User talk:Cesar Tort

Welcome to the Wikipedia!

Hello, and Welcome to the Wikipedia, Cesar Tort! Thanks for the contribution to the Anti-psychiatry article. Here are a few perfunctory tips to hasten your acculturation into the Wikipedia experience:

• Take a look at the Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style.
• When you have time, please peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and Assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always be mindful of striving for NPOV, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any help, post your question at the Help Desk.
• Explore, be bold in editing, and, above all else, have fun!

And some odds and ends: Boilerplate text, Brilliant prose, Cite your sources, Civility, Conflict resolution, How to edit a page, How to write a great article, Pages needing attention, Peer review, Policy Library, Utilities, Verifiability, Village pump, and Wikiquette; also, you can sign your name on any page by typing four tildes: ~~~~.

Best of luck, Kittie Rose, and most importantly, have fun! Ombudsman 04:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Images

Hi, see here and here to see the image. The image that was on your page was Image:MinesweeperMine.png. It's alright, your not in trouble! It's just easier to avoid using copyrighted images. Kilo-Lima|^(talk) 15:25, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Mother Teresa

Why shouldn't I change the sentence I changed if it has a {{fact}} tag? Gazpacho 17:52, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The tag is recent. There was a kind of editorial war on that page. An overzealous editor posted many “fact” tags. You can revert it again but, since there is almost a war, another editor will surely revert your entry. Sorry. Please read the Talk Archives. —Cesar Tort 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Re: your edit (Scientology and psychiatry Talk Page)

At [1], which you read what I had wrote and attempted to modify the page to fulfil what I stated should have been done by the previous editor to whom I was replying. Your edit then did what the editor I replied to should have done. The problem with your having done that, modifying a discussion page by inserting a subheading without contributing to the discussion below the subheading is that the action is not "agreed to by many editors" and is actualy counter to the Wikipedia Guidelines regarding the format of Discussion page disccusions. That wasn't you know, big error, that wasn't, you know, tremendous sin or anything, I'm just pointing out how subsequent reading of an discussion page which, forever after, will include your modification, could confuse and disperse the reader from understanding what is being said on a discussion page and why it is being said. :) Terryeo 23:43, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Tidying talk pages

Hi Cesar. I noticed that you have been erasing your talk page. I just thought i would let you know (before an angry Admin does) that Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines suggests one should not remove text that was added to your talk page without good reason. If you don't want certain correspondance on your page, then by all means archive it, but removing comments made in good faith completely is probably not a good idea. Contrary to popular belief, editor's talk pages are no more "theirs" than any other page on Wikipedia and, as such, the same rules apply about removing the valid contribution of others without their permission. However, should you wish to delete this message after reading it, you have my permission! ;) Rockpocket 20:17, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

I was unaware of that policy. By the way, how did you know what I just did in my user talk page? Is there a way to click on something and automatically revert any previous deletion? I copied and pasted my deletions but wonder if there is a faster way. —Cesar Tort 20:53, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, if you click on the history tab for your talk page you will see a list of all previous versions. It appears the last version that contained all of the correspondance was on 15:51, 5 April 2006. If you click on that date you can view the old version of your talk page. You then simply have to click on the "edit this page" tab. You will notice there is a warning that "You are editing a prior version of this page. If you save it, any changes made since this version will be removed.". Simply "save page" without making any changes and this version will now become the latest version. There are even easier ways of doing this using various Wikipedia:Tools, but you need to install the code first. By the way, the reason i knew you had deleted was because i clicked on the (last) link in the edit history - that shows the difference in the last edit made. Hope that helps. Rockpocket 21:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar, you can also keep track of what's happening on all the WP pages by going to the page for Wikipedia:Recent changes patrol — to help prevent vandalism. This is the place to go if you are interested in keeping spam out of the Wikipedia or in maintaining a professional level of writing in the articles. You probably have used the "My Watchlist" link at the top of your page. Every time you make a change to any page, it automatically gets placed on your watchlist. You can edit that list to eliminate articles that you do not have a continuing interest in monitoring. I only recently regiseterd as a user on the WP. Prior to that I made small edits to remove spam and correct grammar. But I thought that it would be best to have a Log-in name once I decided I wanted to make more substantive contributions. Ande B 20:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

You may want to add an article to this project

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Leifern/Wikiproject_health_controversies

Look for the list of articles that I produced as a page, I forget the name but it is linked from there. Midgley 21:50, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Arbitration request on Biological psychiatry

Cesar, as I explained on the Biological psychiatry talk page, I've filed an arbitration request for the disagreement. Joema 01:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

A rather funny request, since I haven’t touched the Biological psychiatry article since the very first minutes of 17 April 2006 UTC (npov tag). And as can be seen in my latest exchanges with Andre B and Rockpocket in the Talk Page of that article, and Midgley as well (see also my talk page above), lots of previous misunderstandings among us are being ironed out. —Cesar Tort 01:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Cesar as of today (19-Apr-06) Ombudsman was still POV tagging the article. The situation is not ironed out, even if you're momentarily restricting your opposition to the talk page. Nor did you or Ombudsman respond to the request for mediation. I begged and pleaded with you to cooperate. It's now in the hands of the arbitration committee. I have no idea what will happen. They may reject the request, or disallow further edits to the article by anyone or by only certain people. They could even ban editors from Wikipedia. Joema 03:25, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Though I don’t have the faintest idea what arbitration means, I very much doubt I violated a Wikipedia policy (as I said, I have not made any edits to the article for days; only discussed in the Talk Page). —Cesar Tort 05:14, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar, Joema, too. I may be wrong, but I think it's probably preferred form to list all those who are likely to have an interest in the outcome of these disputes. I'm quite willing to take Cesar at his word when he says he will not re-tag the article. Clearly it is Ombudsman who has been refusing attempts at dialog. I don't think any of us like these sorts of bureaucratic processes but at times they are all we have to work with.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing any number of topics with the contributors to the BioPsy article, even though I have raised criticisms. Sometimes I think that some of the problems we have encountered arise from the unusual situation of having several well educated, articulate individuals with somewhat divergent views on how best to handle this one topic. If we were dealing with ignorant or semi-literate contributors I don't think we would have spent so much time trying to get through to one another. And as I learned some time ago, intelligent, educated, articulate people are much more difficult to persuade than those with fewer such credentials. So, let's go through the process that was designed for these disputes and all agree to abide by the resolution, however it turns out. (Not that we will have much choice.) I have great expectations that Cesar will contribute substantially to other topics related to mental health public policies, an area where there is considerable dispute. I just want the Wikipedia to be the most professional production we make it. Who knows, we may find ourselves on the same side of other articles. Ande B 05:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I find it rather incredible that after my following statements in the Talk Page, which I kept, such steps have been taken. —Cesar Tort 05:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC):

"But no: I won’t NPOV tag the article again for the simple reason that you outnumber me... —Cesar Tort 02:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)"

"Don’t worry Joema: I won’t touch the section that Rockpocket will post. —Cesar Tort 00:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)"

Hello Cesar I'm new to Wikipedia and have been following the debate on biopsych. Seems like your arguments haven't been taken seriously by rockpocket and co. Did you quit the field/are you currently in exile? solo999 17:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Didn’t quit; just intimidated. —Cesar Tort 18:06, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Just because you are in a minority, it does not follow that you are wrong. If you feel intimidated discussing the matter on the talk page, yet still believe you are correct in your interpretation on the situation you should make a statement at the ArbCom request. This is a forum where an independent committee of senior administrators will listen to all parties and make a binding decision. No-one should be intimidated into backing away from a matter that they feel strongly about and the ArbCom is not a tool to intimidate. Just because Joema took the case to them, if does not follow that that they would rule in his/"our" favour. So again, if you feel you are correct, you should put forward you case. Rockpocket (talk) 19:05, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Talk:Alice Miller

Please don't modify your comments after they have been replied to. Maikel 19:50, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others

Hello,

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others. Please add evidence to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Johnleemk | Talk 09:34, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Is it not enough with my statement in "Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others"? [2] —Cesar Tort 20:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Cesar, You are not obliged to further respond if you chose not to (though you will be obliged to stick by any decision made, even in the absence of further contribution). You may wish to make a few statements repeating your original assertion on the evidence sub-page with links (as this, not the original statement, is where Arbcom will look for evidence to make decisions). Also, on the workshop subpage there is already a proposition to essentially leave you out of the process, as long as you are willing to agree to continue not POV tagging biological psychiatry and respect the consensus view of the majority of editors. Seeing as you have pretty much already asserted this, and if you have no interest in pushing the issue future, then you may wish to propose that your role in the process be withdrawn from consideration on that basis. This would not mean that you could not continue to contribute to this or any other article. Should you chose to do this, do so on the workshop page. I will support that proposition (and i sure others will to). If you do intend to POV tag that article again (or others in a similar situation) then you should not do that, instead you should probably try and justify your position the best you can. It is entirely up to you to decided how you wish to proceed, i'm not making any suggestions based on how i think ArbCom will rule, just my interpretation of your role. If you need any help on how to navigate the slightly confusing format of these pages, let me know and i can help you say what you want. Rockpocket (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Just when I introduced the many FDA and European warnings in biopsych talk page it seemed I was about to win the round against my many critics. But then the threatening specter of arbitration was used and our discussion abruptly ended. I do not know if what I have in mind is OK for Wiki policy. Since I am in a minority, of course I will keep my word regarding not POV tagging the article again, even if the article is clearly POV today. However, if in the future another editor posts the tag —and believe me: I never use sock-puppetry— and s/he has not the knowledge or intellectual muscle to rebut the majority view, I would like to help him/her in the Talk Page.

As to navigating the format of the pages, Should I state this in the workshop page? Should I paraphrase my statement in my above citation #2 in the evidence page? Will ArbCom see the various editors’ exchanges above in my user talk page (in Arbitration request on Biological psychiatry)? If not, should I copy and paste them for the evidence page? —Cesar Tort 22:09, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I would just paraphrase your initial statement on the evidence page posting links to the diff pages as Joema has done (not cut and pastes, or links to the articles or talk pages themselves). The best way to do it is to boil your statements down to a few key sentences with links supporting each one, making clear what each link supports. I'll make my statements later today. Its pretty clear that Joema wants to widen up the case to consider that fact that both you and Ombudsman appear to dispute the legitamacy of mainstream science as POV, thus its possible that ArbCom may rule on whether or not you will be permitted to assist others in rebutting the majority view in future. Who knows. Rockpocket (talk) 00:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Archived talk page

Cesar,

Your points about the deleted talk page as they are both incorrect and pointless, and a back and forth debate about it is just distracting the purpose of the RfA. For the record, there was no selective archiving. Check the dates. Your apology and my reply were made on 16-17 March 2006 [3]. Following that, Franzio and i had a lengthy discussion, after the end of which i decided to archive my talk page (as the next comments pushed it over the recommended limit for page size).

Thus my archive includes everything up to and including 3 January 2006 – 17 March 2006. The first comment on the current talk page is on 19 March 2006 and contains everything subsequent to that. Thus suggestions that my "deleting/archiving" is selective is therefore groundless. Like every other archive, the break was chosen on date and size only. No refactoring took place and there is no attempt to 'hide' your apology. I suggest, for the sake of statement brevity, you strikethrough those accusations from the RfA before i am required to counter them again with the facts. Patently incorrect claims are not doing your argument much benefit at RfA. Rockpocket (talk) 00:02, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

You started this little war my old friend. —Cesar Tort 08:19, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Goodness. "you started it"? Are we in a schoolyard? This is not "a war", we are simply trying to establish the groundrules for how to move forward from entrenched positions. No-one is trying to change your opinion, Cesar, but it is important that your (mine or anyone elses) opinion not interefere with encyclopaedic content. You made your primary motivations very clear when you first arrived here to edit anti-psychiatry. Now you have "learnt the ropes" a little, you are able to mask your aims with policy and try to erase some of your earlier innapropriate comments (i note you deleted your rants from the anti-psychiatry archive [4][5], quoting Wiki-ettiqute, yet you have never removed any other dispute, not did you obey Wiki-ettiqute that says Archives should not be edited. Si that not selective deletion?. I have no problem with you removing those, however, as i think your were emotional and did not mean to be offensive. However, to then (incorrectly) accuse others of deleting content is incredibly hypocritical!)

However much more Wiki-savvy you have become, it does not change the fact that you clearly have a strong agenda in criticising psychiatry. I didn't want to drag all the anti-psychiatry evidence into the ArbCom, but since you continued to insist on introducing anti-psychiatry POV instead of bowing out when you were offered the opportunity, i felt i had no choice but to demonstrate a history of motivation. I am sorry, as i'm sure it is embarrassing, but its only fair the ArbCom get the whole picture. Rockpocket (talk) 18:37, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

My final word on your accusations will appear in another talk page [6]. —Cesar Tort 18:55, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Noted. Rockpocket (talk) 00:03, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

ArbCom case

Buenas Dias, I have read the whole ArbCom case in which you are mentioned, and I think it is unfortunate that you are on there because I think you are not a problem at/for wikipedia. I have one suggestion, and that is not to try to retroactive justify some actions. At the time of the NPOV tagging, you provided specific reasons, and you can not expect people to know what you are going to add five days later. For that same reason, you can not use those arguments (the ones that you made several days later) in the ArbCom case as a defense for your actions. Personally, I think the best approach in this would be to admit that you did not do a good job explaining it at that time, and appologize for that. I think that that would be sufficient to get you away with just a mild cautioning by the ArbCom on exactly this point, without anything else. I think also that it will be looked upon in a much more favourable way. Everybody makes mistakes, and when people can admit them, and learn from them, others are generally very willing to let it be and move on. Of course, this is just my unsolicited opinion, and 0.02 Eurocents. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Good advice. I'll follow it. However please note that arbitration was requested after I posted the FDA warnings. If we are talking of an apology, I think I deserve it too. —Cesar Tort 06:55, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I know that the arbCom case was filled after your clarified yourself, and I think that they should have left you out of the case. And I can see that the discussions were maybe not up to par, but in general, the discussion at the page seems pretty civil to me (from you and towards you), and addressing the points you raise. I think some of the other people might want to read WP:BITE as it seems more an issue of you being new and some more experienced editors who have dealt a lot with certain type of articles might sometimes forget that, although I also see several times that they mention the appropriate policies etc for you. The response after your second insertion, and the extended critique on the than current version is indeed not always always nice, but I think that you might want to take in consideration that the discussion had been going on already for some days, and that seems to have influenced the responses by some. Having said that, my advise here would be to take a deep breath, let it be as it is, and continue the good work (as you can see, several people have responded quite positive towards you at the ArbCom page) and try not to look back to much. My guess is that the ArbCom case will drag on for some time, but will be mainly focussed on Ombudsman and hardly on you. That will be inconvenient, but ut will pass, and I think that soon after, people will start to forget, especially if they see that you continue to bring the good, well sourced additions to articles. And if you have questions, feel free to bother me with questions, or to ask advise how to respond to certain issues. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 08:17, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent letter in my user page. I’m just curious: shouldn’t part of the ongoing talk in workshop page have already been moved to Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Cesar Tort and Ombudsman vs others/Workshop as Stifle has suggested? [7]. Also, how long you feel this process will take: days? weeks? more than a month? I don’t feel comfortable to edit until it’s all over. —Cesar Tort 22:51, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it probably should, but I would leave that to others. It probanly will take some weeks, and the voting can take another few weeks. My guess is that it will take at least a month. I would not hesitate to edit articles, even the BioPsych article. However, I would be carefull with providing good arguments, and base everything as good as possible with reliable external sources. One way to do it is to take the paragraph or sentence you think needs to be improved, copy and paste it to the talk page, explain in detail why you think that, and make a suggestion on how to change that. I would keep in mind that you are not a native English speaker, and that your interpretation of the text could be slightly different from how natives interpret it (I live in the US, but I run in the same issues as I am not a native English speaker as well). Maybe there is something small and not so contentious that needs attention. Start with something like that. Or if you would prefer that, feel free to ask me first. You can for example write first what you want to say at a subpage (User_talk:Cesar_Tort/discussion), and I can have a look at it and maybe give you some advise on how to word it and such, and after that you can copy and paste it to the talk page of the article. (btw, I have this page on my watchlist, so I see the reply here.) Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 23:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I have written a proposal for my next entry in biopsych talk page as suggested above. —Cesar Tort 13:10, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have a look at it this evening after work, it is quiote long :-)Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 13:25, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I understand that you want to let others write it, but that could easily result in no writing at all.Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 06:41, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I’ll do it after the process is over. And I must thank you again for your good advices. —Cesar Tort 08:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion, if you want to convince the arbcom, use diffs of the things you are arguing. Take the time they filed the request (with diff), take you mentioning of the FDA with time and diff, and so on, this will make it much clearer. Takes more time to do, but solves probably the discussion that now is starting. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 04:05, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For the record, and to head off a raft of claim and counter claim (probably too late, mind) let me make it more clear what i am referring to. I am talking about the first mention of agreement to go to arbitration (the point being: at that time, as far as the other editors were concerned, the situation had already gone past the point of discussion and into considering a formal resolution process). You appear to be referring to the launch of the ArbCom case (or the numerous subsequent requests). Two different things. As Kim van der Linde mentioned above, in a paralegal situation like ArbCom, we all must present the evidence along the timeline as they happened. Even if you were thinking about the FDA information as you tagged the article, it makes little difference unless you mention it at the time. Retrospective justification may make sense to you, but the other editors that did not have access to what you were thinking only saw what you wrote at the time.

To be frank, Cesar, i'm amazed and saddened that this ArbCom has developed in this manner. You were essentially offered the opportunity to be left out of this entire process all you had to do was take the 'newbie' route and accept you were not familiar with policy (which was obviously the case at that time, or else you would not have made those pseudoscience claims). There was even the odd situation of people on the other side of the fence proposing evidence in your defence. However, possibly bolstered by the late realisation that your FDA comments have some support (myself included), you decided to press on with a robust defence. What you (and some others) apparently failed to appreciate is the the FDA assertions are irrelevent in respect to this committee hearing on tagging, as the timeline clearly shows. Please try and consider how other editors interpreted your talk page comments based on their content alone at the time they were written, then you may understand why this was taken to ArbCom in the first place.

I genuinely hope ArbCom does not respond with any sort of ban in editing psychiatry related pages (for anyone), but i feel the more you try to justify a rather unjustifiable position (based on the timeline), the more likely it is that those expressing tolerance, per WP:BITE, on your behalf will change their view - something that no-one really wants. I guess what i'm trying to say is that people will only accept a new user defence for so long and i feel, despite Kim van der Linde's sage advice, you are unwilling to accept the the tagging was simply not justified sufficiently on gthe talk page and hence deserved to be reverted. The sooner this is sorted out, the sooner we can then get back to dealing with the addressing the seperate FDA issue and getting some specifics into the article. Rockpocket (talk) 05:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I don’t want to continue this pointless discussion. I’m only interested in ArbCom decision. —Cesar Tort 07:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

OR?

Hi Kim: I’m writing you here since you say you have this page on your watchlist. I am curious: What is the meaning of “OR”, which I’ve seen more than once in this process? —Cesar Tort 07:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• Original Research. Rockpocket (talk) 08:16, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It means Original Research as Rockpocket already indicated, and wikipedia is not the place to publish that (see WP:NOR). The line between original research and combining research done by others into an encyclopedic article can be very thin.

When the information is not contencious, or basically the general opinion by scholars and professionals in that field, people take that for granted, and often forget to source it adequatly. However, as soon as it gets (or can be) disputed, sourcing of your statements is crucial because people should be able to verify (see WP:V) the statements, and see whether they are reliable sources (see WP:RS).

Outside wikipedia, you can put as much opinion as you like into a webpage, at Wikipedia you can not at all (See WP:ISNOT#Wikipedia is not a soapbox). I saw that you have edited extensively at other places, briging forward your strong opinion about this topic, and this can be a burden when you get into the environment of wikipedia were things are consensus based (see WP:CON). I can see that this can be extremely frustrating (as you have experienced) because the opinion that you elsewhere could promote without objections suddenly get questioned, and your fellow editors require you to back things up in a way you never had to do elsewhere.

Maybe you have followed the Kitzmiller trial on the intelligent design controversy. The proponets of inteligent design normally can write what they want on their blogs etc, but at the trial, they were forced to back up their statements with proof, and they failed misserably. That is one of the reasons they prefer NOT to get into the legal real. At Wikipedia, it works somewhat similar (not that it is a trial) in that you have to back up what you claim. What I suggest is that you take the time to read the policies I linked in here (if you have not done it yet), it might clarify why you have run into the trouble you are in at the moment.

Along the same line, try to get out of the school yard like fights (A: 'you where first', B: 'no you where first', C: 'no it was you who started it', etc.). Things went wrong, you messed up somewhat in your inexperience with wikipedia, though luck. If you did indeed provide the FDA information much later than when you inserted the NPOV tag for the second time, well, that is what you did, and accept that.

The aim of mediationa and arbitration is to keep wikipedia running based on the philosophy of consensus, Neutral point of view (see WP:NPOV), not to punish people. The best way to neutralise the ArbCom case against you is to show the ArbCom that you get the point, and that you are willing to contribute to wikipedia in the spirit of wikipedia. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 15:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Cabbages, Kings and Child Abuse

Hi Cesar Tort, I thought I'd drop by for a little personal chat.

I know one hell of a lot about child abuse myself, and hold a lot of opinions, which is why you won't often find me editing articles on that topic, my opinions, however thoroughly reinforced by experience, don't belong here.

Wikipedia can be hard to get used to at first, because most of the internet seems to be about somebody standing on a soapbox and promoting something, whether a product, an opinion or an idea, without regulation or accountability. Sometimes what they promote is good, sometimes it's downright dangerous, and most times it is every shade in between.

Wikipedia is different, it is just about objectivity, and what lawyers sometimes call "strict proof of evidence" in the form of reputable and verifiable sources. Personally I find that very relaxing because it means leaving all moral dilema outside the door for once, and knowing that, as long as I adhere strictly to policy in my edits, I can count on total strangers to stand over them for me.

It doesn't mean that you cannot do any good. There are plenty of nasty - dangerous agenda that won't stand up to the strict application of Wikipedia Policy any more than they do to your own personal standards, you just have to find them, and when you do the rush of support and validation from the strangest people is a great feeling. --Zeraeph 15:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

What can I add? You already put wiki in a nutshell. Personally I find myself at home with moralist writers like Solzhenitsyn or Orwell. I like the strongest emotions and even fury on paper. Even though I am an atheist I enjoy Jeremiah’s fires... —Cesar Tort 15:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite fond of Solzhenitzyn and Orwell myself. ;o) I reckon you are going to have a GREAT time around here as you settle into the rhythm of things. --Zeraeph 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Trauma articles

Hi Kim. Can you take a look at the strong criticism another editor is doing to the article I just created?, Ross Institute for Psychological Trauma. You are a naturalist. If I understand natural selection correctly, the phrase “young mammals must attach” is not a fringe one. —Cesar Tort 01:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I, as a naturalist, would not dare to make such a sweeping statement. It is much more complex than just that simple statement. Some mammals easily attach to artificial things, as long as it give it what it needs, milk and such depending on the needs of young of that species. Chicks are perfectly happy with a robot as a mother. That is attachment at the level of primary needs, or maybe better called dependence. The statement you try to make is at the attachment at the emotional level, which actually is more difficult to determine in animals, but some evidence suggest that in apes and monkeys at least this MIGHT be true (I would need to digb into the literature to see what the current status on this is within the behavioural studies). Beyond that, I think nobody really knows.

This is I think a perfect example of what I tried to tell above. This is a statement that needs a verifiable and reliable source. And within wikipedia, this is the burden that comes with the person who wants to insert the information, not with the person who says it is wrong. I will have a look at the article when I am done editing Natural selection. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:02, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

FYI: The rather unpleasant Pit of Despair. Note that "that some recover and some do not." While such trauma is obviously very damaging, even such an extreme, controlled example questions the absolute necessity for attachment in primate models. It also makes one wonder what the basis for the difference is... *cough* genetic variation *cough* Rockpocket (talk) 02:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yup, the Pit of Despair. Even for monkeys, the results are not explainable unambigiously, and for other mamels, it is even more difficult. The major problem with these kind of experiments is that they very quickley become antropogenic, in whcih we start to project human emotions on the behaviour of the animals. However, it is xtreme difficult to do such a thing, and has led to very wrong cinclusions in the past. Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 02:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Really impressive stuff the Pit of Despair! I’ll use it for my next book! It’s pure Alice Miller and Psychogenic mode in monkeys. Thanks for bringing it to my attention. —Cesar Tort 02:41, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I thought you might like that one. My favorite part is the PhD student who, apparently, claims his experiment demonstrates that even the "happiest" of animals gets depressed. Talk about anthropomorphism. I would have failed him. ;) Rockpocket (talk) 03:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

What way are you choosing?

First, I am not going to make content decisions in articles that you are editing. I think a mentor (if I decide to take it up beyond this informal advise I am giving sometimes at the moment) can only be effective when s/he is neutral to the issues that are discussed. As far as you have seen, I never taken position in on the content of those articles, nor will I (for the time being).

Second, I always go from the point of view that the way I treat people around me, they will treat me the same way. If I fight, they will fight back against me. From my time here at wikipedia, I have seen people who choose to fight. That is their choice, but in the end, they lost because it conflicts fundamentally with the way wikipedia functions. The same happens when you start to take things personally and start to question the motivations of individual or groups of editors. (Hint, look at your last replies at the arbcom case). -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I gather now I misunderstood what I read in both Rockpocket’s user mails and yours about “mentorship”. —Cesar Tort 17:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, above is what I understand with it. I had a look at Wikipedia:Mentorship, and they say it as follows: Mentorship is an arrangement, either voluntary or involuntary, in which one user assists another user, the protégé. Depending on the nature of the mentorship agreement, the mentor may give the protégé advice on more effective editing habits, help the protégé resolve disputes and act as an advocate for the protégé. And that is pretty much in line with how I would see it. But maybe I better ask the question on how you see it? What would you like from someone like me? -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I shouldn’t have mentioned you by name in Workshop page. I don’t know why I did it. Perhaps I was exasperated by the continuous accusations in ArbCom pages and wanted to stop once and for all another editor’s counsel. I believe the only big misstatement I have done in Wikiland was the “Scientology army” thing. I was an absolute newbie then and such is the vernacular in other web sites. Later I learnt Wikipedia is a serious site and I restrained myself from Troll-ranting pronunciations. But it was a total surprise nevertheless to be dragged to this time-consuming arbitration process. I can only hope the voting phase will soon start so I don’t have to defend myself any more from accusations. Rockpocket and Ande B are very good persons and I believe they will understand it too. I’m sorry the well is so poisoned now. If things go well, all of us together will improve the article following ArbCom decision with much clearer water. I am really burnt out by now and only thing I want is ... PEACE. —Cesar Tort 03:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)