User talk:Clockback

Welcome

Hello, Clockback, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! Or, you can just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Dick Clark 19:20, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Archives

/Archive 1: Feb 07

I'm not a politician, so I can change my mind

I stated somewhere up in the above arguments that I thought deism was arguably as reasonable as atheism. My consciousness has been raised by the Ultimate Boeing 747 argument, and I no longer hold such an opinion. Just for "the record". -Neural 14:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hey

Hey whats' up dude? I read your book!! It rawks!Bookishreader45 02:50, 15 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your main wiki article

PLease would you consider my request on your main article discussion page to update the article, including your opinion on global warming and it's social/political repercussions? Many thanks Miamomimi 09:50, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Saki

I draw your attention to my comments at Talk:Saki. Please feel free to continue the discussion there or here, as you prefer. And please let me know if I can help. BrainyBabe 15:56, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

AfD nomination of Debates on the grammar school

An article that you have been involved in editing, Debates on the grammar school, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Debates on the grammar school. Thank you. BJBot (talk) 13:59, 31 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD article

Please don't unilaterally revert the ADHD article. Three editors have now commented and all agree consensus should be attempted first in talk. Thanks --scuro (talk) 14:22, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

January 2008

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. If necessary, pursue dispute resolution. Versa geek 22:54, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict resolution

At the risk of an unwelcome message I thought I'd mention that I contacted AGK to request informal mediation in the edit war on the ADHD article but thought progress was being made and reassured him accordingly, which may have been premature and you may wish to freshen the request for mediation. Miamomimi (talk) 16:14, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting used to the wiki-way too and I understand that here conversations are usually kept in one place so I've replied to your message on my talk page but as I'm writing this can I just mention a piece of research that I haven't noticed in your draft (forgive me if it's there, it's hard to unscramble the coded stuff); there was an article in Daily Mail tues May 25th 2004 written by Beezy Marsh and Robin Yapp entitled 'Proof that E-numbers really DO make a child hyperactive.'. It mentions a conclusive study on the IoW, the first study of it's kind, proving that nutrition and chemicals in food really do produce the symptoms of ADHD. The research was led by peadiatrician Prof. John Warner (Southampton Uni) and was published in Archives of Diseases in Childhood. I can find this link but to be honest I'm PC blind at the moment. Case studies were also mentioned as evidence of todays toxic childhood, namely; Carol Johnson and her son Alexander who was diagnosed with D.A.M.P. and campaigner Alex Gallagher of Glasgow whose 7 yr old son Ryan was diagnosed with ADHD. I mention this because I think it might be easier for you to access this research (I can't find a link online) and I am caring for a sick child myself at the moment. Beezy Marsh seems to have written a lot about ADHD and MMR. Miamomimi (talk) 15:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I have tried to add a comment to the ADHD talk page but it is locked at this time. Good luck! Miamomimi (talk) 21:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The database is locked from time to time when usage or other CPU load is heavy; usually trying again works, if not immediately, then after a few minutes..... --Abd (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abd - I did know that but thankyou. Miamomimi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clockback, I have added a comment here to your request for editor assistance. Incidentally I found the presentation of your comments on Abd's talk page interesting and noticed that he seems quite anxious for your attention. Also, another editor, Barrylb, has provided sources to evidence controversy, see ADHD talk page. Miamomimi (talk) 11:03, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What is happening now is that users are starting to introduce sourced text, which is what I've been requesting. Simply introducing preferred ways for the text to read, without justification from reliable sources, isn't going to work when there are editors with strong POVs involved. I can defend sourced text, watch and, assuming I don't have some accident, and I continue to have time, and you will see, it should be somewhat visible already. I assume you have also noticed that more sophisticated users track the contributions of disputants on an issue of interest to them, so they are aware of what is going on. If, for example, you contact an administrator, if another user wants to follow what you are up to, he or she will know by watching Special:Contributions/(insert user name), you can add this to your Watchlist. Admins usually respond to official communications on the contacting user's talk page, so if an editor is watching your Talk page, they will also see that response. This is all part of the process, most of it is out in the open, unless users decide to contact each other by email or phone or in person.... oh, yes, isn't there that thing with stamps, I forget the name.... :-) --Abd (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Clockback - have you seen the feedback, here? Miamomimi (talk) 19:42, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use "Show Preview"

Clockback, it's apparent that you "Save page" with your changes, *then* read them over and make a change, save it again, then repeat this numerous times. That clogs up article history and creates other problems as wel. If you use Show preview, you can read over your changes before you save them, and fix them, before committing the changes to Wikipedia. Also there is a button "Show Changes" which will show the exact changes you are making. I did take out some text you had inserted into the article today; quite simply, it was not sourced. Some of what I took out could probably go back if properly sourced, though, as I've indicated before, it can get complicated. I made some changes in the introduction to make it a little more neutral, and justified this in Talk.--Abd (talk) 22:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

offical warning

Please see post in ADHD talk. Argue content and not personalities. It's in the code of behaviour.--scuro (talk) 16:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's right, Clockback, which comment by me evinces no judgment that you have been doing what is implied by the warning, I haven't read today's talk edits yet. However, this "offical warning" isn't "official," that is, it's his personal warning, though an administrator, later, looking at abuse, might consider whether or not the user was warned. They aren't stupid, though, they know that a "warning" from someone involved in a dispute can be less effective than one from a user not involved. Take all 3RR warnings seriously, though. Any user can put a 3RR warning on another user's page, and when improper reverts come to an administrator's attention, a disregarded warning is essential for the user to be blocked -- unless the offense is outrageous, in which case it might be block first and ask questions later. You are in no danger. Scuro might be, for blocks for edit warring can be placed even without the four reverts in 24 hours. It can happen, sometimes, with one. In my view, Scuro has been pushing the limits, but, my judgment, he's not quite over the limits yet. An administrator might disagree. However, I highly recommend that you stay away from official complaint about edit warring. It's a tricky process and administrators can be easily irritated when new users don't do it right. If it comes to a need for that, there really should be several editors involved, and it's best of someone who doesn't have an axe to grind other than Wikipedia process quality does it. Just be patient and persistent in providing sourced text. You can Be Bold and put stuff in the article directly, but if it gets reverted, as it might even if properly sourced and appropriate, watch out for multiple reverts that don't make at least some attempt at compromise language. Edit warring is like stalemate in chess: moves back and forth with no progress in position, two sides dug in (rarely more than two sides) insisting on their idea of what is right without listening and seeking some higher understanding, a synthesis. Stuck. If that happens, *then* there is a graduated dispute resolution process. It can start with WP:RFC, to get wider opinion on some *specific* issue, though there is also RFC for user behavior. --Abd (talk) 17:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

comment for you..

On my talk page from Abd, do pop by but I will copy here for your convenience:

Clockback, you can lead a horse to water. Yes, I congratulate you on discovering tags. It's exactly correct to do this, and you are serving the project when you place them. Before, you complained about unsourced material in the article, how come you had to provide sources when there was so much unsourced opinion already in the article? Instead of complaining -- which gets little done here -- you are now acting. If no citation is provided in a reasonable time, anyone can take the text out, and putting it back in without a citation would be considered, quite likely, POV-pushing if there is some POV involved. It *gets it done*. The theory is that if it is true and appropriate for the article (two separate issues), there should be reliable source available, and demanding that something be in the article without reliable source is quite recognizable -- usually -- as POV pushing. As to the text-marks, yes, I could have fixed it quickly if I had seen it. I'm not your proofreader, I was a professional proofreader at one time, and I'm not being paid for it. But I do what comes to my attention. Notice how, fairly consistently, you have assumed bad faith and dereliction of some imagined duty on the part of other editors, and you haven't thanked me once, for I'm a major part of the "others joining in." I'm a mature editor, in more ways than one (I'm older than you), and I'm also pretty familiar with how Wikipedia works with disputed text. *Nobody* is truly a master of it, in my opinion, it's too new and too much in flux. In any case, whether you thank me or not is less my business than it is yours. If you would realize who is helping you and who is not, you might become more effective. You have stated you are not a politician. That's certainly true! Politicians don't turn away help, unless it's from someone truly offensive -- and even then.... Abd (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Kind regards Miamomimi (talk) 20:22, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WARNING

You have begun contentious editing in Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, making edits that you expect to be reverted. (acknowledged here) Do not disrupt Wikipedia to make a point, see WP:POINT. If you believe that an edit is going to be reverted, don't make it. Instead, propose it in Talk, specifically, and seek consensus on it. Don't edit war. If you believe that your edits would improve the article, but they are being blocked by others, use dispute resolution, see WP:DR. None of this should discourage you from making improvements to the article, but material you add should meet WP:RS, the requirements for reliable sourcing. Disruptive editing can result in blocking of your ability to edit Wikipedia. --Abd (talk) 00:33, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

re: No it doesn't

Clockback wrote: Your censorship of my insertion in 'Controversy about 'ADHD' article is unacceptable and morally wrong. Please restore it at the first available opportunity. I have no idea why you think you can arrogate the right to remove such things from an entry about controversy. Adding to entries is an honourable activity. Deleting what other people have written, especially where it is a plain statement of the truth, is wholly different. The fact that some people are described as 'individuals' implies nothing clear. Anyone unfamiliar with this controversy, news of which you seem so anxious to suppress or minimise, would not gain this impression from the censored version - which is presumably why you have censored it. The statement that these people are unconnected with Scientology etc is necessary to counteract the powerful insinuation in the article. This is clearly intended to suggest that critics of 'ADHD' are dominated or driven by cultic or other agendas. This is quite simply untrue. Oh, and please assure your friend'Scuro' that those who wish to see the truth told about this matter have not gone away,nor 'died down' but are still working on the matter by other means, having tried very hard but failed to achieve any compromise by discussion with 'Scuro'. Peter Hitchens, signed as Clockback (talk) 15:28, 8 February 2008 (UTC) [reply]

I think you have misinterpreted my intentions when I made this edit (I think). I believe you added that line in good faith. I removed it not for any censorship purposes, but because I felt it was redundant and detracted from the flow of the paragraph. By calling them individual medical professionals and other prominent media personalities, it already implies they are wholly unconnected with Scientology or any other movements which were mentioned in the sentences above. If you wish add more emphasis that they are separate from a movement or Scientology, perhaps the sentence could be rephrased as something like "Unassociated medical professionals and other prominent media personalities also independently question the existence of the disorder." (That sounds ok, but I'm sure between us we can come up with something better.)

In any case I appreciate that you didn't simply revert my edit back and chose to contact me on the talk page. That was very courteous. I try my best to negotiate and avoid being confrontational.

As for User:scuro, he/she has no other relationship to me other than as a fellow Wikipedia editor who happens to work frequently on the same page as I do. I'm my own party in this with the goal of trying to improve the article quality as much as I can. Cheers, Sifaka ^talk 18:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. On a completely irrelevant note I found an article about your visit to Pyongyang which I will check out when I get back from a meeting. Are there any other interesting places you have been to or thinking about going to?

I am not going to change your version of the statement because I thought we were both attempting to say the same thing: that the medical professionals and media personalities were entirely unconnected with Scientology. I understand the merits of stating it explicitly like you phrased it leaves no room for error, which it excellent.

On another note, I felt your response on my talk page could have been more civil. I read the guidelines on the Wikipedia:Civility page and I think it might help clear up misunderstanding if I explain why I reacted negatively at first when I read your response. I am not trying to debate your reasoning or say I'm right. Rather I am trying to state clearly what I thought you were saying which may be patently wrong.

When I first made this edit to the ADHD controversy article, I thought that the sentence as I changed it meant the same thing as your sentence, only with fewer words. So, when you wrote this on my talk page, my reaction was "Huh? I thought both versions meant the same thing. Now he thinks I am purposely trying to censor him in order to push an agenda, which isn't my goal at all. I had better explain that I think he misunderstood my intentions."
I then wrote this on your talk page. I thought it would clear up the confusion so that you would understand that I made that edit in good faith and I am not trying to push any sort of agenda.
So when you responded, I was very surprised because I thought you knew that I wasn't trying to push any sort of agenda. My first impression of the tone was that it was condescending. I was offended that you seemed to say that I didn't know what censorship was and whether or not it was immoral. I felt like I was being accused of a crime on the level of North Korean censorship.

I DO NOT think this is what you intended. I am sorry for the confusion I have caused you. I do have some constructive criticism.

Aim for moderate language, especially when the other person may not have the same viewpoint as you. It will get your point across just as well and you have less risk of causing others to react negatively.
Avoid statements which categorize or accuse the other of being X or engaging in Y to avoid putting them on the defensive. Putting someone on the defensive will "close their minds to other ideas and preventing a consensus from forming." An example from one of your responses is, "until you recognize that censorship is immoral." I naturally want to defend myself and say "I already know censorship is immoral."
It is helpful to include "escape clauses" which will allow someone else to explain if they think you are misinterpreting what they are saying. "If I understand you correctly..." "Assuming you mean X..." etc...

I tried to put myself in your shoes and decided that it would be helpful for me if you clarified what your reaction was to my responses. I also look forward to any constructive criticism you have for me so that I may improve my future dialogue. Cheers! Sifaka ^talk 05:37, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

== I would like to have a private conversation with you regarding the ADHD controversy page. Can you suggest how we can accomplish that == --Ss06470 (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I work for a London newspaper called the Mail on Sunday. I can be reached there without too much effort. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:50, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

what's your deal?

why don't u think adhd exists?

what's your deal?

why don't u think adhd exists? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 19:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Restores censored information about dissent. Removes assertions of opinion as if it were fact"

"the invented complaint "ADHD"" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.151.175.184 (talk) 20:30, 13 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google it

And you will find out. Peter Hitchens, logged in as Clockback (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bare helpful...(why no identifier?)

Interesting that the above incomprehensible remark ( "bare helpful")appears without any identifier of any kind. But to be more specific, if you Google "Peter Hitchens" and "ADHD" you will find along article, followed by correspondence, which explains my position. Peter Hitchens logged in as Clockback (talk) 09:24, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2007/05/the_adhd_fantas.html is what he is no doubt referring to —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jprw (talk • contribs) 12:32, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Controversy

From what I can gather there's been quite a lot of blog chatter on various parts of the Internet, but bloggers discuss virtually everything and I haven't been able to find anything written by a professional writer or similar. I removed the paragraph detailing the article because there wasn't anything in the text to indicate that it had actually been particularly controversial and, at the time, didn't come up with much when I searched on Google either. Obviously you know more about the sort of response the article got than I do though. Do you want the segment to be restored or is it the inconsistency that bothers you? I don't think the Diane Abbott bit really adds anything to the article and wouldn't be bothered if it was removed. EvilRedEye (talk) 16:58, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks to Mr Eye for his response. I suppose my view is that if the Diane Abbott bit deserves to be there, then so does the rape segment. But the implication of that (for me) is that it is better to restore the rape section ( as revised by me) rather than delete the Abbot one. I'd always rather add (see below) than delete. Only a few swivel-heads on the web seriously think that I have any sympathy for the BNP (plus Diane Abbott MP,of course). But since they exist, and still spread this untruth when they can, it does no harm to feature my dismissal of this as "garbage" and a link to a blog article rebutting it in detail. Similarly, if my views on rape are being widely misrepresented ( as they are) in many places on the web, then a full summary of the argument is helpful to me. I am very reluctant to delete anything (unless actually untrue) written about me, believing that to be censorship. So, where I think it's misleading I instead edit it for greater accuracy. I took some trouble to make the rape reference accurate - so was a bit dismayed when the whole thing was almost immediately wiped. I am not sure that these days anything needs to be written by a 'professional writer' for a controversy to exist. On the contrary. Peter Hitchens, signed in as Clockback (talk) 11:29, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe both bits could be moved to the 'Core beliefs' section? I don't really mind, restore the article to how you left it if you want. EvilRedEye (talk) 12:16, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just have a sort of feeling that the person who made the change should do the alterations if he thinks them justified. I get enough trouble for editing my own entry as it is.PH logged in as Clockback (talk) 12:28, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What's your opinion on professional wrestling?

Out of interest.