Jump to content

User talk:Tomcloyd

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome

[edit]

Welcome!

Hello, Tomcloyd, 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:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion 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 {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Literaturegeek | T@1k? 11:05, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Getting started
Getting help
Policies and guidelines
The community
Writing articles
Miscellaneous

Awards

[edit]

A barnstar for your userpage

[edit]

Tireless Contributor Barnstar

The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
I am awarding this barnstar to you for your excellent work in improving the post-traumatic stress disorder article.Literaturegeek | T@1k? 00:37, 22 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar for your hard work

[edit]
The Original Barnstar
For your perseverance on the PTSD article, I award you this barnstar. Keep up the great work. MarmadukePercy (talk) 04:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some bubble tea for you!

[edit]
Hi Tom, thanks a googol for all you've already done as a Wikipedia Regional Ambassador, including your awesome efforts at developing solid Wikipedia presence in brand new states for this program! I speak for the entire Wikipedia Global Education team when I say that I really really appreciate it.

I'm giving you a bubble tea because I think at some point you told me you're interested in Asia... Annie Lin (Wikimedia Foundation) (talk) 22:33, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Interest in Ambassador Program

[edit]

Hi Tom, Mike Christie indicated that you oversee the ambassador program in the NW. I am a professor at Linfield College in McMinnville, OR and am using a Wikipedia project for the first time this semester. Any ideas for class support you can provide are greatly appreciated. It has been a somewhat bumpy road as students are working on pages that are also serving as projects for students from other institutions. If I use this assignment again next semester I would like to avoid this. Additionally, having a skilled Wikipedian (something I am not) to assist in the early stages of learning to navigate Wikipedia would be most helpful to students. Many thanks in advance for your time and help. Tatompki (talk) 22:26, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tatompki, hi, and welcome! I see that you are well underway, and that Cindy has joined you, and that Mike (a trained Wikipedia Campus Ambassador) is in touch. All good, and helpful. Now let's get you formally on board with the Wikipedia Global Education Program, so we can put some of our resources at your disposal. I have to go feed a kid just now, but will return with more. Much more. I think it will be helpful.Tom Cloyd (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for getting in touch Tom. I look forward to learning more about the Global Education Program. Although our semester is quickly coming to a close it will be helpful to have additional resources for next time around. Many thanks! Tanya Tatompki (talk) 22:38, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Pregnancy

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Pregnancy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:19, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Southern Baptist Convention

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Southern Baptist Convention. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 09:21, 25 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology

[edit]
Responding to RFCs

Remember that RFCs are part of Dispute Resolution and at times may take place in a heated environment. Please take a look at the relevant RFC page before responding and be sure that you are willing and able to enter that environment and contribute to making the discussion a calm and productive one focussed on the content issue at hand. See also Wikipedia:Requests for comment#Suggestions for responding.

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mythology. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! However, please note that your input will carry no greater weight than anyone else's: remember that an RFC aims to reach a reasoned consensus position, and is not a vote. In support of that, your contribution should focus on thoughtful evaluation of the issues and available evidence, and provide further relevant evidence if possible.

You have received this notice because your name is on Wikipedia:Feedback request service. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from that page. RFC bot (talk) 10:18, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Jupiter (mythology)

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Jupiter (mythology). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:15, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Secular humanism

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Secular humanism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 11:18, 9 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

January 2012

[edit]

NPOV issue?

[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia, and thank you for your contributions. One of the core policies of Wikipedia is that articles should always be written from a neutral point of view. A contribution you made to Dissociative identity disorder appears to carry a non-neutral point of view, and your edit may have been changed or reverted to correct the problem. Please remember to observe this. Thank you.

Nonsense. What I changed violated NPOV, and my argumentation on Talk page supported this; my edits move things much closer to a justifiable neutral point of view. I suggest you read what I wrote there on the Talk page, which was quite clear, and respond, if you care too. Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:52, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my Gosh! I totally agree with what Tom Cloyd is saying. You Mr. Dreamguy are a bully!~ty (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

COI issue?

[edit]

Also, from your talk page comments, there is good reason to believe your edits further violate our conflict of interest rules. DreamGuy (talk) 19:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense, again. This tactic is a veiled attempt at launching an ad hominem argument, and won't be tolerated by me for a minute. It matters not who I am; it matters only what I say. Surely you are familiar with this concept.
I'm taking this issue to the DID article talk page, where it belongs.Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:56, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


The Appreciation Barnstar
Because you said it so well:
"What DreamGuy SHOULD have done is what I did, care enough to take the time to really make an argument, which he didn't, so he's still lost in his dreams, apparently. He might well consider that there will be no more dreamin' around here."
Thank you for saying it so well,
Also the Guillaume2303's excellent example of satire made me laugh aloud, which doesn't happen very often, so I posted here at his talk page something showing my appreciation. OK, now my thoughts about it... (I apologize for my English, it is not my native language)
A user name chosen by a user IMHO tells something about user's favorite coping strategy which is in case of the dreaming guy a daydreaming which is itself a mild form of dissociation that this user - probably out of fear that it might develop into "What-Must-Not-Be-Named" - needs to believe it is non-existent. I pity him. DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:46, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk pages

[edit]

Please shorten your talk page posts and sign them. Both make it easier to edit the main page and are a courtesy to other editors. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:45, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no trouble with the length of my talk page posts. They are well formatted, and responses may easily be inserted into the clearly demarcated sections. Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You may not have any problem with it, but you're not the only editor working on the page. Out of courtesy, please try to keep your posts short. Further, WP:CONSENSUS isn't "whatever I think it is", thus claiming you have consensus to revert to your preferred version is not accurate. Two other editors, myself and Dreamguy, have disagreed and reverted repeatedly. Consensus means discussing on the talk page, and deciding on what version best agrees with the consensus of sources based on the policies and guidelines. It doesn't mean removing the sections you don't like, and it doesn't mean removing peer-reviewed sources you disagree with. The purpose of wikipedia is to document the scholarly opinion as a whole, not just the version one editor likes. At least a significant minority of published scholars believe DID may be iatrogenic, and this should be documented in the page. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:34, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tom Cloyds posts on the talk page are complete and easy to understand. They are far better than the angry posts made by WLU and Dreamguy. You two men are acting like police men with EXTREME POV's! You do not want any changes at all to what you seem to think is YOUR article. This attitude is getting very tiresome! How many times are you going to pound those of us that want to edit the article. Is this how you get rid of everyone?~ty (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is how they got rid of me I do not remember how long time ago, for sure, hopefully the two "police men" with EXTREME POV's will not get rid of Tom Cloyds. DancingPhilosopher my talk 12:52, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If iatrogenic causality is such an issue, why is it not cropping up in any of the very authoritative review books I've examined and shared with the DID Talk page?
As for my understanding of consensus, see that same page for a clarification.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:39, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That conveniently ignores the fact that I have provided several recent, reliable sources that I shared on the DID talk page, and you dismissed them as "useless". Sources are not "useless", they are reliable or they are not. We can take them to the RSN if you'd like. If I had to hazard a guess why the books don't reference iatrogenesis, I would guess the field has split into two mutually-exclusive camps - "iatrogenetic artifact" on one hand, and "trauma-based coping" on the other, similar to what happened with satanic ritual abuse in the 1990s.
As for consensus - please review WP:CONLIMITED, in particular the part that says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. For instance, unless they can convince the broader community that such action is right, participants in a WikiProject cannot decide that some generally accepted policy or guideline does not apply to articles within its scope." The consensus on the page must be bound within the larger consensus of the policies and guidelines in general - that means a article that uses reliable sources to verify the summary of the topic in a neutral fashion that gives due weight to minority and majority opinion without engaging in original research. By selectively removing and discounting only reliable sources that mention and discuss iatrogenesis because you personally do not believe it is relevant to the topic, you are misrepresenting the scholarly consensus. Essentially, if I can find multiple recent, reliable, secondary sources to support a point, it deserves a place on the page. I can, I have, I've linked them, and they should be integrated. I would also like to point to this section of WP:CONSENSUS, with emphasis added to some relevant sections:
I keep referring to policies and guidelines rather than my personal opinion. All editors are expected to do the same. Your posts will carry much more weight with me if you reference any of our core content policies, rather than simply including what you think should be done based on your expertise, or personal opinion. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:39, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You Sir, WLU keep referring to YOUR interpretation of the rules. You link to a huge page instead of explaining things like Tom Cloyd did, then you complain when he makes a complete post explaining things so everyone understands what he is talking about.~ty (talk) 02:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, you keep getting seriously muddled, and I have yet figure out why. With this -


...I am in complete agreement. Why would I not be? My education is that of a scholar. I don't need to be advised as to scholarly method, nor on argumentation. I have taught those subjects, and my writing evidences clear understanding of them. They don't just give away graduate degrees, especially not in psychology.

That said, well argued trivia MUST be low priority content in this article. Relevance is of the essence. In philosophy, we distinguish validity (good logic) from truth {good premises AND good logic), and both from validity (relevance). Arguments can easily be valid, and true, and trivial, and thus not worthy of attention. In the professional psychology community, for example, the Sybil case is not discussed because it is a single case, it had no documented influence on the course of professional thought in psychology, and therefore is not worthy of our attention. It's that simple. I have already backed up this assertion with multiple high-quality references from the professional literature. You and DG have simply ignored them. No discussion.

By so doing, you render yourselves irrelevant. You simply don't seem to know how to do what needs to be done on the DID article: examine professional reviews of the literature and summarize their results in a coherent way. Do I REALLY need to cite some "policy" to back that up? Are you that ignorant? I really do not think so, and I have not thought so on a number of things, which is why I haven't been quoting policy every time I breathe. I have been making a mistake plainly. Without "policy" you appear to have no idea what to do here at all. No insult intended whatsoever. One either understands basics of scholarly method or one does not. I'll grant that you do know a number of things, but I don't see big-picture understanding.

You also don't have adequate grasp of the professional literature. You're fixated on the sensational and the controversial. Believe me, professional psychologists are not. We don't have time for such trivia.

OK...I'll proceed on that assumption. That may lead to less fracus. Sad, but probably true.Tom Cloyd (talk) 06:37, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WOW! That is exactly what I am thinking as well on every single point! If you were not so brilliant, some might think we were the same person. This is the obstacles that I see as well. WLU is lost without his tool kit of WP rules (which do not need to be recited repeatedly and used as an excuse. We get them!) and is lacking knowledge of the subject he wants to edit.~ty (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wrong, wikipedia is about verifiability, not truth, and forbids original research. We substitute the expert judgment of peer review for our own opinions - that is to say, page content is determined by reliability, not whether we think it's a good argument or not. We use the relative number and respectability of sources (as determined by the prominence, impact factor and general reputation of the author, publisher and journal) to determine weight.
Nobody is saying Sybil determined professional thought - that's why it is discussed in the History section, where it is identified by Robert Rieber as the third-most prominent and well-known case in history. You have cited and claimed absence of discussion of Sybil as a reason to ignore it - the discussion is not absent, I've cited at least nine articles that mention the case and two that are solely devoted to discussing it. No source will cover every possible aspect of a condition or idea, but if many do discuss one particular aspect, that means it is suitable for inclusion.
I determine what needs to go in the article based on WP:NPOV, particularly WP:UNDUE, and WP:SS. I determine the lead based on WP:LEAD. I quote policy every time I post because policy is that important - it determines page content, level of detail, summaries, weight given to a topic, which sources to use, editor behavioural standards and more. Please, take your "policy is less important than my expertise" idea to any noticeboard you want and see what the response is. You might also want to look into the Essjay controversy.
I'm not fixated on the sensational and controversial, and I'm not saying the page should be rewritten to focus solely on iatrogenesis. I am saying there is sufficient debate and discussion in the professional literature that iatrogenesis represents at minimum a sufficiently large minority opinion it deserves to be discussed in a serious way and at minimum mentioned in the lead. It is not trivial, and I am not asking you to take my word on this - I am demonstrating it by providing many reliable sources that actively discuss iatrogenesis. Sources that you have dismissed as "useless" for no reason I can see aside from you personally disagreeing with them. Personal disagreement is not sufficient. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WLU you keep saying the same things over and over again. We get the rules. We get the whole idea of opinion. Quit brow beating us with it. We know. We are not expressing our own opinions. We are expressing those of the respected researchers in the area of dissociative identity disorder! We will give references to back up those ideas. You have not let us edit yet so we can do this! You keep policing the page! Please get off your high horse and let go of your ego for a bit and let others work on the page! I say this with respect. I don't want to be mean, but darn it, you are like an immovable force that guards a palace and no one is going to enter that you do not want to. Get this one thing through that thick skull of yours please! We are not going to be putting OUR opinion on the DID page! It will not be original research! It will be well through out material backed up by strong resources that are NOT primary! Please quit accusing us of anything else! This is getting very old! As far as controvery, what Tom Cloyd said above is dead on. Also, it's like you learned a big word, iatrogenesis, and you won't let it go. It's funny. I don't know if I should be laughing at your stubbornness (to put it nicely) or feeling sorry for you, but their way, it's a HUGE problem.~ty (talk) 16:55, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, I certainly do keep repeating myself because there is no indication my point has been grasped or acknowledged. You may think you get the rules, but your interpretation is very different from mine and misses the fact that my edits are also accompanied by reliable sources. These aren't my opinions - they are the opinions of scholars published in peer reviewed journals. This isn't ego, it's irritation that sweeping claims are made about the article without an acknowledgement that there are at least two sides to the debate and both need to be mentioned. I keep hitting "iatrogenesis" because that's one of two substantive disagreements apparent on the page (as evidenced by the removal from the lead and causes section). The second is the amount of weight given to a discussion of Sybil. What do you think of the current version? It's three sentences long with three citations. Can you live with the current version? Do you have any concrete suggestions for improvement? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:40, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canvassing

[edit]

Please review WP:CANVAS - contacting specific editors you think might be likely to agree with you, or with whom you have a pre-existing relationship, is very, very bad form. Instead, seek a neutral party through dispute resolution, a request for comment, or if you think user conduct is sufficiently egregious to demand immediate attention, administrator's noticeboard. For user conduct, look to wikiquette alerts or user requests for comment. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 20:55, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I do know how to vet my actions here before I make them, and I most certainly read all kinds of things in the Wikipedia: namespace. I understand the wp:canvassing article. Canvassing is fine; improper canvassing (defined in the article) is just as you say above. I am canvassing at the moment, and will soon post the proper notification about this. Your post above appears to be in good faith, so I'm going to take it as such. I find your behavior otherwise most certainly NOT in good faith, and I will take appropriate action as I see fit.Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's great, I'm still curious why you aren't looking towards a noticeboard, or simply discussing on the talk page why you think it's OK to simply remove sources. And I'll go drop a neutral note off at DreamGuy's talk page to fill him in.
Feel free to "take appropriate action as I see fit", given the circumstances I might worry about WP:BOOMERANG though. I don't need to be threatened, I know what I'm doing, and the reason I'm as irritated as I am is because you're not actually citing much beyond your opinion. If you're an expert, I expect you to have access to the kinds of sources that would make it easy to verify your opinion - and it's those sources I'm interested in rather than the opinion you formed with them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 21:19, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Don't need your permission, actually. I have no worries at all about WP:BOOMERANG. I know what you're doing, too. It's called bullying, and I loath bullies.
As for my sources, they ARE posted, quite obviously, in the documentation to my original edits. I should not have to repeat myself. I DO have access to a world of excellent sources, and I know how to use them. What you don't understand is that this is NOT a pop culture topic; it's a professional topic. Get that straight and you'll be doing a whole lot better with your edits.Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:47, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please keep in mind that in my opinion you have been ignoring policies despite being pointed to them repeatedly, and insisting your expertise overwhelms WP:V. I also have access to sources and more importantly the search engines to acquire more - as do you. To date I haven't seen you actually engage with any source and point to a policy-based reason why they should be discounted. In these edits you simply claimed sources were "useless" and couldn't access a google books preview. If you think a source isn't reliable (a valid reason to remove it), then reference WP:RS and WP:MEDRS to illustrate why. Disagreements can be raised on a source-by-source basis at the reliable sources noticeboard. A google books preview is merely a convenient way to access the actual source - which is the book itself. There is very obvious disagreement in the field - a neutral article discusses controversy, it doesn't pick a side and ignore the other. The fact that I appear to be able to find so many sources that point to the possible iatrogenic nature of DID indicates there is very much an opinion that DID is in part iatrogenic. Simply on the basis of being able to find nearly a dozen recent sources that discuss this means the potentially iatrogenic nature of DID should be included.
There is no "pop culture" section on the page - it is linked via a {{main}} template in the otherwise-empty society and culture section. Where do you see "pop culture" in the article now? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:28, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I could not agree stronger that what WLU is doing is down right plain and simple mean BULLYING! What is this extreme POV you are fighting so hard to protect on the DID page, that you will not let any of us work on it. You act like you just robbed a bank and you are afraid you are going to be caught. WLU, please stop being so mean!~ty (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but nobody gets to ignore the policies and guidelines because other editors are "being mean". Go ahead, bring my conduct up at ANI or any other noticeboard. We can discuss thinks like the removal and discounting of obviously reliable sources on the basis of what appears to be solely personal opinion. Go ahead, I double-dog dare you. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 02:42, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Double Dog Dare me? I feel like I am dealing with children. ~sigh~ You don't have to push. The process is already began.02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tylas (talk • contribs)
Please notify me of any noticeboard discussions. Your contributions show no posting to message boards, and your comment could imply either stealth canvassing via e-mail or meatpuppeting off-wiki. If either is the case, it's a problem. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 03:03, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If I can't play fair, I don't play. I do not know to what Tylas is referring. She obviously has little difficulty with initiative or self-expression, so a lot of things are possible, I suppose.

That's easy! I am still reading the dang Wikipedia rules on how to do it, but I am working on it and will get it done. If Tom does one too that's great, but I will for sure. :)! I don't wish WLU and Dreamboy any harm, but you two are acting like police men on the DID page. Give us a chance to actually work on the page BEFORE judging us. I tiptoed in just to see what I would be met with and the talk page there sure explains that. You both have been rude and bullying to me, Tom and others who would like to edit that page. Wikipedia rules say to trust the new comers. Try it! You might actually be pleased with the outcome. It will be a far better article than it is now and please quit saying we don't follow the rules! You have not given us a chance to do much of anything! Tom has made a great article on the PTSD page, so you know he knows how. I do respect him and Wikipedia and will follow rules. ~ty (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have not yet initiated any disciplinary response to your behavior. I have a life outside of WP, actually, and I've been tending to it. When it's time to notify you, I will, as I've already said. I do my very best to play fair. I'm quite certain I have done no email (or any other kind of) stealth canvasing. Don't approve, and don't need to do it. "Transparency" - remember? No meatpuppeting being initiated by me either. Don't approve, and don't need to do it.

But we don't want to miss the larger idea here - it's ancient and basic: truth is not about voting, but about argumentation (usually involving inductive logic, I might add). Consensus is somewhat different, however, for the obvious reason that it is not about the interaction of premises and logic but about the interaction of people who share some common interest. Logic is not likely to be compromised by the entrance into a discussion of new people of good faith and intelligence. Consensus, obviously, could well be.

However, it's rather obvious to me that neither you nor Dreamboy respect logic, and you certainly don't understand (or is the problem respect?) consensus. You therefore are not playing fair. That's bad behavior, and for bad behavior there will be consequences, as long as I'm here.Tom Cloyd (talk) 03:38, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Wikipedia is not a democracy. Quality of argument and sources is what matters for consensus, and both point to iatrogenesis being included at least as a minority opinion. You have yet to point to any policies that permit you to simply wave away undeniably reliable sources, you have merely asserted that they are useless. Your opinion and assertion is not sufficient - point to a policy, or seek outside input on the WP:RSN, WP:FTN or some other venue that substantiates these sources being "useless" and I will listen to the broader outside consensus. I completely disagree with you handwaving away sources you personally disagree with. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:15, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

disruptive editing

[edit]

So much for "assume good faith". Personally, I have had it with WLU and his throughly disruptive ways. I have been following this discussion for a while. I too am a physican editor who has been the recipient of WLU's disruptive editing. See Abram Hoffer, where the same thing that is going on here went on, substitution of questionable sources for good ones, and so forth. Clearly, this editor is quite skilled in tying things in knots and at wikilawyering. Perhaps he hopes to make editing so difficult for expert editors that we leave. Enough is enough. Much more signifcant admins than him have been tossed off of here.

BTW, your interpretation is the correct one and I join in your concensus. Drjem3 (talk) 18:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thanks for showing up. These tussles are always difficult, simply because they are raw political process. The outcome does matter. Wikipedia is not trivial.
It's very good to have another professional in a related field on board - that's an understatement! This is an important article, more than most people realize. As E.F. Howell (2005) points out, dissociation is far more important to an understanding of mind and personality, not to mention basic brain function, than has been realized. This idea is ascendant, and the locus of much of the discussion does appear to be DID - witness Dell and O'Neil's wonderful Dissociation and the Dissociative Disorders. Makes me glad to get up in the morning! A wonderful time to be in the profession.
I believe I see a way out of this fracas, and it involves application of some common conflict resolution tactics. I'm still thinking about it, but am about ready to post.
Again, thanks for your involvement. I do think it will help things.
Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not trivial, and adherence to the policies and guidelines are what is responsible for maintaining a high level of content. If you want to address the conflict on the page, options include dispute resolution and justifying edits via reference to policies, guidelines and reliable sources.
What do you think about Drjem3's revert to the page here, returning The Skeptic's Dictionary as a source instead of two university textbooks, removing a link to a google books preview, claiming the DSM and Merck website cite something they do not, the list of comorbidities being cited to a primary source instead of secondary, and the proponent's explanation of DID being underdiagnosed? You really think these changes improve the page? I don't. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 23:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Strong demands upon me from multiple directions force brevity (ouch!). I am purposefully avoiding many individual points of conflict at this time in order to come at this from a different angle, and work to achieve a constructive resolution of the conflict. You will, of course, be invited to join me, along with all other interested parties, in this effort.

I am, for now, avoiding all overt conflict. Just not interested. Therefore, I am, for now, taking no interest in the actual text in the article. Until we are able, as a group, to work together, the article simply won't move forward. I take that as obvious, and expect that you do too.

I am, for now, no longer pursuing resolution through involvement of higher authorities, other than those which I believe all parties can readily agree to listen to - i.e., no involvement with admin. boards. I don't think this is yet advised, and is likely not to be necessary. It would not, in any case, be a quick way out. I think we can do better, working together, right now.

I am a writer, and order my thoughts by writing. That takes time and effort. I am close to being finished. My product will only be a start, as what I am proposing is not something I myself can do. If it happens at all, we, the community of interested editors, will do it. I like that idea very much.

I really do not think you will have any significant difficulty with what I am going to propose, and the reason for this may surprise you: I am going to overtly agree with you on many, if not most, of your methodological proposals. Content flows from methodology, which is why method is of primary importance.

So, I counsel patience, and equanimity. I think calmer waters are ahead. If there are individuals who do not wish to sail into them, I will attempt to be persuasive. Best I can do!

I expect to be posting shortly on the DID Talk page.

Tom Cloyd (talk)

Once you agree to the sole general principles that matter (the policies and guidelines) everything else is specifics. If you agree on two main specifics - that iatrogenesis represents at least a significant minority point that deserves a mention in the lead and further discussion in the body, and that there are adequate sources to support a brief discussion of Sybil in the history section, I doubt we will have many further disagreements. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:57, 18 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Agree" - I have never been at odds with them; I have simply failed to make that obvious. Will fix this.
"Specifics" - this has nothing to do with method. Content that belongs in the article will come from correct literature summary method. It that method supports your "specifics" (which it will not - I do know this literature), they're in. There, I suspect, we agree. Tom Cloyd (talk) 08:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Content comes from what specifics we can verify in reliable sources. And even a Cochrane reviewer won't know all the literature in an area, at best a small sliver. Nobody's knowledge of the literature in abstract is sufficient to edit the page - your knowledge of the literature may help you locate and interpret sources, but you still need to cite them, in sources that are at least in principle verifiable by other editors, including page numbers for books, for any bit of text to remain. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you stated on the DID talk page that you're raising this issue for resolution somewhere - [1]. Please notify me which venue you have chosen (and be aware of WP:BOOMERANG - be very clear what policies and guidelines you are citing, and most venues require diffs as evidence rather than just prose summaries. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Experts

[edit]

You may be interested in the user essay WP:EXPERT. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 11:52, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, we all know this. We all have been editing here about as long as you have. Also see WP:expert retention. The problem is that you cite stuff that is rather controversial while completely denying the validity of main-stream material presented to you by experts execising their proper wikifunction of knowing what the cites are. And then wikilawyer when called on it.
E.g., on Abram Hoffer you doggedly claimed that "most physicians" (not any that I know of, btw) discredit "megavitamin therapy", citing rather biased "popular" sources, but no published literature. OR, if I ever saw it. This was rather than simply agreeing that the matter is "controversial".
In fact, the particular example developed by Dr Hoffer (high-dose time-release niacin), is part of the main-stream treatment for dyslipidemia. Until very recently, this is in essentially the same form he worked out over five-decades ago. I gave the cites ad nauseum, only to see you repeatedly deny their validity and revert. Eventually, you retreated a little. I went away and you restored the "most physicians" nonsense. Hell, this is text-book material, taught to every medical student. Hilarious, in retrospect. Stuff like this is why they pay us the big bucks...
Point is not the disagreement (I change my own views regularly on many things and am always willing to be persuaded of any old thing), but your continued refusal to allow alternative points of view that even slightly called into question yours. Drjem3 (talk) 19:21, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's not the years, it's the mileage. I've got nearly 130 edits for every one edit of yours.
Heh, amusingly the article on expert retention led me to WP:IAC. Very nice.
What stuff have I cited that's controversial? What major medical bodies embrace megavitamin therapy, specifically the use of high-dose vitamins as a general treatment, not the single example of high dose naicin used to treat dyslipedemia? Actual medicine notes that high-dose niacin does appear to improve lipid levels - with side effects of vasodilation and anosmia. They don't then go on to say that because naicin has this one indication, all vitamins in huge doses must of necessity be also good. The fact that there is one rarely used intervention with high dose vitamins does not automatically justify using high dose vitamins as a general tonic or specific treatment. And even if there are other uses for high-dose vitamins as a treatment, that means a single vitamin has a single high-dose use, not that they all can cure cancer.
Can you provide any sources that say megavitamin therapy works, works well and works often? Any that aren't published in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine? WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:42, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"...you cite stuff that is rather controversial while completely denying the validity of main-stream material presented to you by experts exercising their proper wikifunction of knowing what the cites are. And then wikilawyer when called on it."
Exactly. And if not always true, it's true far, far too often.Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:15, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Second account?

[edit]

Do you have a second accout [2]? If those edits are indeed you, I suggest you tag both your acounts with {{User Alternate Acct Name}} and redirect the user and talk pages of TomCloyd (talk · contribs) to Tomcloyd (talk · contribs) per WP:SOCK#NOTIFY. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 18:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No. Why would I? I can't make sense of this. At one point, some time ago, I tried something (cannot recall what) to change my username so that it would be TomCloyd. The attempt appeared, at the time, not to work, so I never thought about it again. Perhaps this is an artifact of that episode. I have no idea. There appears to be a TomCloyd account, but no user page has been created, and the edits listed are obviously mine, which makes no sense to me.
It looks like your suggestion about the redirect is a good way to effective close this odd one, which MUST be simply artifactual of my earlier attempt. I'm surprised to see it crop up.Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Some people create second accounts by accident or when they forget the user name or password of their first account. User pages are only created when somebody actually edits them. If you are pretty sure that those two edits made by TomCloyd (talk · contribs) are yours, then you might as well tag and redirect; another option would be changing your user name. I'm no expert, but I think it might result in merging both accounts to a single set of contributions and you'd get to have a "C" rather than a "c".
The reason for a redirect-and-tag is simple transparency. Sockpuppeting is normally looked down on by the community, but being transparent about it means it's no longer an issue. If you're pretty sure that you made those edits, it's probably a good idea to redirect and tag, then you never have to worry about it again. I'd also have no problem doing it for you if you'd like, it's quite simple and I've done it several times for other accounts. More complicated is WP:CHU, and has the benefit of giving you your preferred account name. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:36, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for the Study of Trauma and Dissociation?

[edit]

I thought I'd get your input on this. I am surprised the ISSTD doesn't have an article on wikipedia, considering the FMSF does and how often the ISSTD is mentioned (and referenced) in the dissociative disorder-related articles. Decent idea, or no? I'm really new to wikipedia but it seems like the ISSTD is easily notable enough for its own wikipedia entry. Forgotten Faces (talk) 01:07, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OMG, as they say! I cannot find it either. This is truly surprising. I believe you've made a major discovery. This is exciting, because it's not often that one finds a major omission like this on WP. Congratulations to you for your investigative work!
So, I propose that we pull together some decent references - we need more than links to the site itself. We can get at least enough to get a decent wikipedia:stub article going. We could collect them on your talk page, if you like, then when we have enough to go forward, begin. (I happen to much enjoy collaborative work, which is why I'm proposing this.) However, if you'd like to just start and have me contribute as I find decent sources, that's fine too.
As far as I'm concerned, to you goes the honor of launching the article. I certainly do make myself available as a resource on all matters, to the extent that I may be helpful.
This is an extremely important organization for those interested in dissociation and dissociative disorders. It fully deserved a decent article. Let's make it happen! I have some time this evening, though not a lot, and can continue through the weekend.
This is exciting. Thank you for including in your initial thinking about this. I totally support your idea!
Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:02, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Tom. I like the idea of gathering references/ideas on my talk page and then going forward with the launching of it. I really have no idea what I am doing but I'm sure I'll catch on fast with a little help... so yeah, references first sound good. Now you have me excited, haha. I have only my google-fu to guide me, more resources would definitely be good. Thanks again. Forgotten Faces (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see a lot of playing in the sandbox in my near future. Forgotten Faces (talk) 02:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's precisely what sandboxes are for. Just be sure to keep the cats out of it! Will join you there shortly, with some references (I hope). (I'm assuming this is OK with you; you didn't explicitly say.) BTW, the "stub" link has some good ideas about how to get an article started.Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:18, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes of course, definitely need your help. I was just starting to read that article, in fact, but I do have to stop for the night rather soon. But by all means please get references and post them over there. :) Thanks! Forgotten Faces (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For a page to avoid deletion they have to pass the standards at WP:N. That means reliable, independent sources must discuss the ISSTD at length. You could try google books and google news, they are normally good sources. If the ISSTD ever operated under a previous name, that can not only be used as a fact in the page (with a inline citation) but it would also help in locating other sources to indicate notability. Also, it's a bit of a long shot, but google scholar sometimes will have articles that discuss actual agencies such as historical overviews of an idea or field. I've located some unarguably reliable sources:
  • [3] Blaney & Millon, 2008, Oxford Textbook of Psychopathology page 456, ISBN 0195374215,
  • [4] Reyes, Elhai & Ford, 2008, The Encyclopedia of Psychological Trauma, page 364, ISBN 0470386150; this book indicates it was formerly known as the International Society for the Study of Dissociation which gives a second search term that could be tried.
  • [5] Chu, 2011, Rebuilding Shattered Lives, page 14, ISBN 0470768746. Try also searching inside for ISSTD
  • [6] Dell & O'Neil, 2009, Dissociation and the dissociative disorders: DSM-V and beyond, page xiii, ISBN 0415957850 - this appears to be a full list of the three names (and date ranges) of the organization over the past couple decades.
You can't use the ISSTD's own works or website to pass WP:N, but once you've established notability through other sources, the website can be used to expand, judiciously, with attribution (i.e. "The ISSTD says...[ISSTD web page]" WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 14:16, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can help with the technical side of editing (I don't know about the organization myself yet). You can start with a Userspace draft if you want to to have time to get the article together before it being tagged by other editors. —danhash (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I see you already did. —danhash (talk) 15:35, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the sources above over to the sandbox and put them into citation templates if anyone wants to summarize and integrate them. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 16:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've hit my limit

[edit]

I've pretty much hit my limit for responding to your talk page postings. I don't care what you think of my character, what apparent diagnosis you believe I have, or really, what your interpretation of the policies and guidelines are. If you edit the main page and I disagree, I will indicate why on the talk page with specifics. Debating generalities is obviously pointless. Thanks, WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:07, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WLU, you don't just discuss it on the talk page, you revert the edits and post your reason why. No one else there is allowed to to this because you freak out and it becomes a revert war.~ty (talk) 19:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Science Rocks

[edit]
Science Award
Great! you have put science in your article! I LOVE SCIENCE! tylas (talk) 21:29, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Calvary Chapel

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Calvary Chapel. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:16, 24 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

PTSD in postpartum women

[edit]

Have you seen this new article? Seems like it could use some attention from a professional. —danhash (talk) 19:51, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the alert. Wasn't aware of it. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:00, 26 January 2012 (UTC)
Here's another new one: Malingering of posttraumatic stress disorder. —danhash (talk) 14:48, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Danhash: that page looks potentially quite harmful? Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jeez. First reaction. This is bogus. I know of no science that supports this. Will check it out. Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:29, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Skimpy" would be heavy praise. This may be a student paper - part of the Wikipedia Global Education Program in which I'm one of the Regional Ambassadors. Merge to PTSD is the sensible solution, I do think. Will contact authors - or try. Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's got a very short article history with only one major contributor who was apparently satisfied with it enough to stop editing, even though it is poorly written and has been butchered pretty badly. I can't check the references right now, but the whole article seems to me to be only one point of view and a very narrow one at that. For the time being I would say it should probably at least be gutted of anything not directly verifiable and any inappropriate references (if any) removed. Even if the current POV of the article is verifiable, I'd imagine it'd need to be a much longer and more balanced article before so much information about the current POV would be appropriate. —danhash (talk) 19:55, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Danhash: should it possibly just be deleted? but "at least be gutted of anything not directly verifiable and any inappropriate references" is a good start. Irtapil (talk) 05:41, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lead and the symptoms section

[edit]

Per Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution, I've reverted your change to the lead again. The quote needs to be attributed. In addition, per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, the lead is not unduly long.

I'm simply curious about your ongoing addition to the signs and symptoms section. Here is the text:

The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders[2] criteria for DID include the presence of two or more distinct identities or personality states, at least two of which take control of the individual's behavior on a recurrent basis, accompanied by inability to recall personal information beyond what is expected through normal forgetfulness. The diagnosis excludes symptoms caused by alcohol, drugs, medications or other medical conditions such as complex partial seizures and normal fantasy play in children.[2]

Both citations to [2] are to the DSM. The attribution for the text isn't in the prose wikilink, it's in the second citation in the paragraph which verifies the entire thing. I'm simply not sure what the first citation is supposed to verify - that the DSM exist? It's not linked to the DSM saying anythying - it's just there.

The latter point isn't worth edit warring over and I won't revert. The former is wrong. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 19:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your taking the time to engage in civil discussion and explanation. That approach works, for me.
Specific points:
  • "the former":Wikipedia:MOS#Attribution refers to "...a quote of a full sentence or more...". The quote in the lede has never been that (note the elipsis in the middle of the sentence). Part of the problem has been that the 'beginning also needed an elipsis, to make clear at the outset that this is a sentence fragment. I noted this some time ago, became distracted, and did not fix it. I just fixed this problem. I think at this point we're OK on this point.
  • "the latter": Taking a second look at this paragraph, I think I see your point. There's also the appearance of a needless double citation, where once should be enough. I can agree that a parsimonious solution is to keep the footnote at the end of the paragraph; I will make it so.
My concern had been that the reference to the DSM have a link to a full citation of the source, so there might be absolutely no confusion as to the reference. A bit compulsive of me, quite possibly. So, on this point, too, I think we have reached agreement.
Tom Cloyd (talk) 20:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are two ellipses in the quotation and one missing from the end. Noting what they are replacing in the original source, do you still think attribution doesn't apply? And consider the alternative, because I will put in the full sentence just to ensure there is attribution, and it will have to look something like this:
Dissociative identity disorder (DID, also known as multiple personality disorder in the ICD-10[1]) is a psychiatric diagnosis. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) states:
Or we can solicit explicit feedback on the talk page from other involved editors, or solicit feedback in the form of a request for comment. My preference is to simply stick with the current attribution. Noting that it is the DSM making this statement is important. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:55, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the exact text, I think the ellipsis needs to be added at the end, just to be technically correct. What's critical is the statement itself - its content. The average reader will get correct information from that. Some will wonder about the source, and the footnote explicitly resolves that question. That's what footnotes are for. It may be assumed that if it's in the lede (and the editors are to be trusted), it's a fundamentally correct AND important statement. Therefore, I don't think announcing the source is particularly needed, or even valuable, compared to keeping the lede terse and direct.
I also don't think the full quote is needed; it doesn't add anything essential. I see no value at all in laboring over this by referring the question to the other editors. And God forbid that we should issue an RFC. This is really a little question. We have big questions to take up. Let's put our energies there, for the sake of advancing the article.
The lede won't always be as lean as it is now. When other sections are more complete and better sourced, the lede needs to summarize them as well - in my mind I'm making room in the lede for those summary statements.
In any case, we cannot do anything until the block is lifted, in 3 days.Tom Cloyd (talk) 06:38, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We can establish a consensus so when page protection is lifted, we won't go back to edit warring, which means neither one of us will be blocked and the page won't be locked again. Myself and Juice have reverted to replace the DSM in the lead. Tylas and you have removed it.
I am quite willing to write out the full text including what is now ellipses at the beginning, middle and end to ensure it meets your technical criterion of "a full sentence" in order to include attribution. I think the reader is served by the attribution being included juxtaposed to the sentence and I think it is correct per the manual of style. The footnote does not resolve in-text attribution, it verifies the source and not every reader will check the footnotes.
Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, the lead is not overly long, it might even be a bit short considering the length of the overall page, so there is no need to abbreviate it further. Irrespective what it might be in the future, right now it is short enough for one sentence from the DSM.
You appear not to be aware of the reason for the full quote. There was edit warring over that bit of text and other editors agreed a direct quote was acceptable. I agree this is a waste of time to discuss, but you seem convinced it is sufficiently vital to edit war over and nitpick the meaning of the policy. Therefore I am attempting to resolve it by including a direct quote. Failing that, I will take it to an RFC, which is actually quite quick and painless for a question like this. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of attempting to reduce the edit warring, but for that to happen you need seriously to grasp that you are over-controlling, and have been since I've been involved with the article. You need to gracefully give ground some of the time, especially when a rational argument is advanced by the other side, and you do not effectively counter the argument. By being so tedious about everything, you make other people pay a high price for their involvement with the article, and you reduce the actual editing that gets done.

I'm not hopeful that you can see this, and I'm not at all sure you're not doing it deliberately. What I do know is that it is dysfunctional and destructive, and one way or another it must stop. Stop quarreling about every damn thing you don't like - like whether or not to use "some". Again, this MUST end, one way or another.

"Per Wikipedia:LEAD#Length, the lead is not overly long, it might even be a bit short considering the length of the overall page, so there is no need to abbreviate it further. Irrespective what it might be in the future, right now it is short enough for one sentence from the DSM."

THAT is simply being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative. It is the sort of thing first year law students do. Just stop. You do not have to fight every fight that comes your way.

Again, you appear not to understand the substance of what I have said about the specific issue at hand, and I don't know why -

1. A footnote IS an attribution. Explicit attribution (by naming the source IN the text) is neither required (by P&G) or a good idea (for reasons of brevity), UNLESS the full sentence is used. Because the source is made easily accessible by the footnote (especially in Wikipedia, where footnotes link), those who want to know CAN, and those who do not will just read on.

2. A sentence which contains one or more ellipsis can NEVER be considered a full quote. This is basic writing knowledge (high school English). If it is not a full quote, explicit attribution is not called for.

Your history with this article is simply disruptive. I cannot see it any other way. You fight about everything. Juice's behavior is more than disruptive. He makes no contribution whatsoever. It is the clear intent of you both to prevent the creation of an article which correctly represents the literature and thus serves both readers with general interest those to whom the article is especially important because they HAVE DID. Your manifest indifference to that last concern is indefensible. Both your behavior and that of Juice towards a person known to have DID (Tylas) is sufficient, in my mind, to warrant your being banned from Wikipedia from henceforth.

This will be fixed, or the future of Wikipedia is in grave doubt. Content experts like me do not have time for this crap. We will flee, and spread the word to our peers that Wikipedia is the domain of sociopaths. Right now, this article is that for sure. It doesn't matter that some of the time you make real contributions. The rest of the time your disruptiveness condemns you.

You won't be able to see this. You will continue to disrupt. Others will resolve this. Or not. The issue goes well beyond this article, and that's where I am taking it.

If you want to remediate all this, begin by apologizing to Tylas. Then, start real work on the article, and stop trying to insert a distinctly non-professional POV. But I'm wasting my time and energy saying that. You've had plenty of chances. Enough.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:28, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

If you've an issue with my conduct, feel free to raise it in the appropriate venue. I've pointed them out several, several times.
Request for comment it is. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 01:07, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
RFC - yeah let's all talk for the next 2 weeks. Great idea. More stalling. This is abuse of process, to me. Tom Cloyd (talk) 01:44, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's really not, an RFC would settle this minor, and to my mind incredibly obvious issue quickly with the minimum of drama. I consider this comment corroboration of my previous statements and thus support retaining the DSM in that part of the article. If, based on this comment, you also are content to leave the DSM in that part of the article, then I consider the issue settled and see no further need to discuss it. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 15:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems the 3 day article protection will not be enough... Juice Leskinen 16:06, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Correct. The Forces of Darkness are still abroad. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:09, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Warning - Personal Attacks

[edit]

Please stop attacking other editors, as you did on Talk:Dissociative identity disorder. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing Wikipedia. Juice Leskinen 11:09, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Without specifics this is merely harassment - a violation of WP:NPA. Please specifics to document your concern. Tom Cloyd (talk) 11:20, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There are so many, but here is one example: [7] Juice Leskinen 11:46, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but that's a discussion of your behavior, not an attack. It's just the truth, to my eyes. It's also a wholly defensible behavioral description, something I have some skill in constructing. Your behavior, as I accurately described it, IS congruent with the group I mentioned. I've never seen anyone do that who wasn't a fellow-traveler with that group. It was an attempt to raise your awareness of a problem, and it failed utterly, I'm sad to say

So where's the attack? If I'm being obtuse (bad bet), simply point out the offensive phrase.

I did make a mistake with that post, though. I should have isolated something more specific and issued a formal warning. I'm learning. Won't happen again.

Tom Cloyd (talk) 18:23, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You need to take some time calming down. Emotion can easily cloud your judgment. Juice Leskinen 18:39, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, you have that right. Looks like something delusional to me...will have to investigate when I get time.
Meanwhile. your answer is no answer at all. This warning has no substance.Tom Cloyd (talk) 19:12, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You can always test your luck and make more "observations of behavior" and see if other agree that they are as harmless as you claim. Anytime. Juice Leskinen 20:02, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Is already under way my friend.Tom Cloyd (talk) 21:59, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

AN posting notification

[edit]

Administrator's noticeboard posting. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:25, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this discussion just got a whole lot more serious for you to whit. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 17:04, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Accessibility

[edit]

I just noticed it seems you accidentally signed up twice; thought I'd point it out to you. —danhash (talk) 18:02, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well of course. ALL of us want to be involved. We talked about it, and that was the decision. We ALL want access to the DID article!!! [:) - I couldn't resist! It's my natural work>laugh>work cycle expressing itself). Thanks for the heads up - I was a bit tired last night. Will go fix it. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A kitten for you!

[edit]

this is a thank you kitten.

Unitybicycle (talk) 21:17, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

THANKS! As it happens, I have a life long love of cats. Have recently come to love dogs too, but cats were first. Wonderful creatures, all... Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:07, 1 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Accessibility question

[edit]

Note. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:simple/complex 13:28, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Proposed topic ban for Tom Cloyd

[edit]

Thought you should see this. —danhash (talk) 17:40, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Don't leave idiot :)

[edit]

Take note of the smiley face and humour. :) Don't leave Tom; instead, take a break from DID article, work on the PTSD for a month or so and return to the DID article and don't compare editors to facism or make derogatory mental health diagnosis of people's behaviour. As someone who has been involved in several WP:BATTLEFIELD's, including one that ended up in wikipedia arbitration, I could try and help you with suggestions on how to deal with excessive emotions when editing. Us men sometimes let our testosterone fueled emotions get the better of us! I think some of your behaviour has been very wrong/inappropriate, but I think your intention has been WP:GOODFAITHed and noble and I would hate to see a good faithed expert throw in the towel.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 12:47, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Odd that you should show up just now. I'm editing my departure statement on my user page at this moment. I do note the smiley face, and enjoy that. And I appreciate your advice, and that you'd even bother to show up here. Thank you! Your offer of assistance is generous, and I'm grateful for that generosity. I have been involved now with WP for several years. I've learned a lot, some of which I will summarize below. It is true that I have strong feelings about what I do. I don't see that impairing my ability to reason, but that may be myopic of me. I don't usually have trouble admitting that I make mistakes, and I'm sure I have made some at Wikipedia. I make mistakes every day. But there are some things I will not tolerate.

I have two very major problems here which I cannot at this time overcome:

  • dealing with bad actors: I've seen some appalling behavior at the DID article. I've characterized the behavior of the ringleader of the bad actors as sociopathic, which, should anyone bother to analyze it a bit (and no one has) is quite correct. (It's also not the same as calling him a sociopath, which I clearly have NOT done.) MY using that label ought to have raised questions - about what I was referring to; it has not. There has been very little response to this abusive and appalling behavior. I realized that, as in countries ruled by dictators, apparently no one's coming to our rescue, so I began trying to find a solution. The time this alone has taken is beyond what I can afford. WP has no quick way to weed itself, and I cannot take this job on for any part of it. I have more important things to do.
  • decision making: For some time, I've noted that decision making at WP is very expensive. Group decision making is always messy, but consensus is one of the worst of all methods. One editor at DID disputes everything, down to a single word (literally), in order to assert control. The concept of "consensus" is routinely used in an inconsistent and bullying way, there, as well. I see this happening in multiple places at Wikipedia. The absurdity of this is obvious to me, but I appear to be a minority. The time costs here, too, exceed my budget. I have people to care for, people who are as challenging as troubled people can be. I have a large and growing literature to keep up with, one that is exceptionally exciting, but not easy to fully assimilate for any of us. I have research and writing commitments to fulfill. Note that I didn't mention my personal life. I have too little time for that also. I have to make choices, and Wikipedia is no longer on the list. People come first.

I've reached the same conclusion Jimmie Wales apparently has reached: we have an organizational problem here (although if I understand correctly his concern extends only to articles about living people). Wikipedia is first and foremost a social internet construction. It is NOT about content generation. I had a mistaken understanding of this when I came here. I'm interested primarily in the latter. I don't belong here. There are damned few content experts here, and now I really understand why, and I cannot fix the problem.

I'm very sad about this, but facts are facts. Wikipedia sucks my blood and gives back little. I can SEE my productivity in other places. Not here. So, to me, the message is clear: go where the return is. I've thought about this for days, and always reached the same conclusion, so I think that's what I'm left with. This is not easy, but staying is no longer possible for me. I'm really sorry, for it surely has not been an entirely bad experience - far from it. But life is short, and I have to play the best bets. I don't see this as one of them, any longer.

Again, I sincerely thank you for having enough care for what I've done that you'd show up here. That means a lot to me. I will say that I wish you a continued good experience here. Tom Cloyd (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Tom for the well wishes. You actually had the upperhand in that content dispute. The editor(s) who adopted the viewpoint that the mainstream view was pseudoscience and WP:FRINGE are easily dealt with via noticeboards and policies and guidelines and the community generally does not accept their editings; you will lose sympathy (or points) though if as you lose your cool and are not WP:CIVIL, which is where you went wrong and you got too engrossed in the dispute and drained yourself. In my view the editor(s) behaviour was more likely motivated by a (fringe) belief rather than sociopathic reasons. The other editor WLU, edits from a strong disinterested encyclopedic policy and guidelines position and could have been an ally or at least neutral editor who sometimes made you happy and sometimes not so. It is your first WP:BATTLEFIELD, I made mistakes on controversial articles which were WP:BATTLEFIELDs to. Ironically, although you opposed WLU, knowing WLU, he will keep the article from going to a fringe position, that I saw at least one editor advocating for. Battlefields on wikipedia ae stimulating and engaging, but not much fun and depressing after the battle ends no matter who 'wins'. It is unfortunate that it came to this because your heart was in the right place, just your heart gave you too strong emotions. Anyway, I understand that your mind is made up and I know your reasoning; I wish you good luck in life Tom and with your career.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 15:13, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Juice Leskinen was banned for sockpuppeteering and you may be interested to know that he seemed to be editing and was accused by other editors as using sockpuppets to promote a viewpoint that prepubescent sexual abuse of children did not cause harm/mental health problems, hence his interest and sockpuppeteering on the DID article. I told you he wouldn't last long on wikipedia! I know your decision is final, but may be of value for you to know Juice has been banned and his WP:FRINGE viewpoint will not dominate the article. Hope you are well.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 16:29, 5 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider redacting some of your commentary

[edit]

Hi Tom, I'm sorry to hear you've decided to leave Wikipedia, and I hope you change your mind and decide to resume contributing your knowledge to the project. If you're still reading this in the meantime, however, I'd like to request that you please consider redacting some of the most inflammatory of the rhetoric that you've posted on your userpage and talk page today. Comments like "This is classic controlling behavior, something commonly seen in abusive people" and "I've characterized the behavior of the ringleader of the bad actors as sociopathic, which, should anyone bother to analyze it a bit (and no one has) is quite correct", despite any disclaimers you add about using adjectives to apply to behavior rather than editor, are because of your professional credentials much more serious attacks than they would be coming from another editor, and are quite clearly you attempting to diagnose the behavior of someone with whom you have no medical relationship, based on their words on a computer screen. Given that, these "diagnoses" serve only to inflame an already-tense situation, and I would strongly suggest you consider removing them. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! (talk) 16:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First, thank you for appearing here with your thoughts. I wholly accept that you are acting in good faith, and that is appreciated. I hope you realize that I have been as well, to the best of my ability.
Here's my problem, relative to your requests: At the article in question, I saw very considerable content-blocking activity which seemed to me to be uncalled for and unproductive. At the same time, people were approached in highly questionable ways (e.g., I was told in very clear terms that I necessarily had a POV and therefore would be likely have an undesirable influence on the article. This is absurd for several reasons, which I summarized in my response. Over time, it was clear that there was a concerted effort to get rid of what was seen as a potential status-quo-disrupter: me. I DO have a point of view. We all do. Mine is that which the article ought to have - that of professional psychology. I'm amazed that this needs either pointing out or any defense.
Watching the content-blocking going on, over time, I easily detected a pattern, one which was confirmed when the individual who was exhibiting it verbally assaulted one of the DID-victim editors. I confronted him about this and suggested remediation ought to being with an apology. That never occurred. Now, educated people have a name for this: sociopathic behavior. That is NOT calling someone a sociopath, and that anyone ever thought that means that either [a] they cannot read with an adequate level of comprehension what I very clearly wrote (I'm a professional and I don't use psychopathological terms thoughtlessly), or [b] that they lack adequate understanding of a term basic to many disciplines - psychology, sociology, criminal justice, etc. This is their problem, not mine.
When a behavior pattern has a well-known name, it is appropriate to use it. We say "He seemed anxious", or "He seemed disoriented", etc., etc., we are using well known references to behavior patterns which manifest mental states. This is NOT the exclusive realm of psychopathology or psychotherapy, and attempts to claim such are likely to be attempts to shut down precise use of language. As I writer, I will always resist such attempts. The editor's behavior was sociopathic. Look at it and decide for yourself. My obligation is to speak the truth I see, not to be nice, although most of the time the two goals need not be in conflict. When there is a conflict, I will sometimes chose to speak the truth. Due to the degree of disruption I was seeing at the article, this seemed to me to be one of those times. I'm sorry my word choice disturbs you or anyone. I'm more sorry that the editors pattern of behavior seems to disturb no one except me and those DID-victims who have stated that they are leaving. This tells me a great deal about the editorial community as a whole, and none of it is good news. This is a truth I find distressing, but cannot avoid.
I also called the behavior pattern "sociopathic" in an attempt to alert others to what was going on. It is telegraphic verbal expression - or at least it was supposed to be. It appears that I overestimated my audience. I'm sorry, but that doesn't mean I need to redact anything. I got it right, and I'm confident of that. In fact, no one has challenged me as to the substantive appropriateness of my word choice. They (and you) have only said that it was socially inappropriate - inflammatory, etc. It is rare that speech can be booth correct and inflammatory. I don't think we have an instance of that here. Just my opinion.
A couple of other clarifications:
  • I didn't "diagnose behavior". "Sociopathic" is a descriptive term, not a diagnosis. One diagnoses people, not behavior. I have not the information needed to make a diagnosis, and if I did the last thing in the world I would do is broadcast it on Wikipedia.
  • "Attack" is a term that is thrown around entirely too loosely here. How does one criticize without "attacking"? I believe my criticism is both substantive and justifiable. It's extremely peculiar that no one other than me has taken the editor in question's showing up on a DID-editor's use page (the front page, mind you, not the talk page) and spilling out a profanity-laced rant directed at her to task for his behavior. It's a classic male ploy: Engage in violence in the proximity of a female, to intimate her. Domestic abusers typically punch walls, and throw furniture or telephones. But that's not attacking the person is it? Agreed. But is sure is an intimidation attempt, and that speaks to my claim that he engages in relentless and global controlling behavior. That claim, as well, is demonstrable. I can back it up, and I extremely sure that people familiar at all with the behavior of abusive men would immediately recognize what I'm referring to. I am not required to speak in some form of "simple English" here. I am required merely to be accurate. If you don't understand me, consider reading up on the matter a bit, then revisiting the situation. I'm not trying to be incomprehensible. I just have limited time, and the use of somewhat specialize terms allows me to say a lot with a little. To able to do that is precisely why all profession develop jargon.
My interest has always been to act to correct the situation and allow a constructive editorial environment to emerge at the article. My best effort has failed. It is clear to me that preserving the social internet nature of the Wikipedia experience is far more important to the editorial community than is including new editors, or dealing competently with bad actors. Given that, this is not community of which I wish to be a part. It's that simple.
Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond WP I write for a paper. I am going to talk to the editor today to see if they would like to run a piece on the WP inner circle and how it distrubts good article content. If, so, and I am sure they will - would you allow them to print this letter?~ty (talk) 16:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It has always been my desire to be useful to others. So if anything I write, anywhere, can be put to good use, I have no trouble with the idea at all. That's one reason why the material at my website bears the license it does. I do think it might be valuable for the editor or whoever does whatever writing to consider calling me, if only to make sure that my ideas are correctly understood. Misunderstanding rarely help anyone! Thanks for your interest. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

leaving

[edit]

Tom, I hope you will reconsider leaving. I am going to keep fighting for the DID article as much as is possible under the circumstances. I hope you will come back at some point but either way it was nice working with you for the past few weeks. Forgotten Faces (talk) 18:36, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much. I don't see a reconsideration forthcoming. My thinking, when it finally clarifies, is usually stable - I come out in a place that is true and comfortable for me. I am in such a place now. The world offers us a great many opportunities. I will engaging with some of my other ones.
I will say that your contributions to the article and to other articles appear to be those of a capable and productive mind. This is always a pleasure to witness. I wish for you the best in the future. If one of the opportunities-to-explore which I have in mind works out you likely also will hearing from me via Wikipedia email, so you can decide if you want to engage your talents with it. Your choice, but I want you to have it. Thank you for your positive regard. It is easy for me to return it to you. Tom Cloyd (talk) 22:50, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Leaving is so final. I read what has happening and have been watching your talkpage. Why make a long term commitment? Why not just say you are taking a Wikibreak and in a few months, in a few years, you reconsider the state of the project and decide whether it fits in with what you are doing? And even if you say you leave - what are you going to say if you meet someone for whom editing Wikipedia is the right course of action? If you find someone who would benefit from Wikipedia despite its flaws, then surely you would send them to the project. If Wikipedia is in your life, even if you are not editing articles, then are you really leaving? Blue Rasberry (talk) 23:42, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, hi there! I have been spending a remarkable afternoon with some remarkable people, who are heros of mine because of the way they are working on growing through the severe challenges presented to them by the disaster of their childhood. This is life as real as it gets, and it's breathtaking to be a part of the process. The existential challenge of being human - it's both identical for all of us and unique for each of us. I don't know how better to put it. So, after doing that, for a sustained period of time, I get to receive a message from a person whose Wikipedia expertise I am in awe of. How cool is that? Thank you for unexpectedly showing up here.

Finality can be hard to accept, I know, but that isn't quite the situation, relative to my leaving. I am decidedly not fool enough to declare that I can see the future. I cannot even see clearly the end of this day, and the sun has already set. So, as I told one person earlier, I am closing the door on Wikipedia, for reasons that are very clear to me, but I'm not nailing it shut. I have a very clear sense that my time is better spent elsewhere, AND that this is my personal situation, which doesn't necessarily describe that of anyone else. That is for them to decide. I would like to see some serious changes in how Wikipedia works, so that the two problems I delineated - swift and sure management of bad actors, and making decisions more efficiently and effectively - are robustly addressed. I do not expect to see this happen any time soon, and I accept this reality.

I will not disparage Wikipedia to others. I also will not sugar coat the reality. It is not reliably or openly friendly to content experts. So, few content experts even bother to show up here, much less hang around, and I have just found out one reason why. It is also a place participation in which can have a high time cost. This fact alone will keep many content experts out. Our time is very precious to us, and we cannot afford to suffer fools gladly. I came here because I was alarmed at the mediocrity and misinformation in the one article of greatest importance to me professionally, an article which my clients did read, and it was less than fully helpful to them. I have helped to seriously improve the article. But at any time a disruptive editor can show up and blow the boat out of the water. I now know that. I'm not willing to hold my breath waiting for this. I can do the same work elsewhere, with less cost, more immediately visible results, and with greater security from bad actors.

People can come here and take what they find, and often at least some of it will be useful. That is my experience. I think we could do better here than we do, but that would require some changes. Until then, it's clearly potluck. Wikipedia is surely still in my life, as are many other things, and that's not a bad thing. It's a fascinating social experiment, without doubt. I think anyone getting involved in it will learn valuable lessons. I certainly have, and I'm grateful for them.

So, there's no cause for despair or alarm, I really thing. The sun comes tomorrow, as usual. And the work and learning will continue, as long we breath and walk. I plan on maintaining the key contacts I have made at Wikipedia during my time here. My sense of their worth is quite clear to me. Tom Cloyd (talk) 02:50, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"I am closing the door on Wikipedia, for reasons that are very clear to me, but I'm not nailing it shut"
Does this mean that you might come back at a later date?
Yea, I know the article you are referring to, PTSD, I remember having that on my watch list years ago, as I had done a few edits to it and it was one of those articles that I knew was a very important topic area but yet the article was absolutely pitiful. It was refreshing to see an enthusiastic editor come along and make such a large contribution to it. You made some editing mistakes along the way as we all do but by and large I think you did a great thing with the PTSD article and you can leave wikipedia knowing that your improvements to that article will continue to benefit the wikipedia readership for years to come. Maybe somewhere down the line another content editor will come along and pick up from where you left off.--Literaturegeek | T@1k? 14:39, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tom, if you don't mind emailing me through wiki I'd like to have your contact info (and vice versa) just in case I stop editing or for whatever reason we can't find each other. I am interested in whatever you are concocting plus I'd like to ask you some content/source questions sometimes. If not, that's ok - just wanted to put it out there. Forgotten Faces (talk) 15:02, 4 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Christianity. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:18, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Topic ban from Dissociative identity disorder

[edit]

This is a notice that you are hereby topic banned from Dissociative identity disorder and the article's talk page indefinitely. You may not edit either page nor talk about either page on your talk page or any other Wikipedia space unless appealing the topic ban at WP:AN. Should you ever return, or not depart, you are strongly encouraged to seek mentoring or to edit in other areas of Wikipedia until you have the experience to edit according to Wikipedia standards of conduct and content. See ANI Thread and the topic ban.--v/r - TP 17:25, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Troll

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Troll. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 23 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Ethereal being

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Ethereal being. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:17, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Social Cognitive Theory

[edit]

Hello Tom.

I'm sorry to read that you've left Wikipedia, perhaps a better idea would be to create your own website sharing information, maybe it could end up being cited by Wikipedia and that way you can let the people who are obsessed with the structure of this website be the ones that deal with the petty details.

Anyway I came to your page because of a comment you left on Social Cognitive Theory, I wonder if the name isn't something regional, depending on whether the country or the University is more interested in the work of the original researchers or that of Bandura.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Social_cognitive_theory#.22Social_Cognitive_Theory.22_.3F_and_the_idea_of_merging_with_the_Social_Learning_article

Best of luck in the future! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.167.167.24 (talk) 17:24, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Talk:Logical positivism

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Talk:Logical positivism. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Username policy. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 12:18, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Disambiguation. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:15, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy)

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (clergy). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 13:16, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Vital Articles. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 14:16, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Article guidelines. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:20, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Rules for Fools. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Accessibility. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 23:19, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 00:17, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:Closing discussions. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 02:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on Wikipedia talk:No legal threats. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 03:16, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please comment on User talk:L'Origine du monde

[edit]

Greetings! You have been randomly selected to receive an invitation to participate in the request for comment on User talk:L'Origine du monde. Should you wish to respond to the invitation, your contribution to this discussion will be very much appreciated! If in doubt, please see suggestions for responding. If you do not wish to receive these types of notices, please remove your name from Wikipedia:Feedback request service. — RFC bot (talk) 04:17, 1 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

[edit]

Hi,
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) 17:34, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Greetings Recent Changes Patrollers!

This is a one-time-only message to inform you about technical proposals related to Recent Changes Patrol in the 2016 Community Wishlist Survey that I think you may be interested in reviewing and perhaps even voting for:

  1. Adjust number of entries and days at Last unpatrolled
  2. Editor-focused central editing dashboard
  3. "Hide trusted users" checkbox option on watchlists and related/recent changes (RC) pages
  4. Real-Time Recent Changes App for Android
  5. Shortcut for patrollers to last changes list

Further, there are more than 20 proposals related to Watchlists in general that you may be interested in reviewing. (and over 260 proposals in all, across many aspects of wikis)

Thank you for your consideration. Please note that voting for proposals continues through December 12, 2016.

Note: You received this message because you have transcluded {{User wikipedia/RC Patrol}} (user box) on your user page. Since this message is "one-time-only" there is no opt out for future mailings.

Best regards, Stevietheman — Delivered: 01:10, 8 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

You mentioned on the accessibility project that you are: "Interested in mental-health-related accessibility issues - certainly an orphan area. We haven't a lot of external guidance to draw upon. A problem." that sounds close to my interested, what sort of issues were you referring to? Irtapil (talk) 05:35, 9 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been unsubscribed from the Feedback Request Service

[edit]

Hi Tomcloyd! You're receiving this notification because you were previously subscribed to the Feedback Request Service, but you haven't made any edits to the English Wikipedia in over three years.

In order to declutter the Feedback Request Service list, and to produce a greater chance of active users being randomly selected to receive invitations to contribute, you've been unsubscribed, along with all other users who have made no edits in three years or more.

You do not need to do anything about this - if you are happy to not receive Feedback Request Service messages, thank you very much for your contributions in the past, and this will be the last you hear from the service. If, however, you would like to resubscribe yourself, you can follow the below instructions to do so:

  1. Go to the Feedback Request Service page.
  2. Decide which categories are of interest to you, under the RfC and/or GA headings.
  3. Paste {{Frs user|{{subst:currentuser}}|limit}} underneath the relevant heading(s), where limit is the maximum number of requests you wish to receive for that category per month.
  4. Publish the page.

If you've just come back after a wikibreak and are seeing this message, welcome back! You can follow the above instructions to re-activate your subscription. Likewise, if this is an alternate account, please consider subscribing your main account in much the same way.

Note that if you had a rename and left your old name on the FRS page, you may be receiving this message. If so, make sure your new account name is on the FRS list instead.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask on the Feedback Request Service talk page, or on the Feedback Request Service bot's operator's talk page. Thank you! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Tomcloyd&oldid=1184565766"