User talk:Scriblerian1

Talk:Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory

Hello, Scriblerian1, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially your edits to Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few links to pages you might find helpful:

You may also want to take the Wikipedia Adventure, an interactive tour that will help you learn the basics of editing Wikipedia. You can visit The Teahouse to ask questions or seek help.

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing 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 for help on your talk page, and a volunteer should respond shortly. Again, welcome! User:HopsonRoad 03:04, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Source Discussion

Hello. In the future, you might want to avoid inserting a new comment in the middle of an older discussion, as you did at Talk:White privilege#Critique- -white privilege as white guilt etc, especially if you expect people to respond. Sometimes it's appropriate, but in this case it's likely to be overlooked, or to cause confusions, since you're responding to something from weeks ago and there have been multiple comments since then. The moment for interjection has completely passed. If you want to revive this discussion, either post at the bottom, or start a new topic, but before you do that...

That talk page has 11 pages of archives. That issue is not a new one, and if others seem brusque or cryptic, it's because all of the other editors posting to that section have already participated in multiple discussions about that issue. This is a rehash of an older argument. An RFC was filed which was quite lengthy, and had over a dozen participants, and noticeboards and other talk pages got dragged into it, also. Again, if you want to discuss this, post at the bottom of the section, or start a new topic, but please read through the past discussions, first. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 08:48, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I appreciate the swift response. I see that there is indeed an even more extensive history at play here then I initially thought. I saw the immediate discussion I made my inquiry on dated to earlier this same month; I surmised (mistakenly, apparently) that this was recent enough to still be relevant. I interjected here because it was the section relevant to the subject I was asking about. In the future, if only for clarity's sake, I will be sure to make a new section. I note that you have reverted the revert I reverted (say that three times fast!)- I thought the revert was unjustified because the stated rationale in the edit summary was a quotation that didn't appear to back the justification. I'd be happy to discuss that in detail. As for the RfC, I have/had no role in that. Thanks! Scriblerian1 (talk) 10:50, 21 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scriblerian1 I found your addition interesting and valid as a reliable source. Although the concept of a critique section has been rejected, it is absurd to suggest that no critique can be included on this page. I would encourage you to take part in ongoing debates on the talk page and add critique you think can be supported by wikipedias policy on reliable source. Keith Johnston (talk) 11:16, 18 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]