User talk:Yesimhuman

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Yesimhuman, 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! VQuakr (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ken Zaretzky

I saw your comment in the Ken Zaretzky AfD. I suggest you read WP:SPA. The tag is placed for a number of reasons. Perhaps you missed the reason the tag is used is to provide a bit of leeway when dealing with low count editors such as yourself. I suggest you remove your comment on the AfD page, it really does your cause no good. Also, I suggest you read WP:AGF. I have reviewed the comments in the AfD and I find nothing that would suggest any form of prejudgment of the article.

If you feel an editor has acted in bad faith, I suggest you contact the editor directly and not in an AfD forum. No one has any reason to delete the article except that the article fails to meet the criteria in WP:BIO. All are editors with relatively high edit counts. ttonyb (talk) 21:50, 4 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it. But I meant it Tony. Everytime someone says anything positive about that article (and I do not believe you have read the ADDitude Magazine articles, the Television show clip or the pages on the ACO or PAAC websites which refer to him as a founder and all have been cited (I know this because I added a few of them) you are there immediatly to invalidate a reference you haven't even read. or a vidfeo you haven't seen. Ken Zaretzky is a GIANT in our field and everything that has been referenced DOES say that. Why don't you just take a look instead of talking about how un-notable the most notable ADHD Coach in the world is. By judging without reading (listening) you really are offending an entire profession. The buzz is already out that we are having trouble getting him into wikipedia. I don't mean that as a threat but it really isn't making wikipedia look very good right now. Please, save us all a lot of grief are READ the referenced articles, web pages and watch the TV show. Then say whether or not he is notable please.Yesimhuman (talk)

First of all, thanks for updating the AfD. I have read the articles you have provided and a number more. Before I nominated the article, I searched for references to support the article and was unable to find suitable ones.

Part of the reason for confusion may be the term notability. You refer to the individual as a "GIANT in our field" and that I am "offending an entire profession". This denotes some amount of ownership in the article and a lack of understanding that there is a wide difference between "real-world" notability and Wikipedia based notability. Wikipedia based notability is the basis for inclusion. Additionally, "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—whether readers can check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether editors think it is true."

Wikipedia notability has certain criteria that needs to be met in order to establish that notability. In addition, the sources have to meet the criteria in reliable sources. The sources you have provided are not "non-trivial". As you can see there are other experienced editors that agree with that observation. (These experienced editors have in the range of 5000 edits each.) Please note the purpose for the criteria is to help insure the quality of Wikipedia, not to exclude articles.

I am note sure why you would mention that there is a buzz, but a couple of comments about that. It may well be that the article survives the AfD. I have no interest if it does or not, nor do I have a final say. The decision is one that is made by an impartial Admin. Wikipedia will survive the experience simply because there are checks and balances to insure the lack of bias in the AfD process. Secondly, if, as a result of the "buzz", there is an attempt to stack the "!votes", there are processes to remove that bias as well. My best to you. ttonyb (talk) 00:01, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Tony, there is no attempt to stack anything. Many of the original references and citings are different now .I really would like you to read the specific pages on the ACO and PAAC websites that are cited now. Additionally I would like you to read BOTH ADDitude Magazine articles that are cited now (ADDitude is a major circulation magazine [available on newsstands and at book stores] specifically dealing with ADHD) and watch the video that is there as a reference. It is part of an answers TV program that has been on PBS Stations all over the country for several years. Would you do that for me please? I think it may give you a different outlook. There were not referenced in the original article. I added them when I heard that the article on Ken Zaretzky was meeting with "resistance". If you don't see those as convincing could you please help me put together an article that will pass muster? Ken Zaretzky is one of the true pioneers in our field and is absolutely dominant in it.

Of over 15000 credentialed coaches in the world only about 600 hold the MCC credential and only about 6 of them are ADHD Coaches. He really did found or co-found both organizations in our field and has quite literally saved/changed/influenced thousands of peoples lives. I would say he belongs in wikipedia at least as much as the oldest woman to have a facebook account.Yesimhuman (talk) 06:34, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, I have read the articles and seen the media. Unfortunately the article still lacks sufficient secondary sources to support the article. To quote WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based mainly on reliable secondary sources." Since I have looked and not found any, the only help I can provide is that the article needs more secondary sources. Unfortunately, being a giant in one's field or being a pioneer is not in the criteria for inclusion unless it can be supported by secondary sources. ttonyb (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So are you saying we have to get a few more newspaper reporters or Magazines to write articles about him? That shouldn't be hard to do.Yesimhuman (talk) 04:18, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, what I said was, "the article still lacks sufficient secondary sources to support the article." ttonyb (talk) 04:25, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ken Zaretzky

I have reinstated the SPA tags to the AfD. Please do not remove them again. ttonyb (talk) 22:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As long as nothing I post is altered or removed. I was under the impression that wikipedians were free to edit at will. I guess that is just those of us who aren't new and like to pretend we have power. Tony, the longer I spend here the more i find it all to be a crock. How does one get in touch with an administrator Yesimhuman (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We are all invited to edit, but as in all communities there are rules that need to be followed. I encourage you to read articles referenced in the Welcome message on this page.

You can contact any admin via their talk page or via E-mail. If you feel you are being treated unfairly, you may want to look at WP:ANI, in particular, the section entitled "Are you in the right place?" ttonyb (talk) 02:53, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

So lets see if I get it. You can edit and if I do You'll edit that. but if you change something I write that's okay but if I change something you write that's not okay. "Experienced wikipedians" can put nasty little tags at the end of everything I say (because I'm new and therefor not as good as you) but if I do anything at all with anything at all you write that's a nono. Yeah, I understand. Tony, I've been around the block more than a few times. I know a crock of shite when I see it. I'm in the right place. but a few of you mid-level status freaks really belong where you aren't allowed power at all. I've had real power before. The kind you wish you had. If you didn't want it so badly you wouldn't make such a silly public display of how much you imagine you have. The reason why I kept it was because I never used it. The beauty of power and authority is that it has it's own checks and balances built in. If you use it, you have lost it. YOU sir, may not be in the right place. You could beat up on and push clutz around because she really is to sweet to take it. I'm a different sort of animal all together. What you should have done is made your point and shut up instead of exposing yourself as as self absorbed power-tripper. The discussion would have been as civil as they get. Please have a nice day and savor your momentary illusion of power.Yesimhuman (talk) 03:12, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to see that it appears your frustration has gotten the better of you. If you feel you have been treated unfairly, I encourage you to follow the links I provided above in order to complain about that behavior. I again suggest you read WP:CIVIL and compare your latest comments to that article and try to understand this is a community. ttonyb (talk) 03:23, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you believed it was a community you wouldn't have acted that way Tony. I've seen nasty games before. they just have usually been played better. Yesimhuman (talk) 05:24, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No personal attacks

Please do not attack other editors. Comment on content, not on contributors. Personal attacks damage the community and deter users. Please stay cool and keep this in mind while editing. Thank you. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reply

Whoever you are. I really do appreceate your concern and actually agree with you in principal. On the other hand I have seen posts vandalized (including my own). and believe that the behavoiur of the "experienced wikipedians" on that deletion page has been nothing short of appalling. I'm really just trying to call as much attention to it as I possibly can. I will try to back off to the degree that the "experienced wikipedians" do. If that is completely, then I will back off completely too. I really think it might be time for an impartial administrator to take a look at that article and make a decision because I don't see a consensus happening.

By nature I am a consensus builder, however when attacked I can go "street fighter" very easily. That's what has been happening here. I apologize to you if you found it offensive and as i said, if they back off so will I, right now.

Thank you,

Yesimhuman (talk) 19:01, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NO. You do not get to set conditions to ensure your own good behaviour and there is NO possible justification for personal attacks. 69.181.249.92 (talk) 19:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]