User talk:James Cantor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Edit warring[edit]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war. Users are expected to collaborate with others, to avoid editing disruptively, and to try to reach a consensus rather than repeatedly undoing other users' edits once it is known that there is a disagreement.

Please be particularly aware that Wikipedia's policy on edit warring states:

  1. Edit warring is disruptive regardless of how many reverts you have made.
  2. Do not edit war even if you believe you are right.

If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the article's talk page to discuss controversial changes; work towards a version that represents consensus among editors. You can post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If you engage in an edit war, you may be blocked from editing.

Merger discussion for Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act [edit]


Articles related to some that you have been involved in editing— Megan's law , Jacob Wetterling Act , and Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act —have been proposed for merging with Sex offender registries in the United States. If you are interested, you are welcome to participate in the merger discussion. Thank you. Etamni | ✉   19:11, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Sex Offender Incomplete Sentences Blank[edit]

Is this test used much? I don't see a lot of sources mentioning it, but it sounds kind of interesting, like a Mad Libs approach to seeing what's in people's heads. Beembly (talk) 20:08, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

I very, very rarely see it. I'm sure there might be psychoanalytic hold-out's who still try to use it, but projection tests can't get far in any forensic situation. — James Cantor (talk) 20:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Is this because structured risk instruments that are composed of predetermined risk factors, that specify how to combine factors into a total score, that provide cutoff scores for risk levels, that provide estimated recidivism rates, and that periodically revise their scales to reflect advances in knowledge, are consistently found to be more accurate than unstructured approaches? Beembly (talk) 21:21, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, exactly. — James Cantor (talk) 16:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open![edit]

You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Nomination of Courtship disorder for deletion[edit]

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Courtship disorder is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Courtship disorder until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)

  • Someone nominated this on the talk page and offhand it looks to be fine, but I completed it anyway and voted to keep it. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:29, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi James! I don't think it's necessary to post AfD notices on bot talk pages (e.g. your edit to User talk:BattyBot). Happy editing! GoingBatty (talk) 03:44, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
Whoops! I went through the all the contributors to the page and must have included one of the bots. Thanks for the heads up! — James Cantor (talk) 14:15, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

I think an apology is in order.[edit]

A few months ago, you complained that I was libelling one of your colleagues. Given that said colleague has been letting his clinicians ask vulnerable nine year old children from foster care about their sexual interests, and has generally been found to have engaged in "inappropriate" and "unethical" medical treatments on children, I think an apology is in short order. Sceptre (talk) 13:43, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Being a current employee of CAMH, I cannot speak on this issue as freely as I would like. Nonetheless, an accurate assessment of the situation is better summarized here. — James Cantor (talk) 21:18, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
So you think, like Dreger does, that Zucker did nothing wrong by asking vulnerable nine year old children about their sexual interests? Sceptre (talk) 12:36, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
What I think is that being a current employee of CAMH, I cannot speak freely on this issue. Get me permission to speak externally about internal affairs, and I will be happy to do so. — James Cantor (talk) 15:32, 26 December 2015 (UTC)