User talk:122.x.x.x

NLP

Wowsers, you're starting too many discussions on that page. Better to sub-section. GoodDay (talk) 14:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Its hard to keep the discussion focused. That's why I opened a new thread for specific changes. --122.x.x.x (talk) 04:02, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Please wait until a consensus has been reached at talk before proceeding unilaterally re Norcross et al. Continued reversion while the matter is under discussion (it has already incidentally been resolved) may constitute vandalism under the circumstances. ISTB351 (talk) 21:32, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

I'll try reaching consensus but Snowded refuses to discuss any sources - he just makes accusations of sock-puppetry and personal attacks. I made it clear that this single purpose account is anonymous and I want it to stay that way. What makes you think it has "incidentally been resolved"? If you check the research, there are two Norcross polls that included NLP: one that looked at Mental and Behavioural disorders (published in 2006) and one that looks at Drug and Alcohol dependence (published in 2010). See my comments on the discussion page. --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:05, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

From what can be inferred from the talk page the issue appeared to have been resolved. It may not have been. If that is the case, then editors with a greater understanding of the topic than me will address your points. The point is that edit warring will get you nowhere, and may lead to a block. ISTB351 (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Please see the guide for WP:BRD. It it normal for people to engage in a revert and discuss cycle. I have lost faith in a number of editors at that discussion forum. They seem more interested in slurring other editors than working on the article. That is far more disruptive than any of my edits which are based on representing the sources more accurately. I definitely need help here. Can you help me? --122.x.x.x (talk) 22:23, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

It is undeniable that legitimate questions have been asked in good faith about possible sockpuppetry and meatpuppetry that you may be involved in. I cannot help you in that matter, and it will be for another place to resolve. Unilateral reversion is not in keeping with brd. If you are going to make a controversial change, then outline the exact edit you want to make at talk in a new section, and ask for other editors' thoughts. Your suggestions may be rejected in line with WP policy, or they may be accepted. WP works on consensus, not through edit warring. It is however not surprising that other editors may get a little exasperated that the same issues are raised repeatedly at NLP, and there have been numerous unfounded accusations of bad faith against Snowded ^TALK and Lam Kin Keung (talk) for example. You need to stick to the point and not attempt to divert the talk page into general discussion, per WP:NOTAFORUM. ISTB351 (talk) 22:36, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

How do you establish consensus when up against people with an agenda to disparage or promote a topic? WP:BRD has works well in other articles, why not this at NLP? --122.x.x.x (talk) 01:00, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I have approached Snowded myself over the semi-wikibullying he and associates seem to be engaged in. Again, nothing but dismissive attitude. I think its awful what is happening to good faith editors on the NLP article. It also looks likely that such bullying is deterring the broader range of editors from engaging. Its a sad spectacle with only a few good faith editors working to put things straight. Congru (talk) 01:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

You cannot win, can you? You try to ask them about what sources are acceptable then they say you need to propose specific edits. When you propose specific edits, they accuse you of engaging in sock or meatpuppeting or repeating previous suggestions. I'll try but I have not had much luck engaging those editors in reasoned discussion. --122.x.x.x (talk) 02:07, 27 January 2012 (UTC)