User talk:Ward3001/Archive 4

Barnstar for a good person
 Wikipedia's days are numbered, I fear, consumed by its own nonfeasance. Tribes of influential (= have the most free time on their hands) admins and editors have decided that WP policies say something other than what they actually say. They want to have loose reigns to make WP their playground for their own particular agendas. People who follow strict and standardized interpretations of policies threaten that and must be stalked and rebuffed. The problem on WP is not so much the obvious trolls but the ones who make editing painful for other editors by repetitive questions, tendentious editing, private agendas hidden beneath yet lord of all arguments; immature teenagers and college students who view biographies of living persons as their private political platform rather than a task requiring the utmost responsibility and mature outlook, all in recognition that words can be like flames and real lives can and sometimes really are ruined or at least permanently altered; people who fill up talk pages with nonsense, who see the truth of contrary arguments yet refuse from selfishness to acknowledge them; who endlessly Wikilawyer the most obvious points, and enforce not the policies but the policies as they privately interpret them through the grid of their own private agendas. Most people like me ended up at Missing Wikipedians much sooner, and many such people are enjoying the heck out of other, more responsible wikis, and some enjoying reading the jabs at places like Wikitruth. The price that has been paid and will continue to be paid until something changes is a Project in the guise of an encyclopedia that cannot even be cited by 1st graders, lest high schoolers. Welcome to your Wikipedia. I am done. CyberAnth 20:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)  We need a content arbcom drawn from reputable reliable institutions that partner with Wikipedia.  Given the level of dysfunction that has come to prevail on Wikipedia, the most appropriate course for a principled scientist is to withdraw from the project. The bureaucracy should either take corrective steps to fix this situation, or else suffer the eventual loss of huge amounts of valuable talent and volunteered resources. If you agree with this statement, post it to your pages, and pass it on. (discuss this here)

An FYI
If you are interested or have any pertinent content to add to the case, please see this SPI. Thanks!! Wildhartlivie (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The sock case was confirmed and quite a number of usernames were caught in it. Excuseme99 was the main account. Wildhartlivie (talk) 04:41, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Please stop
Please stop airing your grievances about me at the Rorschach test article talk page. It is not an appropriate venue and you are being disruptive to the discussions there.

You can take it to WP:AN if you think I have been acting inappropriately and you don't want to go to my talk page. That last thing that article needs is you and I hashing it out there. Either seek outside scrutiny of my actions, discuss it with me here or on my talk page, or just drop it. Chillum 03:13, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Just an FYI
You may have picked up from me, the term "null edit" to send a message to others in the edit summary. I should probably let you know that I've been intentionally inaccurate in using the term, the correct term is actually dummy edit. I blame Canadian politeness, I worried that people would think "dummy edit" was calling them a dummy, or something like that. =)

I was recently admonished for my careless misuse of the term here: User talk:Xeno so I felt I should let you know, in case I was perpetuating an inaccuracy! I've made WP:SMS redirect to the explanation for dummy edit, so I'll probably use that from now on =] –xenotalk  00:59, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah, alls good then =) –xenotalk 01:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

A second e-mail
I'm sending you a second e-mail, which reflects more thought on my part.Faustian (talk) 03:09, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC
Can you see User talk:Faustian and comment? –xenotalk 15:31, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

question about Revision as of 01:04, 3 June 2008 on Gabrielle Union page
why was her music video apperences taken off the page? How was it unsourced if you wacth the vids you can clearly she her in them. what kind of a source could i have provided? As for the poorly written how could it have been written better. I'm writing this cause i add a vid to the list and followed how the oringal person created it.the info should be apart of her bio.

Music Videos she has been 3 music video videos in which she starred as the love interest - Revision as of 01:04, 3 June 2008
 * ''Baby You Are by Uncle Sam 1998 -
 * ''"Paradise" -LL Cool J 2003 -
 * ''"I Love My Chick." - Busta Rhymes' 2006

(Inferno17 (talk) 17:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC))

well first of all like i said i only added one video to the list and that was the Baby You Are video  by the singer Uncle Sam. As for it being my opinion that she was the love interest in the vids which would make it unsourced i don't see how that is. It's not just my opinion LL Cool J "Paradise"  video was release in connection to Deliver us  from Eva in which they where love interest. Unlce Sam's "Baby you are " videos tells the story of the artsit's  and her character  growing up as friend and then as teenages the began dating  and loss contact with each other and just happened to meet again begin to restart that relationship. To me that vids speak for themselves in each the scenes revole around her and the man in the those vids. Watch the music vids and see for yourself i don't have script that says they are lovers it implied. Otherwise a you could have simply rewrote it and said she was the female lead in the vids.they wouldn't have flimed it that way if that not what they wanted the veiwer to think. As for the grammer problems that could have easily been corrected by you or anyone else. link below to the videos

Baby you are - Uncle Sam vid on yahoo music watch it http://new.music.yahoo.com/videos/--2165841

LL Cool J "Paradise"  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqZQIZHQsRg

Busta Rhymes - I Love My Chick http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VxvYZUCmLTE (Inferno17 (talk) 00:13, 3 July 2009 (UTC))

Paul McCartney GAR notification
Paul McCartney has been nominated for a good article reassessment. Please leave your comments and help us to return the article to good article quality. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status will be removed from the article. Reviewers' concerns are here.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 05:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

RFC on extrasolar planet lists restructuring
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_extrasolar_planets#Restructuring_discussion

If you belive this is worth your time, perhaps you could turn the attention of a few other people, besides the few people there already there, that you think would not mind having a look/say. GabrielVelasquez (talk) 22:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Note
A request for formal mediation of the dispute concerning Rorschach test has been filed with the Mediation Committee (MedCom). You have been named as a party in this request. Please review the request at Requests for mediation/Rorschach test and then indicate in the "Party agreement" section whether you would agree to participate in the mediation or not.

Mediation is a process where a group of editors in disagreement over matters of article content are guided through discussing the issues of the dispute (and towards developing a resolution) by an uninvolved editor experienced with handling disputes (the mediator). The process is voluntary and is designed for parties who disagree in good faith and who share a common desire to resolve their differences. Further information on the MedCom is at Mediation Committee; the policy the Committee will work by whilst handling your dispute is at Mediation Committee/Policy; further information on Wikipedia's policy on resolving disagreements is at Resolving disputes.

If you would be willing to participate in the mediation of this dispute but wish for its scope to be adjusted then you may propose on the case talk page amendments or additions to the list of issues to be mediated. Any queries or concerns that you have may be directed to an active mediator of the Committee or by e-mailing the MedCom's private mailing list (click here for details).

Please indicate on the case page your agreement to participate in the mediation within seven days of the request's submission.

Thank you, –xenotalk

Disruptive
You popping into every single thread that is created on Talk:Rorschach test and making sarcastic comments like this and this is starting to become disruptive. People on that page are trying to put aside petty bickering and concentrate on improving the article, please do not drag these attempts down into the mire that has consumed the rest of the talk page. You can continue to criticize in the appropriate venues, but you cannot follow editors about into every thread and belittle their efforts, that crosses the line. Allow us to have productive discussion beyond the dispute at hand. Chillum 03:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator)
An editor has nominated one or more articles which you have created or worked on, for deletion. The nominated article is Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator). We appreciate your contributions, but the nominator doesn't believe that the article satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion and has explained why in his/her nomination (see also "What Wikipedia is not").

Your opinions on whether the article meets inclusion criteria and what should be done with the article are welcome; please participate in the discussion(s) by adding your comments to Articles for deletion/Criticism of Bill O'Reilly (political commentator) (3rd nomination). Please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ).

You may also edit the article during the discussion to improve it but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion debate.

Please note: This is an automatic notification by a bot. I have nothing to do with this article or the deletion nomination, and can't do anything about it. --Erwin85Bot (talk) 01:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just a word
As an outside viewer, I've read through all (yes, all) of the discussion on the Rorschach Test page and I think what you said here, if said earlier, would have preempted a lot of the animosity you were receiving from other editors. In that section addressed to Xeno, (1) you expanded on your concern with the article while still being as vague as your ethical concerns would allow, and (2) explained that the vague nature of your concerns were due to your hands being bound by the ethical codes of your profession.

What I perceive to be the conflict in the earlier sections (in which you were told to "go away") seems to be because you did (1) but never clarified (2). From the opposite perspective, then, it would seem that you were in fact merely content to vaguely point out that the article itself was misleading while being irrational opposed to providing any beneficial indication of what led you to that claim and how to fix it (such as when you asked if an editor would like you, a professional, to go through all of Exner instead of doing it themselves, as amateurs). From that perspective, it would be easy to view you as an editor content to point to your expertise and vaguely critique while refusing to assist at all--both frustrating and morally demeaning to editors attempting to best improve the article with what limited resources they have.

However, your later statement clarifies beautifully your reasons and shows instead that you're more-than-not probably willing to help, but unable to. I suspect that if this had been mentioned earlier, you wouldn't have seemed like a "useless commentator." Because of that, editors misinterpreted your attempts to help (instead viewing you as only willing to criticize) and reacted toward you in a hostile way that you did not understand nor believed deserving of your attempts to help (such as telling you to leave). This in turn led you (and others) to believe that the hostility was due solely to your expertise in the field, which I suspect it was not, at least not on this discussion page for this topic. I strongly believe that if ethics were not an issue here and you were able to contribute to the improvement of the page freely, then the fact that you are a licensed professional would be nothing but appreciated and respected.

I only wish that this simple clarification to the complex nature of your situation (and other editors with professional ethics at stake) could have been realized sooner before you and the opposing editors ended up misunderstanding each other into schismatic oblivion. I believe Mirafra attempted this, but it was lost in continued debate over offenses from both sides.

Editors on Wikipedia are trying their hardest to create the most accurate and comprehensive articles they can with what they have. Therefore, they value and seek and welcome the input of experts who can give further understanding and context and direct the content of the editing most accurately. However, when it appears (note: appears) that those individuals are unwilling to give input but fully willing to criticize the overall quality of the article, you can see how editors may react the way they did. Likewise, I think professionals are always wary that their expertise may be scorned as pretension because of a very real imbalance of social power between the informed and uninformed, and when they encounter it unexplained, it becomes one of the very first candidates to explain the reason for that hostility.

I just wanted to bring all this here because I really don't see a genuine disrespect of the contributions of professionals from them nor do I see a genuine desire to hinder full-access to encyclopedic information in some sort of classist conspiracy from any of you. As with all good tragedies and wars, this really only seems to be a full blown catastrophe because of a misunderstanding. And indeed I think the major schism between very valuable and willing experts and very dedicated amateur editors that was created here over what is essentially a misunderstanding is a profound tragedy for the goals of education and enlightenment.

I'd also like to thank you for your own dedication to article quality here on Wikipedia. For this article, I doubt either of the two ideas laid out so concisely by Mirafra will be satisfactorily achieved, though I understand, agree, and disagree with aspects of both. Beyond that, hopefully you will continue contributing as well as you have.Luminum (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for responding. It may very well be that I've only seen a smidgen of the overall tension between professional and amateur editors.  If that's the case, then I really can't claim anything more than what I've already said.


 * I fully understand the situation that you're in and indeed it's a frustrating one where you cannot improve an article, but also cannot justifiably consent to the article is a misleading form. At the same time, really consider where that leaves amateur editors.  Yes, you've given great sources to view and to utilize, but just as you said yourself that you are no expert and wouldn't have time to siphon through the vast body of literature available on computer engineering, amateur editors, including myself, don't have the luxury of reading through Exner 1 or having the years of experience that you stated makes you comfortable discussing the Rorschach test.  It puts "us" in a bind because we'd like the article to be as direct and non-misleading as possible, but the people who could help cannot do so for ethical reasons, and given our lack of expertise, the article that remains is understood to be flawed but realistically unfixable.  In that case, as with the most logical progression, the only choice is to go with what we have, despite its imperfections, as it's the only option.  In that regard, how would you expect this body of editors to realistically proceed?  Putting offenses and hostilities aside, because of you and other professionals, we now understand that in some ways, the article has issues, but we can't fix it ourselves and neither can the other body of editors (yourselves) viewing the article.  Amateur editors are therefore in just as much a rock and a hard place, left with an unacceptable article (if you assume all articles strive for GA status) but without the realistic means to improve it.  The less than optimal quality and the consistent reminder (be it an editor's commentary or an actual tag on the article) becomes a looming sword that only damages editor morale in the project itself.


 * I think that's where most of the frustration stems and isn't surprising at all. The same concept applies to public health situations as well--disenfranchised populations may know that their health behaviors are poor or damaging, but given a lack of resources or innovations to their situations, they can only continue doing what they always have for lack of anything else.  (Ex.  Healthy fruits and vegetables being pushed as a health behavior change in diet in a population that has no accessible fresh produce grocery stores, such as poor urban environments.  They could walk/drive the 20+ miles to get to one in a suburb, but that isn't realistic at all.)  If you were to continuously tell these individuals that their health behaviors were poor without actually giving them concrete and accessible solutions (say, because of a lack of program budget), despite all good intention, their relative helplessness would inevitably lead to frustration and anger.


 * So given all those factors, I don't know how this will be resolved (if it ever will), but I hope that it won't have to be the same abysmal process each and every time as the one on Talk:Rorschach test.Luminum (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See, there I think you fall into the fallacy of assuming malicious intent, which is only detrimental to the project. I would agree with your suggestion that editors believe they're improving the article, rather than willingly detracting from it as a show of power.  The problem that these editors are likely encountering I that you're asking them to believe you when you tell them that their appropriately referenced additions are only hindering the article when you cannot provide them with a sufficient reason to (sufficient, clearly meaning that they also need an example).  It's a simple "This is wrong/Why?/Because of this./What should we do?/I can't tell you." dialogue.  It's true that the more accurate article with less information has its merits above the less accurate article with more information, but that leaves a precedent where future editors (and interested readers) will have access to the additional info and ask why it's not included in the encyclopedia and the only response will be, "Because we can't talk about it without it being misleading."  Obviously that makes no sense except in the case where the key (professional experience or context) is necessary to decipher the information.  Either way, it leaves a sour taste to editors everywhere who believe in both accuracy and comprehensiveness, not one or the other.


 * Regardless, my continued discussion with you is really only to ask that you try to understand the perspective and subsequent frustration of amateur editors. You would be fully justified adding information you heard or encountered about computer engineering, but I would expect an expert on the subject to incorporate that information with the appropriate knowledge and context.  Everyone has the right to add to an article, and those with greater understanding should feel compelled to provide the necessary context to those additions if they are less than ideal.  The only sad part here is that you can't fulfill that role for the reasons you've mentioned before.  I can't judge you either for feeling offended and resorting to a condescending argument of "willful rebellion," but I do think that argument is a convenient oversimplification (and one I would personally take great offense to if it was applied to me) and I don't think it will help the situation now or in the future.


 * Either way, I respect your dialogue with me and appreciate your efforts. Hopefully I will encounter you again on these boards.  Best wishes.Luminum (talk) 21:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rorschach
Ward, some of your comments regarding the Rorschach test are in danger of crossing the line. If you have issues with a particular editor to the point where you're enquiring as to whether various professional associations might be interested in his editing, you have to take that offwiki, and even then you should proceed with great caution. Editors who make or imply legal or other real-life threats regarding another's edits often find themselves blocked. My advice to you is to accept that the images have been published, and that publication is entirely within Wikipedia policy. Argue the issues, by all means, but please try to avoid personalizing it. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 02:36, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Some of the edits of yours that come close to the line:


 * You do say, "I'm not suggesting that anyone 'go after this doctor,'" but it's followed by a "but".  The only issue that matters for Wikipedia is whether the images have been added within policy, and whether there is consensus to keep them. Who added them is irrelevant, and it's a violation of policy even to hint at taking real-life action against an editor because of his content contributions. So, please, stick to the content issues, and all will be well.  SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 07:26, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to clarify: you asked me in what capacity I was writing to you. I'm writing as an admin, but very much in the hope that no action will be needed. You said there were other people making comments that crossed the line. I'd appreciate it if you'd direct me to them. I saw one from an IP address, but there's no point in writing to that person, but I may have missed some others, so please let me know if I did.


 * You wrote that "I fail to see how asking a question about a licensing board, or asking an editor to confine his comments to the issues being discussed, or simply discussing professional ethics and conduct is "coming close to the line" of suggesting off-wiki action." Imagine if you and I were in a content dispute, and I discovered you're a police officer in real life. I suddenly started making comments about police officer ethics, and surely the police service doesn't approve of officers who hold this or that POV, and isn't there an ethics board for police officers somewhere? Even if I was only responding to a similar post from someone else, you would feel threatened by that, because your job shouldn't be affected by the content of your WP edits, whether you've outed yourself or not. That's my only point. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:25, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, fair points, but the only way to keep the discussion on the straight and narrow is to stick to the content issues. It makes no difference at all to Wikipedia who added the images. We care only that (a) they fall within our policies, and (b) there is consensus to add them, and the talk page is there to discuss what matters to Wikipedia. So just try to go along with that, please, even though I understand that you're frustrated. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 15:51, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * The thing is that it doesn't matter whether someone has expertise or not, because it doesn't matter who uploaded the images. It never matters whether someone has expertise, because all we care about are reliable sources. It helps if people know what they're doing, but largely because it means they know who the good sources are. But nothing in an article should ever hinge on a Wikipedian's expertise. With your astrophysics example, all that would matter would be whether the material was correctly sourced. It's worth bearing in mind that BLP applies to talk pages too, and Wikipedians are BLPs when their real names are known (and arguably even when they're not), so it's important to give people the benefit of the doubt. If someone seems to have claimed an expertise that wasn't quite what it sounded like, point that out once and leave it there, or AGF and assume they made a mistake, or that there was somehow a misunderstanding. Even if you start off in the right, you could end up in the wrong by violating the various policies that govern this kind of thing, and it's just not worth it. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:20, 4 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the apology; it's much appreciated. I will read through the archives as you suggested. In the meantime, hopefully things will calm down on that page so that normal editing can resume. Protection is up in a couple of days. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 16:49, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Ward, nice to talk to you again, where do we stand on this? I saw the Cons and Pros pages and I don't see much value on the cons except for the censoring issue but I think an appeal to the higher purpose of the Wikipedia should help there. I still do think that a if there is a compromise it should be a "true compromise". People that do not care, are not going to take a compromise offer as a sign of good faith, but they will use it to take the argument further to "their favor".--Dela Rabadilla (talk) 02:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey
Ward, please. No good can come of it. Focus only on content; that's the only thing that can improve the article. All else is sound and fury. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 18:57, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Would request you stop making personal comments
Have started a discussion here concerning this statement and others. -- Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

WAY out of line
Comparing a Wikipedian to Josef Mingele a nazi who tortured and murdered hundreds of children is beyond the pale. Our volunteers to not deserve to be attacked by you like that. You need to stop acting this way or stop using Wikipedia. <font color='#D23A17'>Chillum 02:08, 7 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Oh please, where were you when the other side was making comparisons to Mao's brutal comunists?Faustian (talk) 02:32, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Ah Ward I am honored by the attention you give this matter. You are correct this is fun and games for me.  What I do in my pass time.  Do not worry I was congratulating you on the last one.-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 02:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Hey Ward No harm done. I hard to watch ones words when the discussion get so heated.  We do have polarized views on this topic.  I do acknowledge that there is not one perfect answer.  I do not think this however will spill over to any other psychological tests to any degree.  This is the only one that the general public really identifies with.  I do think it is unfortunate that you are unable to contribute to the page.  We have discussed a number of work around but I cannot think of anything that we could all agree to.  I had hope moving this stuff off to a separate page might have helped...-- Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 03:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Blocked the IP troll
I have blocked the IP that was trolling your talk page. <font color='#4D7412'>Chillum 15:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Would you like me to semi-protect your talk page for a few days so the ips cannot post here? <font color='#A24F15'>Chillum 19:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

RfC
Please see Requests for comment/Rorschach test images. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 16:24, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Docjames and Jmh649
Ward, I initially posted in the Rorschach section and have seen your numerous posts. I have very limited time, and have only briefly followed all of this; but my main concern has been more than just the Rorschach, but so many of our other tests as well. And so it may not be surprising to find that DocJames who is also Jmh649 does, in fact, appear to have a very anti-psychology/psychiatry/mental health bent. I encourage you to look, using both of his usernames, at his list of contributions; which most recently have been more than just the Rorschach, but now onto the Wisconsin Card Sort and the Rey-Ostereith. Of course, the public is not clamoring to see these (which is much of his argument with the Rorschach), yet he places information in both that significantly hinder test security. There is definitely an agenda there, which suggests that many of your posts were very accurate and foretelling. He also posts about some of the more controversial aspects of ADHD. In one of his posts on someone else's talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Vannin - Vannin appears to be a psychologist) - he claims to be "in the field." Here is the paragraph:

Weird request

Hello Vannin

This is a weird request as usually people are just complaining and leaving the actually editing up to someone else. ADHD is an important topic.

The page on ADHD has huge issues with its references. First very few are formatted correctly ( see my note on the talk page ). Second a lot of the sources are poor. They are primary sources rather then secondary sources. For example I deleted one study that was based on 48 people.

We want to use systematic reviews of the literature as must as possible. I would like to refer you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles)

The second issue is the writing style is a bit impenetrable. I am in the field and a lot of the stuff on this page makes no sense to me upon first reading. For example we do not need to say "A study shows" or "So and so from this journal says". This is implied and I have been working to correct it.

Help fixing these issues is much appreciated.

Yours

Doc James (talk) 05:34, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

A misrepresentation, I believe. I am not going to post on the Rorschach and other pages at this point, because it seems useless. Also rather not get into it with DocJames, he does not appear to argue points fairly. I am passing this information along to you because you have been around longer; and in reality, appear to have much more time than myself (you may appreciate that I am spending many more hours than I would like writing reports). Even if we can't stop this silliness of tests being put on wikipedia, at least we can highlight the agenda's of some of those that are (and if you look closely enough, there are a couple of others who also seem to have this agenda). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Takamine45 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Your comments
Ward, regarding this comment, I'm sorry but I think this has to be a final warning. The RfC is the place to discuss whether the images ought to be in the article. The article talk page is for discussing further improvements to content. Any personal attacks or other ad hominem comments from you are likely to lead to a block without further warning. SlimVirgin talk| contribs 17:16, 10 August 2009 (UTC)


 * No, I'm warning only you, because you've been making most of the personal attacks. SlimVirgin  talk| contribs 17:19, 10 August 2009 (UTC)