User talk:Pgm8693

Welcome

Hello Pgm8693 and welcome to Wikipedia! I am Ukexpat and I would like to thank you for your contributions.

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Community Portal • Help desk • Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Build consensus • Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats Signpost • IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Manual of Style • Three-revert rule • Sock puppetry Copyrights • Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Join a WikiProject • Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism User pages • Talk pages Useful templates • Tools • User scripts

Click here to reply to this message.

ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phil McGraw

I'm glad you have sought guidance in dispute resolution on a page besides Talk:Phil McGraw. I don't mind other editors getting involved; in fact, that's the way consensus should develop. If you don't get any help from your message at WP:EAR, other avenues suggested by WP:CONSENSUS are WP:THIRD and WP:RFC. Ward3001 (talk) 22:16, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't look at the sources, but assuming they're accurately represented, your changes look fine to me. Thanks for your additions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to pursue "not a psychologist" I think maybe your best bet would be WP:RFC. That might generate a lot more opinions, although many of them will not be psychologists. But from the standpoint of your position, the worst that would happen would be that there would be no consensus to change, and it's possible that the consensus might be to remove "psychologist". That would be a true consensus that I would respect. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. I'd like to give you this barnstar after reading through your long discussion on the Dr. Phil McGraw page; you delivered a very extensive, cogent, and well thought-out argument, while your opposition got more and more incivil and threatening. It was also ultimately good of you to discontinue after the last steaming post which implied you were "edit warring," "disrupting Wikipedia," and threatened to have you blocked (and admonished you for accidentally signing with your IP). Hope you come back and keep contributing at some point; remembering that the WP:CONSENSUS that the other editor kept referring to is often trumped by cogent reasoning (this is noted in many policies, especially ones which were degrading into "votes," e.g., AfD). Peace and Passion ☮ ("I'm listening....") 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]