User talk:RFST

ArbCom elections are now open!
Hi, You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:34, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Phil McGraw
Please get consensus for any edit that has been previously reverted. Please read WP:EW. Sundayclose (talk) 15:09, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

May 2020
Your recent editing history at Phil McGraw shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war. See the bold, revert, discuss cycle for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

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. Sundayclose (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

Phil McGraw
Let's look at your edit history and edit summaries for this article. First you added "anymore" to "he is not licensed to practice". I reverted this because of WP:LEAD's directive: "According to the policy on due weight, emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject". The lead is very brief and can't include superfluous details that are covered adequately later in the article. For much of his career (and for the entirety of the last 22 years) he has been a TV personality and talk show host, which does not require a license. In fact, he wouldn't even have a Wikipedia article without his celebrity that did not exist when he was a practicing psychologist.

Thereafter you reverted me two times instead of raising the issue here, the first time with no edit summary. You decided to ignore WP:BRD despite the fact you have edited almost 13 years and should have been familiar with WP:BRD.

In your first revert, you made matters worse by adding blatantly false and libelous information in violation of WP:BLP by claiming that McGraw "lost his license" to practice psychology; you did this without a scintilla of evidence and a complete absence of support for such a claim in the article.

Then in your next revert, your edit summary states: "this is more than significant enough not to be buried further down, even if the license was tactically abandoned rather than revoked" First of all, the information is not "buried"; it is quite clearly stated in the article; in fact, there is a section header in bold "Lack of license to practice". There is no evidence whatsoever that McGraw "tactically abandoned" his license rather than having it revoked. In discussing his discipline by the Texas Psychology Board there is no mention in the article that his license was revoked or that he gave up his license rather than it being revoked. In describing McGraw's discipline for an ethical violation, the article states: "McGraw fulfilled all terms of the board's requirements, and the board closed its complaint file in June 1990", several years before he no longer needed a license because he was not practicing as a psychologist. In fact, he maintained his license until 2006, about eight years after he stopped practicing psychology. Did you read these details before making your edits and reverts and claiming that his license was revoked and then claiming that his license was "tactically abandoned rather than revoked"?

McGraw committed an ethical violation. He was sanctioned by his psychology board, but his license was not revoked or "tactically abandoned rather than revoked". A psychologist doesn't maintain his license for several years after it is no longer needed in order to "tactically abandon rather than [have the license] revoked". It is not unusual for psychologists to not renew their license for a variety of reasons. Sometimes they stop practicing because of retirement or (as in McGraw's case) they move to a different career that doesn't require a license.

So please address specifically, why is it of such great importance (important enough to include in the lead) to state that he doesn't have a license "anymore" rather than simply stating that he doesn't have a license? Is your goal to insinuate that he "lost his license" or that his license was "tactically abandoned rather than revoked", both of which are complete fabrications on your part? Sundayclose (talk) 04:23, 16 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I happened to look at the article (who has time to read all articles from top to bottom?), and found that the sentence needed editing: either it does not belong in the lead because it is irrelevant (and obviously it is anything but irrelevant when somebody who goes by "Dr. Firstname" cannot even practice), or it should at least be minimally, minimally self-explanatory, i.e., was he never licensed, or not anymore? One word, just framing chronology and nothing more. Then somebody decided to revert that change, and I did become slightly more interested. Unfortunately I misinterpreted the situation because of the absurdity of it all and the base rate of "voluntary" cessations actually being at least somewhat coerced, but after a closer look I agree that "loss" was wrong because there is no actual evidence that the license was taken away by somebody else and so you were right to revert that. However, I stand by my original edit, because it is significant (there is no way in the world, especially with a history of litigation and having to disclaim responsibility by framing his show as "entertainment", that Phillip McGraw, who makes millions and millions and millions playing a doctor on TV, let this license lapse because he forgot to put its renewal on his to-do list), so you are wrong to oppose it without good cause, and you have offered none. Now let me turn this around and ask you: why is it so important for you to bury the lead, so to say? What interest do you have in this guy, considering your previous engagement on the talk page of this article? — RFST (talk) 06:15, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

AU
If you want to get rid of that hard-coded constant of light-seconds for AU, you could use 1 au/s light-seconds, which gives 1 au/s light-seconds. It's a gross ugly abuse of the convert template, but useful. Tarl N. ( discuss ) 07:18, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Very ugly indeed, but it works, thanks! — RFST (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2021 (UTC)