Welcome

Hello, Rick DeLong, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

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 username 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.

If you are interested in Ukraine-related themes, you may want to check out the Ukraine Portal, particularly the Portal:Ukraine/New article announcements and Portal:Ukraine/Ukraine-related Wikipedia notice board. The New article announcements board is probably the most important and the most attended one. Please don't forget to announce there the new articles you create. Adding both boards to your watchlist is probably a good idea.

Finally, in case you are interested, similar boards exist at Russia portal as many editors contribute to topics related to both countries. The respective boards there are: Portal:Russia/New article announcements and Portal:Russia/Russia-related Wikipedia notice board. Of course there are also many other portals at Wikipedia or you may just get right into editing.

Again, welcome!--Riurik^(discuss) 06:17, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Socionics mediation project

Request for informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics.

Named parties to the mediation are:

I am offering my services as an impartial mediator for this issue. Discussion regarding the raised matter can take place at the Mediation link above.

Informal mediation is non-binding and seeks to find consensus. Although I am an administrator I do not exercise any of my administrative rights while conducting mediation. If any parties find me unacceptable as a mediator, please advise and I will attempt to find a replacement.

Manning (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have withdrawn from participation in mediation due to lack of time and interest. --Rick DeLong (talk) 21:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

However, I have reworked parts of the actual socionics article -- a vastly more straightforward task than debating with McNew. --Rick DeLong (talk) 09:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Boukalov

Do you think he can be persuaded to retroactively remove the esoterism articles from the institute journal's record? Tcaudilllg (talk) 15:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's important. Those are speculative articles that are not cited by other works (see my sources on the Socionics:Talk page). Nobody cares about them, and they are not foundational for socionics. --Rick DeLong (talk) 19:54, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know, you could reinstate me on Wikisocion. I won't touch the main article pages; I just need to rearrange my own article namespace. If you like, just reinstate my ability to edit my own pages. Also the link to the progressive socionics forums needs updating. The new address is www.progressivesocionics.co.cc. Tcaudilllg (talk) 16:56, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How about this: seeing that that woman with a PhD. is trying to start her own insanity movement at socionic's expense, wouldn't it make sense for the Institute to put out an opinion on the "esoteric foundations" question? I'll write more about this in an message to your site. Tcaudilllg (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Statement of consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Statement_of_consensus

By posting to this list, you concur with the proposed consensus that socionics sources, in relation to esoteric sources or not, may be freely placed in the article so long as they meet wikipedias standards for verifiable sources. You also agree to never inappropiatelly remove portions of the socionics article that are supported by noteworthy sources, and for insufficent reasons.

Agree to consensus:

1. Rmcnew -- --Rmcnew (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree to consensus:

1. XXXXXX

As per WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY, origional reasearch and portions of the article may be removed when there are no viable sources backing the material. Any content of any sort concerning socionics may be admitted into the article taken that there are reliable and verifiable sources to that effect, regardless of viewpoint of the editors, and according to official wikipedia policy. Editors should not remove content that is supported by sources worthy of wikipedias standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [edited because the consensus agree as first written here by tcaudilllig is against wikipedia policy][reply]

McNew at Arbitration

If you want to see him blocked, this may be your best opportunity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case#Tcaudilllg Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:14, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would have helped if you'd signed on. But it was your choice.

Let me lay out the facts as I see them: Rmcnew is going to get his way. At least for a while. Give it a few months, and newcomers will find the article and take him on. When that happens, I think we should signal our support. But we don't have enough people now... it is, in fact, two-on-two. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:45, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I agree with your statement that "Hypothesized relationships to esoterism should receive only a brief mention in the article (no more than two short sentences), and be followed immediately after by the International Socionics Institute's position that there is no relationship between esoterism and Model A," as long as the sources are reliable. I also think that the things in the list Rick DeLong mentions (socionics and cybernetics, socionics and schizophrenia, socionics and alcoholism...) should also have a place in the article, again, as long as the sources are reliable. I'm also for claims of protoscience/pseudoscience by PhDs, but these should be in a criticism section, and any specific statements defending against these claims by PhDs should follow. In the end, however, the official position should have MUCH more weight than everything else.

I support policy above all. And, tbh, our answers are very similar, even Rmcnew's. MichaelExe (talk) 19:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, who would write about the hypothesized relationships to esoterism? If McNew does it, you'll get an entirely incoherent text such as this (his authorship) that is full of unfounded suppositions, personal opinions, and bias. The only thing I can think of to say about the subject in a Wikipedia article would go along these lines (my original text):

"Numerous socionists in the Russian-speaking world have demonstrated an interest in nonacademic fields such as ___ (I don't even know what these 'fields' are called). For instance, X suggests a relationship between the socionic functions and chakras, Y suggests blah blah blah, etc."

As you can probably see from discussion thus far, McNew is not content to view some socionists' speculative forays into religion and mysticism as being their private opinion, but rather wants to paint the entire field as deriving from mysticism (using the most foggy language imaginable). This is untrue, but I have tired of proving it. Perhaps Dmitri Lytov (active at Wikipedia) can be enlisted in the discussion if McNew persists in promoting socionics as closely related to mysticism. --Rick DeLong (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mediation Answers

"Do NOT mention another editor in your answer for ANY reason. Focus solely on the content and how best to structure it. Don't try and cheat by using non-specific references like "certain editors have said" either. (Anyone who breaches rule this will get their entire statement deleted by any other party, without notice or debate.)"

" Do NOT respond to anyone else's statement for ANY reason. Debate will come later. Anyone who breaches rule this will have their entire comment deleted by any other party without notice or debate. "

MichaelExe (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for not reading the instructions. I have never been involved in a mediation case before. I moved my comments to another section. --Rick DeLong (talk) 20:50, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on mediation

From an editor's perspective and as one who is closely acquainted with socionics and the Russian speaking socionics community, the shortcomings of the socionics article are very obvious and easily remedied. Therefore, instead of wasting my time arguing with McNew, I have simply undertaken to improve the article itself by improving accuracy of information as conveyed by external sources. --Rick DeLong (talk) 09:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Policy proposal

I've presented a proposal to make your approach to esoteric content in the socionics article policy. As it is, Arbcom says they can't do anything about McNew and esoterism because 1) they cannot rule on content, and 2) he is not intentionally vandalizing the article because he sincerely believes in the rightness of his cause. (see Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop). With a policy, however, we wouldn't have to do anything: one mention of socionics as esoterism and an admin would block him outright.

The proposal is here: User talk:Tcaudilllg/Esoterism in Academics Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:48, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at the Socionics article occasionally and try to correct problems. I am convinced that simply checking editors' questionable claims and the actual content of external sources cited is enough to resolve the problems that have arisen. If you want to establish a policy, that's fine with me, but that's not my business. --Rick DeLong (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arb Case

Hi, as you are no doubt aware, the dispute over Socionics which you were involved in the mediation for has been accepted as an arb case. I invite you to read through the material that's been posted so far and contribute on the evidence page if you have anything you would like to add. Regards, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 13:37, 17 October 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks, but I don't want to participate in arbitration. I am only interested in the actual content of the Socionics article. --Rick DeLong (talk) 14:55, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]