User talk:GrahameKing/Archive 1

Welcome!

Hello, GrahameKing, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! --Thatdog (Talk) 06:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your question at help desk

Hi, you can use {{Under construction}} or {{Inuse}} to notify other editors -- Lost ^(talk) 04:40, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is better to create your own separate sandbox page

Grahame, rather than using your user page as a sandbox, it is far better to create your own separate sandbox page. If you wish, I could do that for you. Just let me know here on your Talk page where I will watch for your answer. - mbeychok 07:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lost, thanks for your help.

Sorry I'm so slow to respond - there's still so much I haven't grasped.GrahameKing 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mbeychok, thanks for the suggestion.

Even better than having you do it for me would be for you to tell me where I can find out how to do it. But first let me see if I can work that out. GrahameKing 16:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Got it - create a link - then edit the non-existent page. Thanks again, Milton. GrahameKing 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grahame, the sandbox comes in very handy when you make a major edit or major expansion of an article. You can copy the actual article (before you edit or expand it) to your sandbox and work on it there to your heart's content until you are satisfied with it. Then you cut and paste your edit or expansion into the actual article. That way you don't have to make and remake a multitude of revisions of the actual article (perhaps, while others are trying to read the article or do their own editing of the article). - mbeychok 20:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sandbox

I am more annoyed by the stupid person who put a speedy delete tag on Gksand than by you! They should have quietly moved it as I did to User:GrahameKing/sandbox. You are encouraged to have private pages for wip but all their names must begin "User:GrahameKing/". -- RHaworth 17:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Roger. What is "wip"?--GrahameKing 18:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

work in progress. -- RHaworth 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ta. This has been a big help for me to begin to get organised. GrahameKing 00:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Synchronisation of german and english articles

Hi Grahame, together with the german wikipedia.de user JahnKHHenne I wrote Articles about primaltheory and primal pain in the german version. But the german version needs a better Article about Primal therapy. You did a good job in the english version. If your interessted in a conversation about synconising the german and the english Version please contact me unter chip62_m@yahoo.de--Chip62 m 14:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Chip62, but not presently. I need to think more about what I am doing. GrahameKing 00:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is blanking, Sir

Your blanking

Due to the sensitive nature of some of the sourced assertions you blanked, I think that it is reasonable to give you some time to check the soundness of my source.

Lets say two weeks. Please contact with a Spanish speaking user (may an admin) to check my source. Once that is done, please move again the text to the article, because per WP:CITE, WP:VERIFY AND WP:NPOV the text you blanked belongs there.

I took the job of typing the whole original text in Spanish for a reason, and that´s because I knew that those facts are uncomfortable for some people. But per WP:NPOV, those facts should be there.

Thank you for your attention, GrahameKing. See you. Randroide 20:25, 13 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A further note (and an apology that this is so late after the event) - Grahame, removal of text in this manner is disruptive. Please do not do it again, as deliberate disruption of Wikipedia may result in your editing privileges being temporarily (or even indefinitely) withdrawn. If you are concerned about the legal implications of comments, raise it for the attention of administrators via Wikipedia:Administrator's noticeboard/Incidents. If you have any questions, please let me know. Regards, Proto::► 10:51, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was a different event, Proto. We are talking about three blankings here: First second third. I reported only the second one. Randroide 11:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Proto

Thanks Proto, I am learning the ropes slowly and I appreciate your civil tone considering what must look like gross errors at first. But just looking at the snapshots provided by Randroid does not give any real idea of what was going on. It is necessary to step through and look at the edit comments as well as the actual archived pages (following Randroid's snapshots) so my explanations can be seen. I will do my best to make that easy for any third party viewing this mess. I call it a mess without laying blame and I admit that it need not have been so messy if I had been more experienced or taken a lot more time. My reason for acting quickly was because of my concern about the defamatory nature of the content and what I thought (with my own very rough translation) was an inappropriately light tone.

Here is the snapshot right after my first reversion (not blanking) plus explanation and copy of removed material.[1]

Should I not have judged the magazine because of the light manner with which the article in it was dealing out such extreme and possibly libellous content about a living person? (At that point I was being guided by my feelings and thoughts and had not yet found the pertinent Wikipedia guideline which I quoted after the second reversion (not blanking). All this may give you some idea of my state of mind when I reverted the article the first time.

The next snapshot to view is Randroid's edits immediately following.[2]

By putting in a heading above the reverted content that I had placed on the talk page he made it look as though he had recovered the content and put it there. He gave me two weeks to research the article. I could not find it anywhere. The fact that there was no article about the Conocer magazine in the Spanish Wikipedia and no information about why it was defunct only increased my unease.

How do we know that he typed the extract of the article correctly? The subsequent translation by seejyb was a translation of material typed in by Randroid who makes no secret of his POV being against this type of therapy. Should we just sit about and discuss the pros and cons of inclusion of such extreme claims based on a translation of content typed in by an admittledly biased editor of material that is in an obscure (in the English speaking world) defunct journal. Well I thought not. But my inexperience got the better of me. (The comment by Seejyb below here on my talk page seems to confirm my initial impression of the article and his comment after the translation seems to echo what I have just said - or maybe I'm echoing what he said.)

The discussion over the next couple of weeks culminating in a RfC requires a lot of attention. I reverted it with great reluctance because it included important analyses from Cgingold and some comments by me but also because it shows how Randroid proceeded to ignore all other viewpoints expressed about the use of the source.[3]

In my inexperience, I made some more errors of using overly charged words, and in my anxiety about reaching a resolution of some kind about this defamatory material I made some misreadings. Finally Randroid asked me if I agreed to a RfC and when I did he then posted one.

Not long after this, I was doing a Google search for some reason and there it all was - the whole discussion. I don't know why I had not realised this would happen except that I was very stressed by this issue and was getting a lot of other material on my talk page from someone calling himself Simon, some of which was actually quite useful and accessible. I don't believe it would have been any surprise to Randroid despite his protestations of innocence and reporting to Admins before I could figure out how to do it. At this point I was frantically reading Wikipedia guidelines which I found difficult to access at first and I found a guideline that was quite unequivocal. Also Randroid's RfC was stronger than he had suggested it would be earlier in the discussion and Cgingold's analysis made perfect sense to me. So I bit the bullet and reverted again, quoting the exact guideline and this time not making the mistake of posting the reverted material anywhere. This immediately removed it from the Google search results.

I believed that Randroid's goal from the beginning was to get the defamatory material "out there." I don't know if you can imagine my state of mind but now I started to worry about the "History...." material on my talk page and tried to copy it somewhere else. Simon had not replied for a while so I thought it belonged in a file of it's own. So I cut the History section from my talk page not that there was anything defamatory there (just a lot of stuff that would be difficult to source properly) with a view to putting it in a better place. I should not have been in such a rush. I had uncertainties about where to put it and had problems and distractions and the result was a blanking - the only one I did and that was on my own talk page. I knew that I could easily recover it. So I slept on it - I should have done this first but I couldn't sleep. This is the third blanking and the only true blanking linked to by Randroid.

My biggest error was putting the questionable content onto the talk page after the first reversion. See policy, Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons, particularly the following:

"Be very firm about high quality references, particularly about details of personal lives. Unsourced or poorly sourced controversial (negative, positive, or just highly questionable) material about living persons should be removed immediately from Wikipedia articles, talk pages, and user pages."

Ironically, Randroid appears to have tried to take credit for the placement of the content on the talk page. So clearly neither of us knew at that point about this very firm policy, which I only found a short while ago. He also stated that he thought the second reversion was unfair in light of my agreement to a RfC. I quite understand that he might feel that but I was sure I had seen that policy somewhere. I guess I should have devoted more effort to researching Wikipedia policies and guidelines than researching the suspect source as he had suggested.

Any thoughts by anyone on where we should go from here would be welcome.

-- GrahameKing 14:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I think at this point, the best thing to do is to participate fully in the RFC, which I note you're already doing. An RFC is useless if the participants don't agree to abide by the conclusions, so please try and do so (it's always far better if a civil and scholarly conclusion can be attained ... consensus and persuasion, rather than resorting to coercion) Proto::► 16:28, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply by Randroide

At that point I was being guided by my feelings and thoughts

Emotions are not tools of cognition (Ayn Rand)

I believed that Randroid's goal from the beginning was to get the defamatory material "out there".

Look, GrahameKing: Encyclopedias are about getting "out there" what is known about something. The material is NOT defamatory: It is sourced.

How do we know that he typed the extract of the article correctly? The subsequent translation by seejyb was a translation of material typed in by Randroid who makes no secret of his POV being against this type of therapy. Should we just sit about and discuss the pros and cons of inclusion of such extreme claims based on a translation of content typed in by an admittledly biased editor of material that is in an obscure (in the English speaking world) defunct journal. Well I thought not.

Scans from the journal can be uploaded (welcome to the 21st century!) if you have misgivings about my typing skills, and the translation can be checked independently. IMO, both are fine, but if you want to check it I have no problem. If that´s the problem, you only had to ask for the scans... two weeks ago.

The "obscure" journal at least was a journal, not a free-for-all book, as Janov´s books. Please note that Janov has not published a single article at PubMed, where you can find half million articles about Psychology. You quote Janov´s "obscure" books about his "obscure" therapy (a therapy offered only in a pair of centers in California). Fine, good for you. I quote "obscure" journals about Janov´s "obscure" therapy..

To sum up: Primal Therapy is also a "obscure" therapy, which is not going to be in the frontpage of The New York Times. Obscure therapies require obscure sources.

Any thoughts by anyone on where we should go from here would be welcome.

Yup, to the RfC. Your attention is required at Talk:Primal_therapy#Back_to_square_one.Randroide 16:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroid, I am trying to stay focused on your edits in relation to the article we have been trying to work on which is about Primal Therapy created and developed by Arthur Janov. Some of your statements above make no sense to me. Perhaps you can explain.

Scans from the journal can be uploaded....

If you are interested in reaching an NPOV consensus with me and other editors such as Cgingold who have worked on this article, why would you not have told me this two weeks ago? ~~Also on this point if I was a 21st century man like you, I would have uploaded that article given the link to the reference desk and had the whole thing translated - even if it had a few warts on it.~~ (If I was having a perfect day - which I'm not!)

Clearly my POV is biased toward the therapy described in the article but that does not mean I think everything written by Janov is correct. I have admitted my mistakes in the edit war we have been involved in and tried to be open about what I was doing and why. I am still hoping you will try to hear the other POVs that are contrary to or inconsistent with yours and show some signs of wanting to collaborate. But, alas, that hope is nearly worn out.

Please note that Janov has not published a single article at PubMed, where you can find half million articles about Psychology.

How then can you explain the citation edited into the article by you yourself Primal therapy#Reports_on_Primal_Therapy_in_peer-reviewed_journals? Maybe you have been losing as much sleep as I have. We could still declare a truce.

-- GrahameKing 07:34, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have misgivings uploading those images of the article, because there is a thing called copyright. Moreover, those scans will survive only a week or two in Wikipedia, because I would not be able to honestly assign them a copyright status acceptable for Wikipedia. For this reason, I prefer to upload once the RfC is moving on, because there will be a small "time window" to check the scans. I was extra careful typing the text for this reference, if you want to know the truth.

We had no edit war at all: You deleted two weeks of discussion from the talk page and I restored the discussion once an administrator said that restoring it was the proper thing to do.

The articles I linked are about Janov, not by Janov. Janov is not the author of a single article listed at PubMed.

I did not lose a femtosecond of sleep on this issue, and I suggest you to do the same as me.Randroide 17:18, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Taking your points one by one in your sequence:

You may be right about the copyright issue - I will have to look into that. That being the case, were you trying to taunt me into a breach of copyright? And can't copyrighted material be saved somewhere in Wikipedia where it is not actually being republished?

A series of reverts by two editors is usually referred to as an edit war - I'm open to other terminology.

There seems to have been some miscommunication between you and Proto, which I would suggest should be addressed between the two of you. My take on the sequence I referred to as an edit war including my own very personal reactions and motivations were stated in detail with clear diff references above in my reply to Proto. If you read that with care you will see that, among other things, the blanked section was from my talk page not an article talk page.

The Arthur Janov article is a genuine mystery. I see it and you don't. On my computer it's at the bottom of the list of peer-reviewed articles and comes up on medline like this:

1: J Psychosom Res. 1977;21(4):333-9. Links

Towards a new consciousness.Janov A.

PMID: 592223 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

If our computers are truly giving different views of things, I take back my banter about loss of sleep. Maybe you should get your computer checked. Or if I am the only one seeing this I should get mine checked. Does anyone else see this?

--GrahameKing 19:20, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Randroid, in all ernestness, is your computer secure? Could someone else be using your account (password security)? This is very important.

-- GrahameKing 19:43, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Truce Proposal

Randroid, I propose that we agree to a truce on the following terms:

All of the Conocer article content, referred to in your RfC, is to be removed from the Primal Therapy talk page[4] while we work towards a consensus about how to address the whole issue of whether and under what conditions it will be included in the Primal Therapy article or the Arthur Janov article with whatever help either of us may require.

I will revert your last changes to the Primal Therapy talk page and place a warning on your talk page. You gave me two weeks before. I will give you all the time you want. If you again post that content from Conocer, that has been the subject of this edit war between us and has been commented on by user:Cgingold and by the translator user:seejyb with not one comment so far weighing in on your side of the discussion, that will signify that you reject the concept of working toward a NPOV consensus or compromise postion on this issue and I will be justified in moving on past all of the low level dispute resolution options onto administrator intervention and arbitration. -- GrahameKing 13:12, 3 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference translation.

Hi, See the Primal Therapy talk page. I believe the reference itself is suspiciously speculative, making assertions which are not backed by sources. This includes the apparently speculated reasons for starting the Paris clinic, and the reasons (apart from the letter) for taking time out. NB The article does not specify who wrote that letter about needing to "live my own life". It says " a letter from the master (teacher)" which I have translated as therapist. I may not have made this clear in my comments. --Seejyb 10:46, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please revert this...

[5]

I do not want you to be blocked, GrahameKing, so, please, revert this destructive edit of yours. You have been warned previously by and administrator about this kind of behaviour [6]. Randroide 12:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I may be blocked either way. That is for others to decide. --GrahameKing 23:01, 5 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

User:GrahameKing/primaltherapyHistory

The "/" should be before the "U" of "User". That way the software makes the page a subpage of your own User talk.

Like this:

/primaltherapyHistory

Typing the aforementioned red link and pasting there the contents will create automatically "User:GrahameKing/primaltherapyHistory".

OTOH, if you try to create by hand a page named User:GrahameKing/primaltherapyHistory, it is a candidate for inmediate deletion, because it is a page with an "illegal" name.

Sorry, but I had to report your deletion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GrahameKing_did_it.2C_again.Randroide 09:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of text

Grahame - this edit is not acceptable. Removal of other's good faith contributions to Wikipedia talk pages is very much against what Wikipedia is intended to be. You have already been asked, nicely, not to do this. Remove huge swathes of text from talk pages again (however good you feel your reason to be), and I will block you from editing Wikipedia. If there is something you feel should not be there, please bring it up for administrator attention at the administrator's noticeboard. Proto::► 09:55, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

RfC. Your attention, please

Talk:Primal_therapy#Back_to_square_one

Please fill your "against" allegations, and move on.

Such action forbids you not from following Proto´s piece of advice about asking for the removal of any content from the Talk:Page, you know, the administrator's noticeboard. You can do both things, GrahameKing. Randroide 18:06, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is vandalism, sir

[7]

Please, do not do that again: Only admins can block users, and that´s after a string of previous warnings. Once the (alleged) offender "gains" his/her final warning, an admin should check if the warnings are appropiate and, if they are, block the user.

Your incorrect tagging (and the deletion reported below this section) has been reported at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#GrahameKing.2C_again_.28previous_incidents_attended_by_Proto.29.

In case you failed to notice: Proto is an admin (I am not), and he (not me) restored the "Conocer" stuff [8].

Plase feel free to ask me any question about how Wikipedia works.

Randroide 09:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of content

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [9]

Randroide 08:55, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going out of hand, Grahame King

Please stop linked behaviour.

Regarding User_talk:GrahameKing#Truce_Proposal, I say yes (leaving the TalkPage as it is now, after your deletions [10] [11]), if there is no Wikipolicy barring that option and if you collaborate on the RfC.

I do not want to put too much pressure on you, GrahameKing. Really: Despite our disagreements, I appreciate your valuable previous contributions to Primal Therapy. If the text deleted by you is such a grave cause of concern for you, I have no problem waiting for the RfC with the text deleted. But, please, you must present your case for the RfC.

Randroide 18:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply- Even if the so-called RfC was correctly made and registered (which it was not) there would be no compulsion for me to respond to it. Because it was it unregistered, it could not possibly elicit any comments from anyone who was not actively watching the talk page and therefore in a postion to comment anyway if they were so inclined.

Specifically, you omitted steps 2 and 3 in the instructions.

--GrahameKing 21:50, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any way, there is no longer any need for resolution of this particular dispute since I removed the potentially libellous content (with surgeon-like precision), reported to Administration what you had done and notified Arthur Janov by mail of his rights (of editing Wikipedia) and methods by which he could edit Wikipedia pages to remove or correct any defamatory material coming up on Google searches in future.

--GrahameKing 22:05, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

Hi Grahame. You know, HELL is in HELLo. But not always and in every case. Unfortunately isn t my broken English adequate enough to write some clever commentaries on the Primal Therapy talk page. On the other hand I think that I don t have to follow Randroides thoughts. But, anyway, it get s on my nerves ... a girl I know, which was going over there through the Primal Therapy in 2005, wrotes me a saying of her therapist: Anyway You can run, but You never can hide. Just go with the flow ... ff JaHn 19:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion of sourced material

Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia. It may be considered vandalism. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. Thank you. [12] Randroide 09:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]