User talk:ParkSehJik/archive

Notice of Neutral point of view noticeboard discussion
Hello, ParkSehJik. 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. --Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)
 * The discussion is here --Ronz (talk) 17:54, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice on editing

 * Please sign your posts
 * Please do not use bold
 * We base stuff partly on census. Please propose what word and what refs support it on the talk page if it is controversial. Cheers Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I added boldface to your comment in self-irony to remind me of your advice, which I find to be helpful as to my edits at other talk pages, whereby I went back and removed the bold face. ParkSehJik (talk) 18:00, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Getting started with Wikipedia
Here are a couple of extremely helpful resources for new editors like yourself who are still finding their way around Wikipedia: This Missing Manual and An overview for new editors. Enjoy! --Ronz (talk) 17:45, 29 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Thank you. I will read them fully. I might not get to it today, so please excuse my planned edits today that may not be made in a state of having been informed by your reading suggestions. I expect (not just hope), that there will be full consensus over time as to what should or should not be in the psychiatry and related articles. This should be a (nearly) completely objective matter at the end, all according to RS based consensus, and may involve editors who are most concerned with improving these article topics (including me), to do substantial reading of the relevant secondary and tertiary source literature, and immersion in multiple related fields as to reading significant primary sources to make informed secondary source determinations for inclusion at WP. This takes time, much time, but I expect it to be productive. Like it or not, Wikipedia is now the standard of "knowledge" in the world, being the first place even specialists are now going to, so these articles carry weight in the world, and should be improved by rigorous debate (under AGF). ParkSehJik (talk) 17:58, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Advice on editing
Probably best to start editing by taking an article and trying to bring it to WP:GA. Typically if you use exclusively recent review article and allow the article to guide what you write things will go well. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:44, 29 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It is deemed bad form to post the same comment in more than one place. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:47, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

On editing others' comments
Once again, you need to slow down and learn your way around Wikipedia. I've pointed you to WP:TALK already. The specific section is WP:TPO. --Ronz (talk) 19:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I did not delete your comment. I WP:RTP moved it to the article. I only posted at the original talk page because I did not know if you were watching it, or just anti-WP:AGF based trolling me. I moved it to the relevant article talk page, then having done so, got the link, then was going back to the first talk page to provide a link for the move. Before I finished, you reverted and commented here. ParkSehJik (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't move others' comments from another editors talk page, especially not another editor's comments from their own page. --Ronz (talk) 22:36, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK. ParkSehJik (talk) 22:40, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Ronz (talk) 22:51, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Use of construction tag
Generally, it's a very bad idea to put up an under construction tag on an article when you're an editor having great difficulty understanding NPOV and having NPOV problems for that article.

That said, sorry for removing it, but given that you were back to adding controversial material, I felt it better if you work on the talk page to get consensus. --Ronz (talk) 02:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Why do you say I have difficulty understnding NPOV? You said I do not understand NPOV because I put, with sources, that psychiatrists increasingly only diagnose, not treat, when therapy is called for without medication. How does that MEDRS based addition of the word "diagnose", show I do not understand NPOV What exactly is my POV that you are trolling me and asserting all over Wiki that I have? Why do I need cosensus to make noncontroversial edits supported by RS? ParkSehJik (talk) 02:58, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You have yet to provide sources to demonstrate proper weight for anything you've proposed yet. I'm not even sure you understand what that means. That's why I think you don't understand NPOV.
 * You're concerned that people are discussing your personal points of view, when they're discussing violations of WP:NPOV. You continue to do it here. That's also why I think you don't understand NPOV. --Ronz (talk) 03:14, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You constantly make accusations about my understanding, without citing examples, and falsely make claims I do not support UNDUE, to justify removal of content I add with MEDRS sources for such words as "frequent", "veru common", and "many". You are the one who does not understand NPOV and UNDUE, with your claim that diagnosing is so small a part of psychiatry that introduction of it to the lede first sentence introduces POV. ParkSehJik (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2012 (UTC)