User talk:Jayseer

Welcome to Wikipedia

Welcome!

Hello, Jayseer, 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:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! -- Scarpy (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AA

The changes and reverts you've made to the AA article would better be discussed after checking with the talk archives for relevant discussions, of which there is much to look at. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have you had a chance to read this? The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:18, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your recent edits

Hello. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you must sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. You may also click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you. --SineBot (talk) 02:35, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AA

Since I restored your Johnson info, I'm at a loss as to why you declared war, except to note that I accidently saved my edit before I could note that as suspicious as Johnson's positions are, he should be included. Also Wiki etiquette asks for edit summaries to not be used to abuse editors. Other editors using IP's, and not using edit summaries to explain edits, have reverted your edits, but consensus seems to supported and welcomed your contributions. If you were to assume that your edits are regarded as good faith edits, you would find dialog with others more productive. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:31, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

As much as I don't care for Dr Johnson's views/opinions, they are notable enough for inclusion. There's no need to make defense of his bona fides, these are not in dispute. What might be helpful would be if you could remove what you have on him in the article, and propose what you would like to say about him on the talk page, and include citations when possible. That would allow for a consensus to form. I'd also like to suggest not making any more pointed comments towards other editors, and if you could take notice, other editors have so far been very patient, and have not made personal comments towards you. I presume you are new to Wiki, but I'm certain we all think you would like to make constructive contributions. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 09:10, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3RR warning

I am reporting you for making four reverts within 24 hours.

1st revert: [1]
2nd revert: [2]
3rd revert: [[3]
4th revert: [4]

This may result in a block on your account. Unfortunately, requests to have the Dr Johnson info discussed on the Talk page to generate consensus and avoid edit warring have not been taken up. Again, I believe Dr Johnson is eminent enough to warrant inclusion, but there is enough controversy surrounding his views and benefactors to make discussion and preferable. As far as Sock puppetry, if you are not blocked from editing, this is a moot point, but expressed suspicions of sock puppetry, are not uncivil per se. It's the continued use of edit summaries to make pointed comments towards another editor that can make them so. I see that Mr Miles has also been uncivil in this regard, but nonetheless his actions are no excuse to behave poorly towards others. Again, I suggest using the talk page to settle differences and gain consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:08, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

December 2010

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 24 hours for your disruption caused by edit warring by violation of the three-revert rule at Alcoholics Anonymous. During a dispute, you should first try to discuss controversial changes and seek consensus. If that proves unsuccessful you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 00:19, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are suspected of sockpuppetry, which means that someone suspects you of using multiple Wikipedia accounts for prohibited purposes. Please make yourself familiar with the notes for the suspect, then respond to the evidence at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/MisterAlbert. Thank you. Mr Miles (talk) 00:54, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Concerning Issues of Abuse

Re your message: My editing of Alcoholics Anonymous was only in passing to remove vandalism. I do not have very much interest in editing the article nor am I knowledgeable about the particulars of the issue, so I can not be of much assistance to settling the issue. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has left you instructions above in multiple messages on what you should do to settle the issue. Additionally, please review the Dispute Resolution policy. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:08, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to stick with one account (this one). Also, if you carry on with disruption, edit warring or socking, this one will be blocked, too. As to article content, you can't use articles as soapboxes for your own outlooks, however true or not those outlooks may be. If you can't find reliable sources to back up your edits, don't make them. Articles on Wikipedia are built from published sources, so it's ok to bring published criticism to highly notable topics such as AA. Use the talk page, don't edit war. Rather, spend some time looking for verifiable sources you can cite and which other editors and readers can check for themselves, with no further input from you. Gwen Gale (talk) 09:30, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

AA dispute

If you have RSs challenging sources, please discuss them on the Talk page of AA. If you could, as Gwen Gale suggests, do so succinctly to allow to editors to verify your citations and better rate your arguments, that would be helpful. At this point, running to other editors and admins has the appearance of evasiveness and a reluctance to discuss the issues. In Wiki parlance, this is called running to the other parent. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I am to become a reliable editor , I want to make sure my refences are valid and comply with wiki policy. In order to do that I want to learn from the best. I want to stick with the winners who have gleaned recognition, and have earned the respect of others.Jayseer (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia articles have editors, and so far you have not engaged them since coming off your block for edit warring. If you find them inferior, and treat them as such, it's unlikely that your desire to contribute will be effective. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 02:03, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Miles/AKA anonymous, I have seen the state of the page when I arrrived, the hyper link from the Alcoholics Anonymous page to the History of Alooholics Anonymous missing and had been for some time, the brief history on the AA page misleading because it had ommitted significant evernts, the Cochrane review study deleted off the effectiveness of AA page and had been for months, People are citing statistical information from some very questionable sources. I want to improve my skills and do so I want to consult the winners, those who are the best. I will search out a number of good editors , I will consult them and in the coarse of times will be able to fly on my own. Jayseer (talk) 02:52, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 02:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No one is telling you whom to consult. A suggestion: before adding to the AA article, try sounding out other editors on the Talk page. Without trying to rub it in, your edit warring block was due in no small part to ignoring repeated requests for you to do so. I would have supported fairly mentioning Dr Johnson's views, but you took no advantage of the offer. Again, your contributions are welcome, but a superior and embattled attitude will not work well, regardless of how entitled you may feel, and the sooner it is dropped, the more you can contribute. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2010 (UTC)02:58, 6 December 2010 (UTC) is[reply]

Mr. Miles/aka anonymous, I believe a good editor would have looked at a source determined if it met wiki criteria and would have helped with the wording and how to present the information. I did go to the talk pages, I presented the source and the qualifications of the source and you countered with another source, when I went out and did more research and I discovered that Stanton Peele had taken up issue with the source for misinpertation of valid research. That goes to the issue of how reliable is the your source. I have never met you and your insults to my character I am going to let pass, this is a wiki

I hope you know that I'm am not a sock puppet for Mr Miles, and would extend to the benefit of the doubt to grant that no offense was intended. I'm very interested on what you have to contribute. Wiki relies on consensus and comity. There is a dispute process, but it requires dialog between editors as a first resort. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 04:16, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You appear to be following me around this website making it your business to be in my business. I FEEL LIKE I HAVE A STALKER.Jayseer (talk) 17:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

since you have been advising me on consensus and comity

You have posted this very recently , in fact while we were having this very discussioon , so is this what you call consensus and comity. I have given a RS, you say you want to include him, yet you don't.

Unless there is a RS to counter the validity of the Triennial Surveys, there really should be no discussion of the analysis of AA's data. This talk page is not a forum to argue about AA. or editor's opinions of AA's data unsupported by RSs. Also note that a valid self-published source is used. I've seen editors summarily dismiss any self-published source, and in this case, that would be a mistake. Finally, The talk page is the place for further discussion, not edit summaries via a revert war. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)A

There is an RS that has been exculded Johnson, why not in fairness put him in. You said you wanted to , Why not?

Archer and Deluca
Peele's self-published criticism of Archer and Deluca is vague, general, incomplete and seemingly out-of-context. Just what are the "honest differences", and how have the Rand researchers "called out [Archer] for fudging research data"? Peele is mute on the particulars. If we had reliable and relevant sources, they would be welcomed.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

This is what you call consensus and comidity??????

What makes Archer Valid self published and Peele not??????? Jayseer (talk) 10:56, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The AA talk page is the place for AA issues. I'm interested to see what you propose the article say about Johnson using RSs. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:59, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WIKI EDITING GUIDELINES

The key thing about appropriate edits to Wikipedia articles is this: If you or I have an opinion, it's irrelevant. If a public figure has publicly expressed an opinion, and if there is reason to believe that his job title indicates some expertise, then it is appropriate to say in the Wikipedia article that "so-and-so [give job title] has asserted [give citation] that such-and-such is true". If there has been a public disagreement between two people who could reasonably be said to have some expertise, then the Wikipedia article should fairly state the arguments of each. Also, if the public figure has anything that anyone might consider a conflict of interest, the Wikipedia article should clearly state that (without claiming that the person should or should not be trusted). For example, if one person in the public debate is a paid consultant to pharmaceutical companies, that should be mentioned in passing, since some readers might consider that he has a financial interest in pharmaceutical treatments rather than AA-type treatments. Similarly, if a public figure is affiliated with AA, that fact should be mentioned, because some readers might think that makes the person biased in favor of AA techniques. The key thing is to give the reader all the information he needs to form his own judgments, without Wikipedia expressing any opinion of its own. Duoduoduo (talk) 01:50, 6 December 2010 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Duoduoduo" 174.7.111.158 (talk) 10:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC) 174.7.111.158 (talk) 10:34, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous"

Jayseer (talk) 10:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard

You shouldn't be quoting other editors out of context by copy-pasting text. Rather, if you want to show editors what others have said or done here (as I've told you before), you should learn to use diffs. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

Many times it has been suggested by myself and at least one admin that you should use the talk page to discuss edits. Your recent deletions of cited text here, here and here effectively disregard that advice. Furthermore, as is clearly stated at the top of the reliable sources noticeboard that "answers are not official policy. This is not the place for content disputes which should be directed to the article talk page. It is a place to solicit "second opinons" which are non-binding. Again, it has been strongly suggested as part of your conditional return to Wiki as a fresh start account, talk pages should be the first resort to discuss edits, but it seems in all cases of substantial edits to have been ignored advice.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 22:48, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The edit was made to remove material that was deemed not a reliable source , it is not a self published article it is pdf file created by three unnamed authors and posted on a web site. I recieved a third opinion from the Wikis reliable source notifactiion board... who clearly stated it was could not be used as a reliable source. Jayseer (talk) 02:58, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're on the very edge of WP:3rr, which is blockable. You can't edit war over good faith edits. You've gotten some input from WP:RSN (a helpful start), but they don't make "rulings" or "deem" anything, they give input and as with any other talk page, this can sway content only through consensus. Have you thought about, rather than trying to take sources you don't like out of the article, finding more sources you do like and citing them? If that source is truly weak and wrong, one would think there would be other sources which might easily trump it. Gwen Gale (talk) 08:15, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Alcoholics Anonymous

Note ongoing dispute aka anonymous and scarpy:

blocked again for edit warring

This was your fourth revert on that article in about a day. You've already been warned more than enough about this. You cannot edit here by reverting back and forth. It harms the project. It will not get you what you want. If, when this block is up, you edit war again, the next block will be longer. Keep in mind, WP:3rr does not mean you "get" 3 reverts/article/day. You can be blocked for only one revert in a day, if you have been edit warring through a span of days. Please stop edit warring. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:30, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 31 hours for edit warring. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding the text {{unblock|reason=Your reason here ~~~~}} below this notice, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. Gwen Gale (talk) 04:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Talk Page

Again, as Gwen Gales has advised at least once, use talk pages before making significant edits. For Don Mcintyre, and earlier editor presented opposite findings from that source on the AA page, please detail in Talk Page how Mcintyre misinterpreted a univariate frequency distribution and refer to earlier talk page discussions that have gone over the matter, rather than act is if they never existed and can't be important. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 21:25, 24 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]