Block, SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
2,947
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 164:
Line 164: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 01:14, December 26, 2013
, 01:14, December 26, 2013→This is a terrible approach: reply
::::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)
::::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)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals. Imagine if we just allowed users to make this kind of evaluations for other articles. One user says John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder. Another says Bin Laden was a great example of clinical narcissism. One user says some eccentric artist must be schizophrenic. The problem is that allowing that type of layman diagnosis turns the conversation from "is this article sourced and fact checked" to a bunch of non-professionals arguing over what psychological disease they think an article subject had. If you can't understand that that's a problem, I don't know how else to explain it to you. And it's a much larger problem than a folkloristic entry - if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find an article I've written that has those kinds of claims. You won't have any luck. And your analysis that the term is meaningful is based on what ... your expert opinion? Fantastic. Lastly, my block of you - which was brief (a week, I think?) - was justified. Two editors questioned you on this talk page and you responded with ad hominem attacks. ("Are you an evolutionist? Do you also oppose the Question Evolution campaign?"). I appreciate your attempt at explanation, but my concerns about you as an editor remain. Best of luck improving the article.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 15:01, 22 December 2013 (EST)
:::::Ad. ''The issue, AK, is that "evaluation his/her behavior ... against the criteria" is a job for professionals.''
::::::I do not want to be sarcastic, but it is very difficult to avoid it in light of observable evidence.
::::::*This erasing [http://conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Psychiatry&diff=1071903&oldid=1071901 edit of yours] testifies that you are not that much interested in job of professionals after all if their viewpoint is not in line with the one you hold. A professional who holds the degree of Doctor of Medicine (got medical training in the early 1980’s), received the degree of Bachelor of Science from Yale College in 1980, and was a laboratory administrator at a 250-bed community hospital in New Jersey, earned the following cagey comment from you: "get another source" (it seems we caught you red-handed -cf. "if you want to accuse me of hypocrisy perhaps you should try to find..." ). If you are so much after professionals, maybe you should print out these two contradictory positions and acts of yours and visit one, with question how they might relate to something called [[schizophrenia]] (you seem to know the term: cf."must be schizophrenic").
::::::*In general you are right wrt. "job for professionals", under the assumption that you "speak" about a typical evolutionist who i.a. suffers from [[Kerkut’s student syndrome]] ("…he will have faith in theories that he only dimly follows and will call upon various authorities to support what he does not understand. In this he differs no one bit from the irrational student of the bygone age who would mumble his dogma …"; Kerkut “also addressed the problem of dogmatism in scientific education, comparing the modern evolutionary science student to the theology student of the past, accepting ideas on the basis of authority while claiming “to be different from his predecessors in that he thinks scientifically and despises dogmas.””) and is in theory prone to push Dawkins’ words on critical thinking down everyone’s throat but in reality himself just follows and calls for blind faith in what so called "professionals" say: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0u3-2CGOMQ#t=323 “I’m gonna trust what those experts did”]. "Experts" say many things, they've managed to "discover" [[Nature (journal)|planet Vulcan]], to establish [http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=4959361 homosexual and pedophilian "sexual orientation"]; sometimes the thing they say depends on money involved ("A major factor in the decline of psychoanalysis is the reluctance of insurance companies to foot the bill for an open-ended treatment at a cost of more than $2,000 a month."); sometimes they contradict each other. That's why you find some people to realize that on some occasions [http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2682310/posts "it's time to take our country back by ignoring the 'experts’"]. You do not need to feel like part of plebs having no access to "secret knowledge" of elevated [[Gnosticism#Gnostic_Elitism|neo-gnostic elite]] and condemned only to follow blindly your pseudo-religious leaders.
::::::*You appear to perform cherry-picking depending on what [[psychological manipulation|end justifies your means]], at one hand you approve the description of Simon's book as self-helping, i.e. de facto enabling the reader to make informed decisions, and on the other you want to discredit it for the very same attribute.
::::::*Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use [[Weak analogy|false analogy]]. We do not say here ''"John Lennon probably had bipolar disorder"'' but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria. Neither "probably" is needed nor false usage of "psychological disease" for such thing as mere "erroneous thinking patterns and problematic dysfunctional behaviors". If you, despite having plenty of insight and awareness, can't understand that that's a problem, I do know how else to explain it to you -what you need to try and can benefit from are:
:::::::*limits
:::::::*confrontation
:::::::*and most especially correction. For example, [http://creation.com/anyone-for-tennis this article] could help you tremendously. There are standards for discussion to maintain.
::::::::"The questioner was plying me with question after question, hardly waiting for my answer to the previous one to finish. My questioner had challenged me on a variety of ... points seeking to discredit [the article entry]. It seemed to me as though I was in a ‘gun battle’ with shot after shot being fired at me. Then I realized that my challenger was not actually interested in my answers so much as in trying to trip me up on some point and thereby discredit [the article entry]. It occurred to me that I needed to change tactics. This discussion should be like a tennis match, not a gun battle! In a tennis match, one player will serve, and his opponent will endeavour to ‘return serve’. If he does so successfully, the onus is on the server to deal with his opponent’s shot. And so it continues until one player is unsuccessful at returning the ball, at which point he must acknowledge, “Okay, you won that point.” So, after my answer to the next question I immediately asked; ‘Do you understand my answer? Do you accept it?’ My challenger was momentarily taken aback by my direct questions. He tried to raise another issue but gently and firmly I brought him back to the topic; ‘Do you accept or reject my last answer?’"
::::::*You failed to notice that there are currently already several balls at your half of playground that you failed to return, i.a.:
:::::::Q1:You failed to react on my following point: "as for Clemenceau, I can answer that I regard him for adequately representing the class, everything needed is evaluation of described behavior against criteria. If you wait for twenty years for an opportunity to thwart certain scientist who makes discoveries and helps to develop methods against suffering and dying of people from rabies just because this scientist showed that your evolutionary views were in error, then it is impossible to make other conclusion." So do you regard such people who do such things as these evolutionists did to Pasteur as undisturbed characters? Isn't the goal of CP to counter such tendencies in society which lead to losses of jobs just because someone's opinion differs from evolutionary views? I suggest we invite more people into this discussion prior to any further changes. Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator hence where do you assume to have the authority over this article from? Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?
:::::::Q2:Are you evolutionists? Could be your worldview is skewing your attitudes towards this article? Do you regard Clemenceau for creationist if you are opposed so vehemently to sourced information claiming that he was evolutionist? Note: Please review the Ad hominem in more detail, I regard my q for fully legitimate, I do not suggest that you should be wrong just because of your worldview but it can realistically affect your attitudes and reveal why you make such illogical conclusions on someone who by every observational sourced evidence is described as evolutionist.
::::::*If you feel like firing shot after shot at someone, without trying to return the ball, this is not the best place, IMHO.
::::::*As for this: "Two editors questioned you on this talk page" - that's what they call [but do not adhere to evenhandedly] at WP [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:CANVASS canvassing]: You have apparently selected an editor who you think will agree with your POV, that behavior is not appropriate. Canvassing—which is done with the intention of influencing the outcome of a discussion towards one side of a debate—is considered inappropriate. This is because it compromises the normal consensus decision-making process, and therefore is generally considered disruptive behavior. Thanks for your understanding. Thanks also for good wish ("Best of luck improving the article"), I also wish you to be less biased and and feel less disturbed [by different views incompatible with yours] than you have shown so far.--[[User:AK|AK]] 20:14, 25 December 2013 (EST)