Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 161:
Line 161: + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 18:44, December 22, 2013
, 18:44, December 22, 2013→This is a terrible article: comment
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
::The terms "character disturbance" and "disturbed character" is being used by some counseling people. I think this is a tempest in a teapot and you should not trouble User: AK in the future. [[User:Conservative|Conservative]] 22:49, 21 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::again if you want to protect your friend that's fine I already told you off site I wouldn't interfere.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 06:32, 22 December 2013 (EST)
=== This is a terrible approach ===
::::I agree that the article is an embarrassment, however I need to add that i.a. to people who tend to answer the question for getting wider input on issue from other editors first by making an ominous warning: ''"you're clearly trolling and if you do it again i'll block you, love, iduan"'' [editing article is not, after all, a trolling] and then by blocking that person who makes such a call. That's not very ethical, IMHO. As for your point(s), pls. see also [[Truth at Wikipedia]]. I do not need to ascribe a diagnosis to a person as whether a person qualifies for something depends solely on evaluating his/her behavior described in sources against the criteria as was already explained. If you are interested only in what sources say, then it is peculiar that you had absolutely no objections whatsoever against the folkloristic entry ("Common speech and folklore are...") inserted by SamHB. There was your unique opportunity to express your strong beliefs in sourced information that you obviously missed (people usually call such approach [[hypocrisy]]: "criticism of others, by a standard one does not apply to oneself. It is hypocritical to use a double standard which strictly applies a rule to one group of people, while exempting or excusing another group."). Moreover, you should have a look at [[Hearsay_society#Notable_examples]], there was the case of Philip Roth when WP claimed obvious nonsense only because it was supported by "sources". The term "one author has used in his book" itself is meaningful because it correctly recognizes the tendencies we can plainly see are taking place in the society and tries to reasonably counter them. I hope this helps, thanks for understanding.--[[User:AK|AK]] 13:44, 22 December 2013 (EST)