User talk:Stevil-speaks

Welcome to WP. If you haven't edited a page before, becoming acquainted with WP's policy on reliable sources WP:RS would be a good place to start. In short, whether something is true or not doesn't matter, what is important is that there is a source for added content. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 16:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My corrections and additions under the sub-heading of Survey Results are fully researched and documented in-line. I will remove my editorial comments and give the exact page and the publishers name for "The Natural History of Alcoholism" by Dr George Vailliant - Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-60378-8.Stevil-speaks (talk) 22:36, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You really want to use the Talk page before chucking in a bunch of analysis, and also, keep in mind that Valliant served as an AA trustee. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 23:53, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Look I'm just trying to get to the truth here. I have not changed any other part of the entry except Survey Results. And with your guidance I have minimized the analysis. But the fact is that the analysis provided in the existing entry that grouped the triennial years before 1983 with those after is flawed and the reader should be made aware of that. Statistical surveying is a scientific enterprise and must be conducted rigorously. I have been an electrical engineer for 30 years and I know what I'm talking about. Stevil-speaks (talk) 21:47, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP is not about "truth", it is about verifiability using reliable sources WP:RS. If that a problem for you, then you'll find you don't like editing WP where we go by consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit warring

You have violated WP:3RR and are very close to being blocked from editing due to your edit warring. To avoid a block, discuss your edits on the AA talk page before reverting again. I have an edit warring filing ready to go if you revert again. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 15:52, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not removed any of the existing text to the Alcoholics Anonymous article. I have added further explanation under the heading of "Survey results". The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous has repeatedly removed my entry whilst chiding me for not fully documenting my content which I believe I have. He has also repeatedly removed my addition under "Other Criticisms" of a reference to an article in the extremely prestigious magazine "Free Inquiry" which is entirely germane to the topic and the subtopic. I am not at all surprised that someone is out there monitoring this WB entry which amounts to propaganda for AA so I am personally grateful for the 'edit warring' policies of Wikipedia. Is there someone other than The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous who would like to weigh in on my entries? Since The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous keeps removing them here are my additions.

Under "Survey results"

"The 1990 commentary however failed to recognize that the 1983 report claimed to be the first to use scientific statistical sampling techniques. In that year AA finally employed a professional consultant who introduced them to the statistically valid stratified sampling technique. This indicates that any survey results prior to 1983 were unreliable. Though AA had never before 1983 used valid statistical methods they regularly reported high success rates as noted above (Comments on AA’s Triennial Surveys, 1990). It is therefore misleading to evaluate the data of the triennial surveys by placing equal emphasis on the the results from years 1977 through 1982 during which the surveys were not conducted in a scientifically sound manner. The introduction of valid statistical methods have yielded the only reliable data produced by AA beginning in 1983. In 1989, AA reported that on average, after 6 months, 93 percent of new attendees had left the program and that after one year only 5 to 7 percent remained (Comments on AA’s Triennial Surveys, 1990). This must be counted as the short-term success rate of the Alcoholics Anonymous program. The first large long term, and reliably validated scientific study of alcoholics was conducted over several decades by Dr George Vaillant, MD, a Harvard psychiatrist and noted authority on the disease of alcoholism, and published in his 1996 book, "The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Natural_History_of_Alcoholism_Revisited. Dr. Vaillant, an open proponent of Alcoholics Anonymous, concluded that alcoholics with no treatment of any kind, including AA, recover on average at the rate of 5 to 7 % per year. After years of study of the patterns of alcoholic's behavior he wrote, "there is compelling evidence that the results of our treatment were no better than the natural history of the disease." ("The Natural History of Alcoholism Revisited",(1996 Harvard University Press:ISBN 0-674-60378-8, page 350).

Under "Other Criticisms"

"*The Council For Secular Humanism's magazine "Free Inquiry" published an article titled "Exposing the Myth of Alcoholics Anonymous", by Steven Mohr (Free Inquiry, April/May 2009 Vol. 29 No. 3) in which the author, a self reported recovered alcoholic, firmly concluded based on his own experience over several years of regular AA meeting attendance including a 28 day stay at a 12 step based rehab and independent research, that the 12 steps are entirely based on the Judeo/Christian concept of God. He points out that the God of AA is a fictitious Higher Power that is the Creator of our universe, a god of intercessory prayer and capable of performing miracles. He goes further and concludes that AA is an evangelical group because the twelfth step calls for recovering alcoholics to have a "Spiritual Awakening" and spread the word of God to others. Finally, Mr. Mohr provides evidence that long term involvement with the 12 step programs may actually be detrimental to recovery because of the nihilistic nature of the 12 step doctrine that teaches recovering alcoholics that they are "powerless over their disease". The entire article can be found at http://stevil-speaks.blogspot.com/?view=flipcard " Stevil-speaks (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It's what you added that is at issue, and the better place to discuss this at the AA talk page. You're on very thin ice by continueing to revert without soliciting for consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK this is the talk page is it not? Stevil-speaks (talk) 18:09, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No wait I see - you mean the talk page for the article it self. Will do! Stevil-speaks (talk) 18:10, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome!

Hello, Stevil-speaks, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

The five pillars of Wikipedia
Tutorial
How to edit a page and How to develop articles
How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard if you wish)
Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{help me}} before the question. Again, welcome!

Edit warring notice filed

You can respond here here. .The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Heads up: a WP Admin - who, as far as I know, has never edited the AA page before - just reverted your edit. At this stage stopping all edits on the AA page and discussing what you would like to do on the Talk page would be a better course. Also, if you were to read the intro stuff above, you would get a better idea of what standards and protocols are in effect. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Per my request, and in light of your demonstrated regard for consensus, an Admin has withdrawn the ANI filing. Just a note, no one can fault you for doubting AA's scope of effectiveness, and if you have good refs, I'll will back you up with any edits you make if they are legit. When you don't understand why a ref is not accepted as an RS, ask and I'll try to explain.The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 07:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion

Using the talk page was a good move. Another good move would be to cancel your latest reverts. Admin are better disposed towards editors seeking consensus. The Artist AKA Mr Anonymous (talk) 18:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

October 2022

Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to vandalize Wikipedia, as you did at Steve Womack, you may be blocked from editing. General Ization ^Talk 20:56, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]