User talk:Dr. Foxworthy

March 2019
You have been blocked indefinitely from editing because it appears that you are not here to build an encyclopedia. If you think there are good reasons for being unblocked, please read the guide to appealing blocks, then add the following text below the block notice on your talk page:. Bbb23 (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Why does the existing article need to be replaced? Why not just fix what is there? This sort of thing should be discussed with the other editors that follow that article. 331dot (talk) 18:09, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * That is an excellent question that is easily answered. First, there are only about 100 or so Descriptive Psychologists in the world. Second, of those, most are practicing clinicians. What that means is that they are experts in the application of DP (as you are expert in the application of grammar when you speak or write), but when it comes to explicating it - their competence is on par with what yours and others might be if I were to ask for an explicit articulation of what grammar consists in. Having said so, I have had interchange with one of the principle editors who is also here in Boston - former professor of mine at Harvard - and he's been advised that I'm working on a replacement. In sum, the piece that is currently up is not that great (and for those who I have had read it, confusing). The current plan is to get the scaffolding up, as it it currently being constructed, according to the canons of Descriptive Psychology and then publish is publicly. Thereafter the community of Descriptive Psychologists will be informed via the society webpage to invite the discussion from there. Hope this helps clarify things. "Are we there yet?" ;-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Foxworthy (talk • contribs)
 * Subsequent comments do not need to be unblock requests(you only need one open request); they can just be standard comments. I guess my point is that if you had discussed your plans on the article talk page, that might have indicated to others that you are here to contribute. Wikipedia has little interest in any article conforming to the 'canons of Descriptive Psychology'; what matters is if they conform to Wikipedia guidelines of content and structure(such as the Manual of Style).  What is appropriate for other forms of publication isn't necessarily appropriate here. That said, are there any other areas of the encyclopedia you are interested in contributing to? 331dot (talk) 18:42, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Honestly, this is what I had been coming to for the last 11-years. Which is to say, I was trying to bring this work - which is the next generation of behavioral science - to the public. You saying I'll not be permitted to do that is a bit of a shocker, this being Wikipedia and all. What I mean to say is: Isn't this what this site if for? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Foxworthy (talk • contribs)
 * (edit conflict) You do not need to make every comment an unblock request; just type replies as standard, unformatted comments and sign them so we know you wrote them with ~ or click the Signature button on the screen above the edit window(it looks like a scribble).  Wikipedia is not just for sharing information with the world; this is a project to build an encyclopedia of human knowledge.  If you just want to tell the world about descriptive psychology, you can upload whatever you wish to a blog, social media, or any personal website that you control. I didn't say that you would not be permitted to edit about it, but you need to do so according to Wikipedia style and guidelines.  I simply asked if there was anything else  you wanted to edit because if there were it would be a good indicator you want to more broadly contribute. 331dot (talk) 18:57, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
 * I feel like we're talking about two different things. PART I: (On Descriptive Psychology) Let me be explicit: (a) I'm saying that an explication of this discipline requires precise and concise language use; (b) I'm saying that this concise and precise language use requires I stick to the DP canon for clarity; (c) The reason for this clarity is that most psychological writing exhibits the Pareto distribution, i.e., readers share %80 of the vocabulary with the writer with only %20 of the vocabulary needing to be made explicit, whereas the proportion in Descriptive Psychology is very nearly the reverse of that; (d) This has lead to a sandbox page whose scaffolding has been tremendously challenging to assemble as I'm trying not to include anything beyond, as such, the "nitty gritty". PART II: (On Wikipedia content and structure) I've not published anything publicly, BUT have been crafting what is currently in my sandbox in such a fashion as to conform to the structure and content guidelines of the Wikipedia once it's ready to go live. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Foxworthy (talk • contribs)
 * Having viewed the deleted draft(as administrators can do) I would agree with the assessment given by others. 331dot (talk) 19:00, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Very well, it's a rather simple matter - as far as I can see - but if you're all in agreement as to what I am and am not doing, than I'll simply as for means for adjudication beyond this part of the site. Would you be so kind as to direct me to the next tier of Wikipedia administration so I may make my case, please?
 * There is not additional tiers of administration. However, what I will do is leave your request open for someone else to review. 331dot (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * Since this is all new to me, and I'm more than just a little disheartened by what from my VERY experienced eye looks like misunderstanding, would you mind indicating what that amounts to? I'm not clear how "leaving this open for someone else to review" does anything, or what it does - exactly?
 * Unblock requests appear in a category that administrators like myself routinely review(CAT:RFU). As long as your request is left open, it will remain in that category for other administrators to see and review if they wish to.  There are over 1,000 administrators, one of them will see and review your request, as I did.  It's simply giving you another set of eyes on your request. 331dot (talk) 19:16, 21 March 2019 (UTC)


 * I see. I'm not sure what else to say, really. The entire point that my sandbox was to laboriously poured over and edited and edited and edited, was to avoid misunderstanding. After YEARS of talking with people about Descriptive Psychology I can tell you that the effort required to articulate it is Herculean and requires refinement upon refinement to learners to understand. This has lead to engagement you have witnessed on my account here. To be clear, this is NOT properly suited to a blog, social media, or personal website - this is my gift to the world. To be sure, if Wikipedia is a repository of human knoweldge, as such, the structure of that knowledge (ALL of that knowledge) is Descriptive Psychology. Dr. Foxworthy (talk)


 * Dr. Foxworthy, a problem here is that Wikipedia is not supposed to be repository of *all* human knowledge, as it is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia essentially carries summaries of subjects, written in a lay-person style of writing, and not in-depth treatments of subjects aimed at serious students or subject experts. It's often suggested that an encyclopedia article should be pitched at the level of an intelligent teenager. It should provide a first stop treatment of a subject, and then leave the reader to follow-up references to more advanced sources. Having looked again at your now-deleted sandbox, it really is clear that it is not at the level or of the simple structure required for an encyclopedia article - and it really is not suitable for Wikipedia. Your work might well be suitable for publishing elsewhere, and Yunshui has already offered to email you a copy of the deleted text if you want it - and I'm sure others of us would do so too. So if you want that, please say so here and one of us will send it to you. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:21, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

As you don't seem to be listening to what you are being told, and basically restating the same arguments, I have decided to remove your ability to edit this page. Your request will remain open, and another administrator is free to restore your access to this page if they see merit in doing so, but if your request is declined you will need to use WP:UTRS to request unblock. 331dot (talk) 21:56, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr. Foxworthy, I don't know if you're still reading this, but I'll offer it anyway. You have been told by multiple experienced editors, including a number of admins, that whatever it is you were writing in your sandbox is entirely unsuitable as a Wikipedia article. And that's not because it is unfinished, it's because the structure is wrong, the content is far too deep for an encyclopedia article, and as several have pointed out, it's totally incomprehensible (it certainly is to me, and I'm more highly educated than the typical Wikipedia target audience). To add to that, I've found your discussions here on this talk page to be pretty close to incomprehensible too - they're long, they're rambling, and they just don't seem to get to the point. You may well be an expert in your field, but you do not appear to possess the ability to communicate clearly and simply with non-experts, and that pretty much excludes you from writing encyclopedia articles - and you simply must accept that. You have now lost the ability to edit this talk page, but you can still use email, so the last thing I can say to you is that if you want a copy of your deleted sandbox sent to you then feel free to send me an email (using the link in the left column on my talk page) and I'll be happy to send you one. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 10:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Dr. Foxworthy, my email suggestion was solely for you to request a copy of your deleted sandbox, it was *not* an invitation for you to continue your arguments. As you have abused the courtesy I extended to you, I withdraw the offer. Boing! said Zebedee (talk) 23:32, 25 March 2019 (UTC)