governing the practice of osteopathy. Regarding NPOV, I've not seen anything about your point of view that is at all neutral on this subject.

I would suggest that until such time that there is recognition in Canada of this form of practice that you are promoting, and some form of proper and government accepted designation for these practitioners, that this content be kept out of Wikipedia as what you are presenting to the public in your contributions is entirely misleading. We know that the Canadian Osteopathic Association has been representing the interest of the osteopathic profession in Canada for over 80 years now, not this Canadian Federation of Osteopaths, and we know that only US graduates can practice osteopathy in Canada, so I must insist that you and your colleagues discontinue your business promotion on Wikipedia.Osteocorrect (talk) 16:46, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please calm down, throwing around such accusations are not going to get you anywhere. See WP:NPA and WP:CIVIL. If you think Hopping has a WP:COI, raise it at the COI noticeboard. However, I think that Hopping is a US DO (like you?) and not an alt med osteopath. I think you are getting the US osteopath (DO) tradition confused with the European tradition of osteopathy. Neither are on their own recognised as medical professionals in Canada - you can't train to be a DO there, for example. However, Canada does recognise US trained DOs as equivalent (more or less) to their home-grown MDs - like many other countries. In this content dispute I think Hopping is correct. If you feel differently please start an WP:RFC at the relevant talk page - but please frame it neutrally (perhaps discuss the wording of the RfC on the talk page first too). Yours, Verbal chat 16:55, 14 February 2009 (UTC) (Neither an MD nor a DO, and I don't believe in alt med, but I am a doctor (dammit!))[reply]

Another useful guideline for osteocorrect: WP:ADVOCACY. Verbal chat 16:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since when in your mind did US DO graduates become nothing but MDs? This is not true at all, and to this day, US DO graduates that are licensed to practice in Canada, are practicing comprehensive osteopathy inclusive of medicine, surgery, and manipulative therapy. US osteopaths have been licensed to pracitice in Canada since the turn of the century, some provinces limiting them to manual treatment, other provinces to full medical practice rights. It has been over the past 25 years that full practice rights have become uniform across the country, but this in no way takes away from the fact that these practitioners continue to provide what you refer to as the services of an "osteopath". As pointed out, many provinces have very specific legislation regarding title protection of 'osteopaths' and the practice of 'osteopathy' and this legislation refers only to US DO graduates. So what do you mean when you say that "Neither on their own recognized as medial professionals in Canada". The province of BC even has dual licensure for restricted practice and full practice of US DO graduates. I hope you don't mind me saying so but I would like to add that I am suprised that you are stepping in on this topic without the extensive knowledge of the profession required.Osteocorrect (talk) 17:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do mind your saying as it goes against the core tenets of wikipedia. There is nothing "just" about being an MD. US DOs can practice medicine in Canada, but there is no such thing as a Canadian DO qualification. Osteopathy is just as old as the DO tradition. You are wrong and your trying to whitewash osteopathy from wikipedia is wrong. Personally I think osteopathy in the alt med sense is nonsense, but wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs. If you continue edit warring and writing in this combative style you will be blocked. Also, justification for edits should be placed on teh respective article talk pages so all interested parties can contribute, not on your own talk page. Again, Hopping is right here. Verbal chat 17:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but what gives you the authority to block. Now you are saying "there is no such thing as a Canadian DO qualification". I agree 100%. So why are you say that Hopping is "right here". He saying there are schools offering a Canadian DO degree, when none are recognized or worth the paper they are printed on. Neither of you really seem to have a good grasp of the Canadian situation at all. You say that "osteopathy is just as old as the the DO tradition". I will remind you that osteopathy started in the US, founded by a MD and has always included comprehensive medicine and surgery. You say that "Wikipedia is not the place to right wrongs". I'm sure if anywhere, this is where we had better get it right. So I will ask you to stop edit warring on a topic you are not well versed in.Osteocorrect (talk) 22:03, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will not block you, as I am not an admin. If you continue to edit war against consensus and from a wrong position you will likely be blocked. I have not said that Canadian organisations (they call themselves colleges I believe) offer the DO - but some do confer (unaccredited) qualifications in Osteopathy. This should be noted in the osteopathy article. I am well aware that A T Still started the osteopathic tradition, and it was taken up in Europe within his lifetime. However, they evolved differently, with DO in the US becoming part of the conventional medical tradition where it is now almost indistinguishable from an MD, while in Europe it became part of the alt-med tradition, and was exported to Canada in this guise. The fact both exist, and both exist in Canada (but only one is taught there) should be mentioned in the articles. You are wrong to remove this information. Also, I'm not sure that there is any proof that Taylor had an MD - he was simply a physician, trained by apprenticeship if memory serves. I think it is good that DOs have moved on in the US, and is now evidence based (as "MDs" have also evolved from the heroic medicine tradition), and I fully disapprove of the alt-med osteopathy tradition. However wrong they may be, though, and however much it upsets you that they share the name osteopath, this is no reason to whitewash wikipedia. Please justify your edits on the article talk pages and not by reference to your own talk page in future. I will not reply further on this topic here. Verbal chat 23:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to dictate rules and request others to explain their edits, I would ask that you please do the same. It is important for you to understand that the vast majority of US trained osteopathic graduaates practicing in Canada have a substantial component of their practice committed to the practice of osteopathic manipulative therapy (osteopathy as you wish to call it). It would be most appropriate to make it clear in this section that US graduates practice osteopathy and medicine in Canada, and are the only one licensed to do so.Osteocorrect (talk) 18:24, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I hope we can work the page into something better and more accurate. The US section could do with improving. Please note that when I said I despise osteopathy it is the modern altmed pseudoscience I mean, and not the now largely evidence based practice of DOs. There is unfortunate confusion, and in most of the world the distinction is unknown - with the altmed practice being the one most know. All the best, and good luck. Verbal chat 19:04, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Osteocorrect (talk) 19:48, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we have an Osteopathic medicine in Canada page, I hope all the information and sources you've gathered should get incorporated there. I look forward to working with you on improving the article.

To clarify my position on "Osteopathy", I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with you about the so-called "osteopathy" colleges in Canada. For all I care, we could call them "Colleges of Hogwash." But, if someone calls them that, we have to source that statement properly using WP:RS and emphasize it within the article using WP:WEIGHT.

To clarify my position on how Wikipedia works, it really makes the process much more fun and productive if you follow WP:AGF, WP:CIVIL, and WP:NPA. WP:AGF means that even when you really think someone has an agenda that is questionable, you assume that they are acting in good faith to make WP better. Editors here on WP on trying to help you out, so let's work together in a productive manner. Good luck! 00:00, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Please, let's continue this on the Osteopathy talk page. That's what it's for. Ryan Paddy (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked November 2009

You have been blocked for a period of 1 week from editing for advertising or self-promoting in violation of our conflict of interest policy and notability guidelines. If you wish to make useful contributions, you are welcome to come back after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. tedder (talk) 07:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've been blocked for refusal to follow Wikipedia's conflict of interest rules, despite plenty of warnings. Specifically, for edits such as this and this, which are apparent efforts to turn these articles into coatracks for advertising. tedder (talk) 07:18, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Osteocorrect (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Tedder, can you explain to me why this is considered advertising. I am simply providing information about the scope of practice, new examination requirements and a link to an external source for more detail. If you take a look at other articles such as 'Osteopathy' you will find all sorts of external links to other websites. Seeing as this is an article about Osteopathic Medicine in Canada, I felt a link to the COA was most appropriate, as well as including links to all of the licensing bodies in the article for the 'Canadian Osteopathic Association'. All of this information is accurate and helpful. I don't see why a block is necessary. An explanation would be most appropriate. I do feel that Hopping is being rather restrictive in eliminating this information

Decline reason:

Arguing with the blocking administrator is rarely the right approach to being unblocked. You clearly are editing in areas where you are unable to remain neutral because of an inherent conflict of interest. You are lucky Tedder was lenient and only blocked you for a week. I am declining your request for unblock because it does not address the reason for your block, or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince the reviewing administrator(s) that

the block is not necessary to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia, or
the block is no longer necessary because you
- understand what you have been blocked for,
- will not continue to cause damage or disruption, and
- will make useful contributions instead.

Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Beeblebrox (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

For abusing multiple accounts in an attempt to evade the above block, your block has been extended to two weeks. For more information, please see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Osteocorrect. Tiptoety ^talk 08:07, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]