Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 12:25, 7 July 2007 editLeuko (talk \| contribs)Rollbackers22,563 editsm no longer resolved← Previous edit		Revision as of 21:12, 9 July 2007 edit undoThePackLeader (talk \| contribs)22 edits rv - Vandalism by editor Leuko, No reason was given for why this is not resolved..Next edit →
Line 16:		Line 16:
	#		#
	\|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->		\|}<!--Template:Archivebox ends-->

	== ] / sockpuppet accounts ==

	Admins: Please note that per ], accounts which have the single purpose of editing this article and its talk page may be considered as a single editor, are restrained from making disruptive edits, and may be banned if they do so. Current single purpose accounts are: ], ] and ]. Also, ] has few edits outside this area, but does not share the same agenda as the other ] ] 22:35, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

	:This is how Leuko typically tries to deal with editors who don't agree with his point of view when editing this article, he tries to silence them rather than hash it out in good faith. You can see that my account in not single purpose since I have a number of edits (minor, but still edits, I'm more of a WikiGnome in other areas) in other articles. You will also notice that even though ] also qualifies as a Single Purpose Account under his definition he didn't list that editor because this editor agrees with his point of view in the current discussion. When dealing with Leuko I try to ], but you easily see how that is rather difficult when he only singles out the editors that disagree with him but not the editors that do agree with him. ] 03:31, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	::Actually 75% of the contribs from this IP address are related to this article, so considering other people may have made some of the non-related edits, that indicates that this is a ] for editing this article. I grouped the SPA's together because as the ArbCom case said, they can be regarded as a single editor using sockpuppets when editing disruptively. I'll add the other one too if it makes you happy. I try and ] too, but it's hard with the history of abusive sockpuppetry and personal attacks perpetuated in the past, which still continues. ] 03:54, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	:::75% means that 1 out of 4 edits has been on articles outside this area, that's not a terrible ratio, and certainly shows this is not a ]. Also, if you look at the quality of the edits you will notice that the majority of that 75% are to rephrase comments I have made or simple/minor spacing or formatting issues. It may be your opinion that the edits by the users you listed were "disruptive" but I doubt you will find a reasonable person that will agree with you on this. I agree that it's unfortunate that some biased editors continue there attacks and campaign of disinformation but it seems that some people just can't help themselves. ] 04:06, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	::::Demanding that information be removed because other editors would not provide you with a physical copy of a newspaper article which is cited is definitely not productive. Now I had to look up what a buckytube was, but I don't think this comment was very supportive of the nature of the edits on this page: . ] 04:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	Well, that's your opinion. Actually, since you were able to prove the existence of the article without a physical copy demonstrates that it was rather easy to obtain verification. I don't think asking for verification for information that is included in an article in what is supposedly an "encyclopedia" is asking too much. Without verification Misplaced Pages would be no better than any other garbage out there on the internet. Do you really think that even basic verification to prove that material even existed is unnecessary? ] 04:21, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	:Yes, it was rather easy to obtain for someone who had the desire to actually re-verify a source which has been there for a year. I don't know why it needed to be such a difficult process. ] 05:38, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	You tell me, you were the one that was complaining about it being so difficult. ] 05:41, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

	* {{userlinks\|BritishDad}} indefinitely blocked as ] exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	* {{userlinks\|Nhmd}} indefinitely blocked as ] exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	* {{userlinks\|Realitymed}} indefinitely blocked as ] exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
	* {{userlinks\|67.177.149.119}} blocked one month as ] exhibiting same behaviour as editors sanctioned above. No significant edits to other areas since January 2007, stable IP used by the above, is the same individual as ]. <b>]</b> <small>(])</small> 20:47, 5 May 2007 (UTC)



	"See, it wasn't that hard to verify after all, was it? ] 03:34, 5 May 2007 (UTC)"

	You rule, buddy. You rule.

	Don't let the bastards keep you down.
	<small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (]) {{{Time\|{{{2\|}}}}}}</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP -->

	:It appears that there is a new ] after the downgrading to semi-protect... ] 12:25, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

	=Some Requested Edits=		=Some Requested Edits=
Line 109:		Line 75:

	:I take it since there has been no more discussion on this that the requested edits will be included? ] 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)		:I take it since there has been no more discussion on this that the requested edits will be included? ] 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	===United Kingdom' Subsection===

	The second sentence and third sentences should read:

	<blockquote>
	This restricts graduates of SCIMD-COM from registration as licensed physicians and from taking the Professional and Linguistic Assessment Board (PLAB) examination. Currently, the suspension is still in force.
	</blockquote>

	Unless I can't read, this is already what it says. ] 23:48, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

	Check again, there is a very slight grammar change. ] 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

	:{{done}} You are correct - tense changed. ] 00:51, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

	===United States Subsection===		===United States Subsection===
Line 143:		Line 95:

	Could you please demonstrate with a restructured sentence how you would write it? ] 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)		Could you please demonstrate with a restructured sentence how you would write it? ] 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

	==Programmes==

	This section should really be titled "Programs" as American English is the style, grammar, and spelling used throughout the page.

	The first paragraph in this section should read:

	<blockquote>
	SCIMD-COM offers two English-language curricula: a four-year curriculum for students who have previously completed all pre-medical requirements and a six-year curriculum for students that have not. There is also a five-year curriculum that is conducted in French at the main medical campus in Dakar, Senegal.
	</blockquote>

	{{done}} ] 23:44, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

	==External Links==

	Please change the text from Official College Website to Unofficial College Website or Information College Website as the site that is linked is owned by Mr. Firoz Shaikh and he is no longer employed by SCIMD-COM as noted in the article and on the webpage itself and thus is no longer official.
	Thanks. ] 21:20, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

	{{notdone}}: Per the , the domain now belongs to Dr. Sow, who claims to be the new administrator, and is registered to the new Atlanta address noted in the references cited about the firing of Mr. Shaikh. ] 23:42, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

	My mistake, must have gotten a cached version of the last page. ] 00:41, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 21:12, 9 July 2007

Past editing of this article was the subject of a Request for Arbitration, now closed.

Archive Index
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 - 2007

Some Requested Edits

Introduction

The first paragraphs need some rephrasing, the way it is currently phrased is somewhat misleading. In order to be more accurate it should read something like:

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a branch campus of the medical college Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) located in Luton, England (30 miles north of London). The main medical college and it's branch campus operate under the umbrella of the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. The branch campus operated under the name St. Christopher's College of Medicine from 2000-2006. Degrees are current issued under the authority of the parent university through SCIMD-COM.

SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognized body of medical accreditation. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. As of April 2006 it claims recognition locally by the Ministry of Education in Senegal.

I seems more clear to me the way it is written now. Leuko 23:52, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, it is much more clear in the phrasing above. 67.177.149.119 00:40, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Alright, since we disagree, we'll wait for a consensus to develop with the input of other editors. Leuko 01:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

For my own sanity at least, here are markups for the substantive requested changes (~~removed text~~ added text):

St Christopher Iba Mar Diop College of Medicine (SCIMD-COM) is a ~~medical college~~ branch campus of the medical college Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) located in Luton, England (30 miles north of London). The ~~college is a satellite campus~~ main medical college and its branch campus operate under the umbrella of the Universite El Hadj Ibrahima Niasse (UEIN) in Dakar, Senegal. ~~Two medical colleges exist under the umbrella of parent university UEIN: Ecole de Médecine St Christopher Iba Mar Diop (EM-SCIMD) in Dakar and SCIMD-COM in Luton.~~ The ~~college~~ branch campus operated under the name St. Christopher's College of Medicine from 2000-2006. Degrees are ~~now~~ currently issued ~~from~~ under the authority of the parent University ~~under the name of~~ through SCIMD-COM.

SCIMD-COM is not accredited by any recognised ~~accreditation body~~ body of medical accreditation. As such, its degrees may not be acceptable to employers or other institutions, and use of degree titles may be restricted or illegal in some jurisdictions. As of April 2006 it claims recognition locally by the Ministry of Education in Senegal.

¶1: major change regarding relationship of SCIMD-COM, EM-SCIMD, and UEIN. The new wording is certainly clear (SCIMD-COM is branch of EM-SCIMD, which are under UEIN) but that's a change from previous meaning (SCIMD-COM and EM-SCIMD are under UEIN). Is SCIMD-COM really just a fragment of EM-SCIMD, or is it something on its own too? If there's a three-level chain here, then the phrase "the parent University" (regarding degree issuance) will need to be clarified. DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, SCIMD-COM is a branch campus of EM-SCIMD, it is a three level relationship between the three entities. I don't understand what about UEIN being the parent university isn't clear. It's like any other University that multiple colleges within it (the medical college with its branch campus is not the only college under the University). 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

¶1: ~~now~~ currently. I don't like either. This part of the article isn't just talking about what's happening at the present time, but also in historical context or something of a timeline of change. "Now", moerso than "currently" at least suggests that there was a difference vs "then". Can we be more precise though? If it was one way 2000–2006 and now it's the current way, how about "Since 2006" (or 2007, whichever is correct). DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

"Now" is fine with me, it is more clear than "currently" 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

¶1: ~~from~~ under the authority of the parent University ~~under the name of~~ through: need clarification. Who actually issues them on whose behalf (delegated authority vs customized drop-shipment). DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The authority to issue degrees is that of the University, and that authority is exercised through the college. It's not different than the setup at an American university (University of Whatever through the College of Whatever issues a Doctorate of Whatever) 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

¶2: ~~accreditation body~~ body of medical accreditation. I oppose. Not sure what a "body of medical accreditation" is, but we're talking about the school, its recognition as a medical school, and other academic accredidation issues at least, not purely recognition of something related medicine itself. New wording is too limited, old wording more inclusive and correct for this article. DMacks 05:44, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That's fine with me. 67.177.149.119 01:44, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Accreditation and licensing issues

The first part of the first paragraph for this section should be removed since it's redundant; I think it should go something like this:

The branch campus, the main medical college, nor their parent university are listed in the UNESCO database of accredited institutions. It is currently listed in the FAIMER/IMED database of medical schools based on its recognition by the Senegalese Ministry of Education. The main medical college was also included in the 2002 update to the final edition of the World Directory of Medical Schools published by the World Health Organization.

Reference for the last sentence: http://scimd.com/files/wdms_updates.PDF

Is there a source for the World Directory of Medical Schools that is not hosted on the school's website? Just for WP:V/WP:RS and all... Leuko 23:56, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Check the properties of the PDF, it was created and signed by the WHO, edits are prohibited by the file, and the checksum is valid. Other items from the school website are accepted and included under WP:V/WP:RS so that shouldn't be an issue. 67.177.149.119 00:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but since this is an official government publication, (and not a recording of a TV show not otherwise available), I think we should attempt to obtain the original source. The other problem is that it lists St. Christopher's College of Medicine, which is now defunct, and not SCIMD or UEIN, etc. Leuko 00:55, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can tell it doesn't exist on the WHO site anymore as they have completely revamped that section of the site. It is however available in hard copy at any institution that has a copy of this book that received the subsequent update as well as on hard copy at the WHO itself, that should certainly meet WP:V/WP:RS. If this is the best available source, given what I have said above about the properties of the file and it's availability in hard copy, it should be included. In reference to the use of the website, it is used to provide verification by PDF of the local approval in Senegal of the college and that is a government document. If it meets WP:V/WP:RS for one government document that cannot be found elsewhere it is certainly good enough for any other. 67.177.149.119 01:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, it lists a defunct school that no longer exists, so really its inclusion is pretty superfluous. Leuko 01:26, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

No, because it is discussing SCCM in Dakar, Senegal which has existed continuously since 2000, not the luton branch campus. If information concerning SCCM is considered "pretty superfluous" then several items and references from the article need to be removed since they only discuss SCCM and not SCIMD or UEIN and are of less note than the WDMS entry. If those are going to be included in this article then this needs to be included as well. 67.177.149.119 03:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I take it since there has been no more discussion on this that the requested edits will be included? 67.177.149.119 01:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

United States Subsection

The last sentence should read:

Graduates are also not eligible to be licensed in the state of Kansas as state regulations require medical schools to be in operation for a minimum of 15 years.

Done Minor grammatical change. Leuko 23:49, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Don't mark things as done when they are not. If you disagree with the change discuss it but don't say it is done when it's not. I think the grammar above it more clear than the current phrasing that is used. The current phrasing is awkward and uses an inappropriate comma that breaks the flow of the sentence. 67.177.149.119 00:45, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

If you look at the page's history, you'll see I did make the change, I just missed two words. My apologies. Please WP:AGF. Leuko 00:49, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The sentence breaking comma is still there regardless of reloading the page. 67.177.149.119 00:52, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the comma is gramatically ok, makes sense with a pause. Leuko 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I guess we will have to get more input to come to a decision 67.177.149.119 03:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Insertion of "the state of" for Kansas: let's be consistent about this usage in the whole US section. How about wikilinking each state-name and add an intro sentence like "Different states have specific rules for accepting or recognizing medical degrees". That way the extra "state of" wording is never needed (I think it's wordy, and not needed regardless). DMacks 05:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

The comma is allowable but not needed. I'd say remove it. However, "because" might be a better choice for the conjunction word. We're really talking cause-and-effect here, don't want to give any hint of an implied "ever since" (the state regs did not change and suddenly render the degrees unrecognized). DMacks 06:03, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please demonstrate with a restructured sentence how you would write it? 67.177.149.119 01:47, 29 June 2007 (UTC)