SkipCaptcha, Automoderated users, edit
3,266
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 180:
Line 180: + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Talk:Disturbed character (view source)
Revision as of 03:27, December 26, 2013
, 03:27, December 26, 2013→This is a terrible approach
::::::*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)
::::::*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)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - '''you yourself say psychology is more of an art than an exact science - so if you are making a diagnosis - probably is all you can say'''. But again, per User:Conservative's strong relationship with you - I'm stepping back from this article. Fortunately, though User:Conservative and I have always been able to work together on projects, we frequently don't overlap in interests - and your interest seem more comparable to his than mine, so we shouldn't have a problem. Also - since you don't understand canvassing - I came here because SamHB made a point about you on the main page talk - I wasn't involved in the article at first, so that's not canvassing. Good attempt though - perhaps once you're here longer you'll better understand the rules. Feel free to engage in [[last wordism]] from here.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)
"but evaluate well described sourced behavior against well defined sourced criteria" - That is a job for professionals - of which you are not. Furthermore - psychology diagnoses can not be made on isolated incidents - so the most we can say is "probably" - '''you yourself say psychology is more of an art than an exact science - so if you are making a diagnosis - probably is all you can say'''. But again, per User:Conservative's strong relationship with you - I'm stepping back from this article. Fortunately, though User:Conservative and I have always been able to work together on projects, we frequently don't overlap in interests - and your interest seem more comparable to his than mine, so we shouldn't have a problem. Also - since you don't understand canvassing - I came here because SamHB made a point about you on the main page talk - I wasn't involved in the article at first, so that's not canvassing. Good attempt though - perhaps once you're here longer you'll better understand the rules. Feel free to engage in [[last wordism]] from here.--<small>[[User:Iduan|<span style="color: #FFCCCC; background: #660000">I]][[User_talk:Iduan|<span style="color:#CCCCFF; background:#000033">Duan]]</span></span></small> 20:19, 25 December 2013 (EST)
:I had not intended to continue with this, since it's obvious that doing so would be pointless, but I want to respond to some attacks. While much of today's writing above was aimed at IDuan rather than me, I must say that its style reminds me of arguments I used to have with my parents when I was 6 years old. I don't remember the details, but the topics probably included such things as bedtime and the eating of vegetables. I demanded that my parents give a logical explanation for the positions they were taking, and was incensed when they failed to answer my "logical" arguments. This similarity is evidenced by many things, including sentences like "You failed to react on my following point", which was used twice.
:I had no idea, when I removed the material about the Pasteur/Clemenceau controversy, and the question of who was or was not an evolutionist, that the whole point of the article was to make that irrelevant and absurd connection. I considered, and still consider, the material that I removed to be utterly irrelevant to a discussion of the "disturbed character" trait. I had no idea that I was stepping on anyone's strongly felt and unalterable convictions, particularly the conviction that those who opposed Pasteur were evolutionists, or that this matters.
:*I do not take kindly to being called a hypocrite.
:*I do not take kindly to ad-hominem attacks such as "Are you evolutionists?" (I am, I can't speak for IDuan) and "Are you opposing the Question evolution campaign as well?" (That campaign, from the Conservapedia article, the CMI page, and the Blogspot page, is one of the stupidest things I've ever seen on the internet, and I've seen a lot.)
:*I do not take kindly to implied threat of pulling rank: "Neither of you seem to be enlisted as administrator", since IDuan is a mere sysop, and I am nothing but a very prolific and high-quality contributor. Or threatening IDuan, an even more prolific and high quality contributor than I, with a 90/10 ban. Followed by an adminstrator showing up a mere 7 hours later.
:But the comments from today go off so far into the wilderness that I don't know where to begin.
:*I don't know what the point was about an unnamed person who got a Bachelor's degree from Yale, has an M.D. degree, and administers a community hospital in New Jersey.
:*I don't know what to make of phrases like "typical evolutionist".
:*I don't know how to parse sentences like "Person does not need to pretend the main role in the "Dumb & Dumber" theatrical performance when trying to distinguish white from black and use false analogy."
:By the way, the atrocious writing on the article page, that brought me here in the first place, has crept back in with the recent edits. No, I'm not going to help with it. There are plenty of other pages which I can improve.
:[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:27, 25 December 2013 (EST)