User talk:CartoonDiablo/Archive 3

AN/I report made
Per your desire to justify your breaking of the 1RR rule at Tea Party movement, you have a clear shot at justifying your refusal to self-revert when given the chance. Cheers. Collect (talk) 23:58, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for August 27
Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Wikipedia appreciates your help. We noticed though that you've added some links pointing to disambiguation pages. 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.


 * Cognitive behavioral therapy (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Anorexia


 * Psychoanalysis (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver)
 * added a link pointing to Anorexia

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 11:12, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Why the removal of the expand tag?
We are discussing this in Talk. Join us there instead of just reverting a good faith addition. Cwobeel (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney tax returns controversy
Articles for deletion/Mitt Romney's tax returns decided to delete that, and the redirect at Mitt Romney's tax returns is protected to enforce that decision. You cannot do an end-run round that protection by adding "controversy" to the title. If you want to challenge the result of the AfD, go first to, the closing admin, and then if not satisfied to WP:DRV. JohnCD (talk) 16:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

the small survey
Hello cartoondiablo,

I saw you try to push the tabele again into the articles. Please realize that this is not a usefull extension. Your contribution would be wellcome if you write an overview about the hole field of psychotherapy research not only based on ONE small and highly selective study. This kind of approach is called POV in wikipedia. Thank you for your cooperation. -- WSC ® 04:31, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

August 2012
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war&#32; according to the reverts you have made on Cognitive behavioral therapy. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement. Please be particularly aware, Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states: If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing. Take it easy, bring it to WP:DR. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 04:42, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made; that is to say, editors are not automatically "entitled" to three reverts.
 * 2) Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

File:INSERM Psychotherapy Effectiveness Study.svg listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:INSERM Psychotherapy Effectiveness Study.svg, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. Bulwersator (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we request your participation in the discussion to help find a resolution. The thread is "Family therapy". Thank you! EarwigBot  operator /  talk  10:36, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

FYI
Howdy, I started a new Incident. I'm curious about it. Hand (Have a nice day). -- WSC ® 16:34, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

September 2012
Your insertion of that table has been rejected by other editors on three articles. When it went to dispute resolution the general view was that text alone was enough. You may think it was closed prematurely, and its your right to dispute or raise it again. However until the community agrees with you disputed material stays out of the article. Snowded TALK 04:01, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

PS - I have added a note about this to the ANI case and at dispute resolution which appears to be confirming the previous position Snowded TALK 04:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

On the CBT page there are two editors for insertion of the table, two against. At the DRP all editors said the table gave a misleading impression. This is a clear community consensus against its insertion. On Wikipedia we do not re-insert controversial material just because one editor has added a comment to the DRP discussion. And that is all you have done, its not clear if its open again or not. If you persist then you will be reported for a slow edit war. I am also assembling some of the counter evidence to your french study and I will also aim to balance the text next when I have that. Our role here is to reflect the literature, not give one side of the story. Now please abide by process and stop the slow edit war. Snowded TALK 03:54, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Just to help you out here. We have the following comments at DRP:


 * 1) Dmitrij D Czarkoff "the table should be rewritten as prose"  and "I fully concur with all the other participants in all three DRN cases that the table should not be present in the article in whatever format"
 * 2) SGCM "prose is still the best option because it is more neutral while conveying the same information"
 * 3) SGCM "the image suggestion was again struck down and most of the editors including me, agreed that prose remained the best option"
 * 4) Kerfuffler "I can say for sure that the table is WP:OR'

Note that these deal specifically with the image as well as the table. All of that will go in a 3rr report if you force me to make it. Snowded TALK 04:08, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Your free 1-year Questia online library account is approved ready
Good news! You are approved for access to 77,000 full-text books and 4 million journal, magazine, newspaper articles, and encyclopedia entries. Check your Wikipedia email! If you need help, please first ask Ocaasi at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com and, second, email QuestiaHelp@cengage.com along with your Offer ID and Promotional Code (subject: Wikipedia). Thanks for helping make Wikipedia better. Enjoy your research! Cheers, Ocaasi EdwardsBot (talk) 05:02, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 1) Go to https://www.questia.com/specialoffer
 * 2) Input your unique Offer ID and Promotional code.  Click Continue. (Note that the activation codes are one-time use only and are case-sensitive).
 * 3) Create your account by entering the requested information.  (This is private and no one from Wikipedia will see it).
 * 4) You'll then see the welcome page with your Login ID.  (The account is now active for 1 year).
 * A quick reminder about using the account: 1) try it out; 2) provide original citation information, in addition to linking to a Questia article; 3) avoid bare links to non-free Questia pages; 4) note "(subscription required)" in the citation, where appropriate. Examples are at WP:Questia/Citations.
 * Questia would love to hear feedback at WP:Questia/Experiences
 * Show off your Questia access by placing on your userpage
 * When the 1-year period is up, check the applications page to see if renewal is possible. We hope it will be.

Your Questia online library codes failed to deliver
We tried to use Wikipedia email to deliver your account access information but you either did not provide an email address in your preferences or had it set up not to receive messages from other editors. You can change both on the first page of Special:Preferences. To fix the situation directly or to let me know you've changed your preferences, just email me at wikiocaasi@yahoo.com. Cheers, Ocaasi 05:30, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit war at psychoanalysis

 * I've protected Psychoanalysis due to the edit war you were participating in. Could you please not do this again once protection expires? If you do it is likely you will be blocked. --John (talk) 17:15, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Psychotherapies ArbCom
You are involved in a recently filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Arbitration/Requests and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use—
 * Arbitration/Requests;
 * Arbitration guide.

Thanks, Tijfo098 (talk) 10:40, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This is another reminder that several members of the Arbitration Committee are awaiting a statement from you with regard to this matter. If you do not intend to provide a statement, please indicate such at the arbitration request. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 18:04, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * I've left some questions for you in response to your statement - thank you for the quick response. Hers fold  non-admin (t/a/c) 20:49, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

CartoonDiablo, with the case being closed, you are off the hot seat, but only partially. Please be aware that you dodged a major bullet here. Please take this friendly advice; allow consensus to stand. There are times when I find consensus objectionable, but we can not hope to succeed in this project if we don't allow consensus to stand. If the underlying dispute that resulted in a request to ArbCom is not resolved, and it blows up again for whatever reason, I think it very likely ArbCom will accept the case. Trust me, you do not want to have to deal with that. --Hammersoft (talk) 18:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well it turns out I was premature. Despite the case being removed after it had been on the requests page for more than 11 days, exceeding the 10 day limit by 31 hours, despite a clerk properly removing it (if very late) because of that requirement, despite there not having been new comments from anyone on the case in several days, despite arbitrators themselves not having commented on the case in several days, arbitrator AGK decided to restore the request . I don't know why, and he does not have appeared to have publicly explained his actions. --Hammersoft (talk) 14:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

File:INSERM Psychotherapy Effectiveness Study.gif listed for deletion
A file that you uploaded or altered, File:INSERM Psychotherapy Effectiveness Study.gif, has been listed at Files for deletion. Please see the to see why this is (you may have to search for the title of the image to find its entry), if you are interested in it not being deleted. Thank you. RexxS (talk) 19:21, 30 September 2012 (UTC)

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, CartoonDiablo. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Neutral point of view/Noticeboard regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
 * Do you have any intention of finishing the dispute resolution here, or are you removing yourself from the situations? Thargor Orlando (talk) 17:22, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

War on Women: "redefining rape"
It's a little bit disingenuous to claim that you don't know why something was removed when you yourself | took part in the discussion. Just sayin'.  Belch fire - TALK 04:08, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Revert
Just FYI I edit conflicted with you on reverting this edit. I'm only letting you know because I had slightly different reasoning: that the lede should summarize the body and this isn't included in the article. Just an extra reason in case there's discussion about it and I miss out on it. Sædon talk 01:34, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

WoW ref
Please read it again. The statement in question is being specifically made about Arizona. The ref does not back this up. There probably IS a source out there, which is why I added the cn tag. little green rosetta $central scrutinizer (talk)$ 21:38, 2 January 2013 (UTC)

3RR warning for single payer, united states national health care act
Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing&mdash;especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring&mdash;even if you don't violate the three-revert rule&mdash;should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. You can post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion
Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Wikipedia's policy on edit warring. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thargor Orlando (talk • contribs) 02:45, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

RFC/U discussion concerning you (CartoonDiablo)
Hello, CartoonDiablo. Please be aware that a user conduct request for comment has been filed concerning your conduct on Wikipedia. The RFC entry is located at Requests for comment/CartoonDiablo, where you may want to participate. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:13, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for Arbitration declined
This is a courtesy notice that a request for arbitration, which named you as a party, has been declined. Feel free to see the Arbitrators' opinions for potential suggestions on moving forward.

For the Arbitration Committee, — ΛΧΣ  21  23:28, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Behavior at Single-Payer and related
IMO you behavior towards other editors has been horrible there, including telling blatant lies about what they have said and done. IMO your behavior regarding the article has been destructive and disruptive. I consider the former to be the most egregious, and if you do not stop I will report you. And it will include putting together the picture of what you have done, which will make the situation quite clear. It takes a lot to make me do that; to date I've only reported two editors in my entire Wikipedia life. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 29 January 2013 (UTC)
 * As a warning, you're on your third revert now. Be careful. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:38, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
 * That was again your third revert at Single-payer health care. Please stop edit warring. Thargor Orlando (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Single-payer polls
I'd rather not get into a back-and-forth when there is an RFC open. How about pointing the pertinent wikiprojects (e.g., medicine, politics, U.S.A., etc.) to the RFC with a neutral request on the wikiproject talk pages? I'm sure if more people took a look they would probably respond in the same proportion as the polls themselves.

However, if someone is deleting the section from the article where the RFC is ongoing, that is terrible and you should mention it at WP:ANI I would think. Neo Poz (talk) 03:41, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * We've gone through ANI as well as every board imaginable, by this point its pretty much up to reverts. Also its on the single-payer healthcare article, the RfC is for HR676. CartoonDiablo (talk) 03:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Understood. I absolutely want to wait for the RFC to close, because it's basically the same RFC because that subsection is essentially the exact same topic as the 676 article. I would really appreciate it if you would ask for further input on the pertinent wikiproject talk pages, because I'm in the middle of going through the giant list on my userpage right now, and I have at least two dozen tabs open. Neo Poz (talk) 03:51, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Sure thing, I'll ask for the US Public Policy project and wait for the RfC but if those fail (and a 9 month edit war tells me it will) it'll probably be up to reverts. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much! Don't forget WT:MED too, please. Neo Poz (talk) 04:09, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

I finally got through that list and noticed you hadn't gotten to this yet, so I did it on both wikiprojects. Let me point out these numbers might seem like a lot, but they are nothing compared to 7 million or 1.6 million etc. So I hope every time you get the urge to revert those polls, please instead write, phone, or fax the leaders of those organizations asking them to send e.g to their membership email lists, Facebook, etc. This will be a far more productive use of time on a cost/benefit basis, and it won't get you in trouble here. Good luck and please let me know how it goes! Neo Poz (talk) 07:01, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Ugh, some IP is edit warring on the SP article, and of course you're going to get blamed even if it's not you. Please respond or request page protection on the version you don't like. Battles poorly chosen means war easily lost. Neo Poz (talk) 22:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Edit warring at single payer
You are, again, on your third revert (with zero posts at the talk page, no less). Next revert gets you reported for 3RR. Thargor Orlando (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)