User talk:HelloAnnyong

archives
1 2 3 4 5 6 7

New Zealand Emissions Trading Scheme 3O

Hi I hope we haven't exhausted your patience but I have put a new discussion about alleged POV and SYN at the bottom of the talk page Talk:New_Zealand_Emissions_Trading_Scheme#Issue_2_section_Basis_for_Allocation. Your thoughts are appreciated. Mrfebruary (talk) 00:40, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Heh, that's okay. I saw your edit, but I was going to wait for Catonz to respond before leaving my thoughts. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:48, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Psychological Society

No I am not a sock - whatever that is - but I have been following what has happening on this site and it worries me that you are supporting the continued carriage of incorrect information by removing my edits without any explanation. Can you please explain why you haved removed these so I can understand your actions.Superstitous123 (talk) 07:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Catholic sex abuse cases

The dispute had mainly been between myself and user:Albeiror24. Alberior24 deleted a previous section entitled, Controversy, which had a citation and been present since February 2010. I objected to the deletion and the dispute has raged on there with three other editors of varying interest in the matter. I asked a neutral editor I know to rewrite the paragraph because I had seen his work on another disputed article where he did a neutral rewrite that was accepted by all. When he included the term, pedrastic, I knew that Alberior24 and user:Mamalujo would never accept that as it was potentially worse than what the original section read. At the time of his rewrite, which is described on the article talkpage, User:NatGertler opined that he thought that because he did not have time to contribute more to the article, that that would be the limit of his participation in the matter. Several days ago when Alberior24 defended keeping the POV disputed tag on the article, I sensed that maybe we had ground for WP:CONSENSUS. In the Under dispute - disputed maintenance tag cannot be removed section, I approached him and asked if a neutral Third Opinion would be helpful. He agreed and I stated both on the article talkpage and his that I would respect and support the TO regardless of how it went. --Morenooso (talk) 14:32, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Psychology Society

Heading has been changed to be more specific to the topic content; ist paragrah significant controvery has been changed to be more specific as it relates to a small number of ex members who wanted to attract media attention to promote their new organisation; 2nd paragraph has had inaccuracies removed that referred to psychologists who were not clinical as not having any practical training which is not correct and supporting reference has been added; sentence has been added to correct statement that inferrred that the APS was effectively lowering standards when it is the psychologicy registrationn boards that sets the standard for who can call themselves a psychologist; Paragraph 3 has been modified to be more specifc as it reads some clincal psychologists when it is only the four people referred to in the referenced newspaper article that be confirmed as holding these views; fourth paragraph has been removed as it promotes an alternative organisation and provides a link to their website.Superstitous123 (talk) 11:06, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted this edit. You need to integrate your changes, rather than simply replacing the information on the page. I think in both revisions there is a problem with non-NPOV. — Manti core 13:09, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't revert

Don't revert my changes about canvas. If you don't like editorializing parts, delete/edit those sentences. If you want more references, add citiation-needed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.114.147.157 (talk • contribs) 21:53, May 13, 2010

That's not how this works. You don't get to add text and then ask for a reference for it; the WP:BURDEN is on you to add the source with the text. Without a reference, the text can be removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You've reverted more than necessary. You've even reverted change where I have replaced 'citation needed' with a reference! 87.114.147.157 (talk) 22:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of Community episodes

Hello, I'm interested in helping rewrite the episode summaries. Are there any examples/guidelines I could look at to get an idea of how to write them properly? -- DaJungKi^talk2me 13:26, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, welcome aboard. I think your best bet would be to look at featured TV list articles. That's a list of sixty-five articles that have been raised to featured status, showing that they're the best of the best. There's also a section in the manual of style for TV articles that could help. In general, you really just want to avoid any sort of copyright issues here. If there's anything else I can do to help, let me know. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the resources. Please review my rewrite of the pilot summary. It's a bit long, but the plot is a bit complex and it's also the pilot. I tried to be concise while keeping the necessary plot elements. I imagine subsequent summaries will be shorter. -- DaJungKi^talk2me 14:00, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Australian Psychological Society

I was reading your response to Supertitious123 and it doesn't explain why you continue to not allow any edits to this contentious piece of work. The reference to the line "A growing number of Clinical Psychologists have reportedly resigned from, or are planning to resign from, the APS in protest" does not provide any evidence that this is the case. This line has been removed. This line is then follwed by the advertisement that "A new non-profit organization called the Australian Clinical Psychology Association (ACPA) is being formed with the mission "to represent, support, and promote those with accredited post-graduate qualifications in clinical psychology, and advance the standards of the profession, in the best interests of the public and the profession" with a link to its website. This is promoting another organisation and has been removed. In the 3rd paragrpah the sentence "These claims have been strongly refuted by the APS" has been added and is reported in the existing reference. I agree with Supertitious that the title would be more accurate to be titled education and training which reflects the content and is less emotive. In the 2nd paragraph it says that "Many APS members have completed only four years of University education" this incorrect as APS members must complete four years of university education plus two years of supervised training to be eligible for associate membership not full membership. The way it is currently written it implies that APS accepts members with only fours years of university training.Nik50382 (talk) 00:34, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

TFK

Since the edits were not all the same I did not break 3rr. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 13:31, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They don't have to all be the same to violate 3RR. It says it right on the page: "The four or more reverts that constitute a violation of the rule may involve the same or different material each time." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, HelloAnnyong is correct: it doesn't need to be the same edit. Again Walter, you really should research these things. On my part, I apologise for breaking 3RR, the editing was getting out of hand, and that's why I have now gone to the noticeboard, to get it resolved there first. 86.129.199.44 (talk) 17:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ethnocentrism revert

I've got no argument with the revert that you made on the ethnocentrism discussion page, but I do have argument with your reason for it. For each of the comments that I'd trimmed, there had been no replies (after weeks/months).--Iavram (talk) 13:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't matter. You're more than welcome to do that on your own talk page if you want, but it's different on article pages. Someone who came by to look at the discussion would only see half of what was said. Read WP:REDACT. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

WP:REDACT wasn't violated. It is a guideline that applies to removing context from a discussion, while all the comments that were removed were superfluous. Although like I said, I'm not arguing the revert, since as you pointed out, it's a discussion page and not a talk page.--Iavram (talk) 13:48, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

stickK

Ha. I have some subject matter expertise because I wrote about stickK in my book. I happen to know that the current history is somewhat incorrect and so I updated it, citing my book. That's hardly gratuitous advertising for my "article" as you suggested. And I didn't just re-add language. I look the previous feedback seriously and removed the "peacock" language the last reverter complained about. I think you've way over-reached here. I don't understand why. Jdgrimshaw (talk) 01:35, 8 June 2010 (UTC)jdgrimshaw[reply]

Actually, you should read the conflict of interest guideline. Since you're adding text and citing your own book, we can count you as having a conflict of interest. Really you should wait 'til someone else reads your book or whatever, and then independently decides to add the text. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:16, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. Read it. Did you? Here's what it says: "Citing oneself: Editing in an area in which you have professional or academic expertise is not, in itself, a conflict of interest. Using material you yourself have written or published is allowed within reason, but only if it is notable and conforms to the content policies." My changes improve the accuracy of the piece. I fixed it once in response to an earlier reverter's useful criticism. How does your reversion promote wikipedia's goals, exactly?Jdgrimshaw (talk) 17:08, 8 June 2010 (UTC)jdgrimshaw[reply]