User talk:Nicenjuicy/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

"ADHD"

Thank you, I will contact him. Though if you di as well, it might help.PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 10:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I will be pleased to do so directly Miamomimi (talk) 14:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for Beezy Marsh IoW stuff. Trouble is that Scuro and Abd would discount Einstein if eh suggested ADHD was controversial, and I have (for the moment) withdrawn from this in the hope that AGK, or some other Wikipedia demigod, will intervene. So far, AGK hasn't responded to my lengthy e-mail. Hope your child is better soon. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:25, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou, my son is better and sends his thanks too. I see what you mean about Einstein and you can view my edits on the current article and comments on the talk page and on AGK's talk page. I too must withdraw or face being blocked against the cabal of opposition. Miamomimi (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Sheesh! You might be blocked if you edit war -- and unless you violate WP:3RR, that isn't likely to happen quickly -- but you would never be blocked for inserting some text you prefer unless it was blatant vandalism, which isn't what you or Clockback have been doing. And if you can supply reliable source for what you insert, it might actually stick. Just writing off the top of your head from your impressions, which is what Clockback mostly does, isn't going to cut it. I took out some text about the controversy today. Some of it was *completely* unsourced, some of it had a tangential source about neurodiversity, not establishing most of what was said. Find a source that is reliable, put notable material from it into the article with *minimal* or no interpretation, and you will find it to be easier than you think. One more hint. If you want to get admin intervention, *be brief*. They are phenomenally overworked. Scuro, though, has been telling you correctly about policy, though his interpretations aren't always unbiased. --Abd (talk) 22:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd - I've supported another editor in a perfectly reasonable edit only to have it reversed. I've declared twice that I'm done with trying to edit the article under the present conditions so I can only guess why you stopped by to continue your lengthy advice to me about what edits you will allow. Is 'sheesh' some kind of religious greeting? No matter, thankyou for this advice but I'm aware that I can be blocked for edit warring which is why I'm not doing it. Incidentally, 'just writing off the top of your head' had to be done somewhere along the line and it's what we all do outside the boundaries of copy and paste. Clockback is rather good at it, in fact he's really very good at it which is why he gets paid a shedload of money for doing it. Miamomimi (talk) 02:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Writing of the top of one's head" is appropriate in a few situations. It's common with new articles, and the writing can be quite good. But, as they say, it's not over until the paperwork is done. Wikipedia, in the end, requires sourcing. Now, in a collaborative environment, with multiple editors including some who actually do want a neutral article and understand what neutral means (WP:NPOV, put in some piece of text off the top of your head, and other editors may supply the source needed, *if it exists and it is not too difficult to find.* In this case, sources are difficult to find because of the massive returns one gets from Google, etc. I have tried to do some research on this, and it is quite time-consuming. So what usually happens is that someone with a strong POV puts something in, and, typically, it gets reverted and challenged as unsourced by someone with opposing POV. The first editor is now challenged, effectively, to provide proof. Proof is not "reasoned argument," usually, it is "reliable source." The definitions of reliable source are complex and, one must remember, rule number one on Wikipedia is WP:IAR, an easily-misunderstood policy. It means that no rule can anticipate all situations; it's equivalent to the legal principle of judicial discretion. People who take it to mean "I can do what I want" sometimes find themselves indefinitely blocked. Yes, one can do what one wants, but so can we. So, if I have time, I will take impromptu text and source it. I can do this easily when I'm thoroughly familiar with a field. I'm not so familiar with this field, because I've only been studying it for a year, and mostly it has been "experiential" study, work with therapists and medication trials, etc. I have not been pouring over the literature. But I *do* have time to take a sourced piece of text and check the source and see if it backs up the text. That is the principle of WP:V, and the only problem with it is when sourced text isn't easily available, as is often the case with peer-reviewed articles. I've been known to revert out sourced text until fuller quotations were provided in talk than was in, say, an available abstract -- but, as they say, don't try this at home. Essentially, it calls the bluff of a POV-pusher. Unless they simply edit war -- and being "right" is not a justification for edit warring -- they either drop it or provide more extensive quotation, in response to specific questions. With WP:AGF, we will assume that exact quotations are not lies. And if someone lied, it *would* quite likely be discovered, if what was being quoted, allegedly, was at all fishy. And then, there goes the credibility of that editor, and editing restrictions could follow, such as "1R rule" or "no contentious edits." Abd (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd - I have never advocated unsupported facts or unreferenced claims of medical opinion. However, paraphrasing a conclusion made by a medical study, for example, often requires some original thought. To be concise is a skill. Miamomimi (talk) 20:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks again for continued support. I don't think much of Abd's protestations of helpfulness. Those text-marks in Wikipedia are quite complex for amateurs and he could easily have fixed it. But we are making progress, with others joining in and the entry now a good deal less sure of itself than it was, which was my purpose. I have now decided to stick 'citation needed' marks wherever it wanders into unsupported assertion. PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

You are most welcome. I'm sorry I couldn't help more with the code myself, I tried to find some coding instructions but couldn't at the time (still can't) and had an assignment to complete. I now have another assignment to complete but am pleased that we are making progress. If I can be of any further assistance please pop by. Miamomimi (talk) 14:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Clockback, you can lead a horse to water. Yes, I congratulate you on discovering tags. It's exactly correct to do this, and you are serving the project when you place them. Before, you complained about unsourced material in the article, how come you had to provide sources when there was so much unsourced opinion already in the article? Instead of complaining -- which gets little done here -- you are now acting. If no citation is provided in a reasonable time, anyone can take the text out, and putting it back in without a citation would be considered, quite likely, POV-pushing if there is some POV involved. It *gets it done*. The theory is that if it is true and appropriate for the article (two separate issues), there should be reliable source available, and demanding that something be in the article without reliable source is quite recognizable -- usually -- as POV pushing. As to the text-marks, yes, I could have fixed it quickly if I had seen it. I'm not your proofreader, I was a professional proofreader at one time, and I'm not being paid for it. But I do what comes to my attention. Notice how, fairly consistently, you have assumed bad faith and dereliction of some imagined duty on the part of other editors, and you haven't thanked me once, for I'm a major part of the "others joining in." I'm a mature editor, in more ways than one (I'm older than you), and I'm also pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works with disputed text. *Nobody* is truly a master of it, in my opinion, it's too new and too much in flux. In any case, whether you thank me or not is less my business than it is yours. If you would realize who is helping you and who is not, you might become more effective. You have stated you are not a politician. That's certainly true! Politicians don't turn away help, unless it's from someone truly offensive -- and even then.... Abd (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Abd's behaviour

Abd is not sticking to content on the talk pages, and instead spends far too much time judging other editor's behaviour which is flaming and a form of harassment. If you find that this makes your wiki experience unpleasant you may want to join a complaint that I would file. WP:RFCC. It would require two editors to make the complaint. Otherwise, I can go through a more informal wiki dispute resolution WP:DR. I think a Request for comment/User conduct would stop him from judging us more quickly. Let me know.--scuro (talk) 12:23, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Have answered on your user page. Regards, Miamomimi (talk) 23:27, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

He continues, it's okay if you don't really want to get involved. This process can be a major pain. You can follow what I am doing here. Talk:Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: controversies --scuro (talk) 21:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry you're still having problems Scuro. My reluctance to support a formal procedure is partly due to my not wanting to let you down or agree to something I then can't fully take part in when you need me - I have family commitments and cannot always be online. But if I can help in any way then please let me know. Miamomimi (talk) 11:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

You could simply post a comment on talk about if you believe this behaviour is appropriate here. It would be appreciated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Attention-deficit_hyperactivity_disorder:_controversies#controversies_and_controversy_articles_as_related_to_wiki_guidelines --scuro (talk) 00:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I understand your frustration and anger. Right now I'm simply going to document what he has said in talk to the RAF. That will take up all my time. I'll be pushing him to respond to why he doesn't focus on content. He may not answer or perhaps he will. If he doesn't and things go back to normal on the talk page...we can make the complaint the next time he starts judging us. Who knows, maybe he will learn something from this. I hope you don't mind waiting. --scuro (talk) 03:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

No worries Scuro, thanks for the response. I've come to the conclusion that giving him any attention is unwise; we're like lab rats to him it seems, so I'll just ignore him. Miamomimi (talk) 14:06, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I think the time has finally come to make that complaint. Could I have your input here? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Scuro#Is_it_time_to_make_a_complaint_against_user_Abd_and_user_Ss06470.3F --scuro (talk) 06:28, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Note User:Sifaka changed link location as discussion no longer exists there. Sifaka ^talk 06:53, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

ADHD article response and changes

Thanks for responding quickly I made a list of the edits that I am going to make to the article and am going to go ahead and do them just to get it into the edit history. Tell me what you think. Sifaka ^talk 21:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

OK will do, I've been researching myself and am almost ready to edit, just fine tuning, but ditto. Miamomimi (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I would like to have a private conversation with you regarding the ADHD controversy page. Can you suggest how we can accomplish that --Ss06470 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ss06470, I have commitments that mean I can't give my full attention to Wiki editing just now but I believe Scuro is still involved and Clockback has a public email address through his day job - I've seen it printed in the paper. Regards, Mimi ^(yack) 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Talk archive for ADHD Controversies

Looks like you deleted the information and put a reference to the Archive on the Talk page, but never actually created the archive itself. I took the last version before the removal and moved the same text to Archive1. Should be okay now. --Abd (talk) 14:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thankyou Abd. Your guess is mistaken, however, I did create the archive just fine, well it was fine when I left it! Mimi ^(yack) 20:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)