User:LjL/Unkind

Quite bad

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test&diff=prev&oldid=306414179
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305641276&oldid=305640237
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306305337&oldid=306304667
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306311862&oldid=306310963
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306304667&oldid=306302738
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test&diff=306516518&oldid=306514948

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_9)
 * I'm not talking about what you can do for me. It's not about you and me. I'm talking about what has been done to this article. You grow weary? I grew wearing of the flashing neon light "No one who understand the Rorschach allowed" long, long ago. Weeks and weeks ago, Chillum, you predicted that other psychologists besides Faustian and me would rush in to fill the void. So now it seems that LjL is your "psychologist". Congrats! Ward3001 (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Of course you think his edits are fine. You understand the test about as much as he does. Like I said, he's your "psychologist" now. Tell me, are the two of you planning to seek university positions teaching personality assessment? I'd love to see your resumes. Ward3001 (talk) 02:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Not so bad but still

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test&diff=prev&oldid=306278039
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rorschach_test&diff=prev&oldid=306304667
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305160609&oldid=305158983
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305116740&oldid=305116683
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305923251&oldid=305899453
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306128738&oldid=306127559
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306278039&oldid=306273916

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_9)
 * Reader, look in some detail at this talk page, including the archives. Notice the usernames and the comments. Look in their edit histories to see who has made contributions to psychology-related articles. Get an idea about who might know something about the test beyond what could be found by reading another encyclopedia article on the Rorschach. Come to your own conclusions about whether I (or anyone here) know what I'm talking about. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Inflamatory

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=304800700&oldid=304798137
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=304800903&oldid=304800700
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305347905&oldid=305347335
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306115695&oldid=306114920
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305927816&oldid=305925146
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=305933876&oldid=305933465
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306209001&oldid=306208244
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=306430406&oldid=306429553

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test/Archive_9)
 * Yes, by all means, let's reduce Wikipedia to the lowest common denominator on the internet. If something is "already well available" then it certainly belongs in Wikipedia. The previous gold standard (producing a quality encyclopedia, such as Britannica) should be replaced by the new gold standard: let's emulate the vast number of useless, incompetent, and/or dangerous websites that are now abundant on the internet. Ward3001 (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
 * No, Resolute, with or without the image arguments, this article will never be featured. It will never be more than mediocre. Ward3001 (talk) 03:48, 18 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again reader, reach you own conclusions about who understands the Rorschach. Not who understands the finer points of Wikipedia policy. Ward3001 (talk) 01:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Not that it matters, but the term "Popular" in the Exner system has a different meaning (with significant implications for interpretation) than the general use of the word "popular". So again reader beware: much of what you are reading reflects an uninformed interpretation of the concepts rather than actual knowledge of the test. Ward3001 (talk) 13:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, clearly you're "not sure what I'm on about". Thanks for pointing that out. That's the point I have been making to readers of the article. Many of the recent edits are not based on a full knowledge of the Exner system. Ward3001 (talk) 16:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth to anyone interested, more misinformation, overemphasized details, and information that is distorted because it has been inserted out of context continue to creep into the article. So if anyone in the future wants to fix these problems, look at the time this message was posted and review all edits made in the last 24 hours. Exner's volumes are the best sources to locate the explanations needed to clean up these problems. (And I have no intention of arguing about whether this is a legitimate comment -- it is -- or whether I have an obligation to fix the article -- I don't -- or whether my identification of the problems is accurate -- it is.). Ward3001 (talk) 18:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Good God Almighty people! Read the damn talk page. Mirafra said he would not play 20 questions. I got the phrase here from what he wrote. The insipidness of this particular point is a very good illustration of what this article has sunk to, and continues to sink. Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * That's painfully obvious, Chillum. It has reached sub-encyclopedic standards already (and I don't just mean Wikipedia's standards). How much lower do you plan to go? Ward3001 (talk) 01:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
 * You're not superman? Wow, I studied the Rorschach for about 25 years, read 300 journals articles and every major book on the topic, and administered about 500 Rorschachs before I felt like I could add anything reasonable to the article. You apparently have mastered the test in a couple of months; in fact, mastered it so well that your edits are above criticism. That sounds like superman to me. Ward3001 (talk) 16:39, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rorschach_test/2009-06_Arguments_Pro)
 * Good Lord I can't believe how bizarre some of the comments are getting here!! The lunatics are running the asylum (that's a figure of speech, by the way). Chillum, give us just a tiny shred of empirical evidence from a peer reviewed publication that reputable psychologists (excluding those with a vested interest, such as the creator or publishers) think that the Holtzman is as useful as the Rorschach. Otherwise, that appears to be something that you just pulled out of thin air. Ward3001 (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Unsure

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3ARorschach_test&diff=304952631&oldid=304951925

Martinevans

 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rey-Osterrieth_Complex_Figure&diff=312855146&oldid=312854751
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rey-Osterrieth_Complex_Figure&diff=313001102&oldid=312998809