Changes

:::::::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.         

:::::::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.

::::::*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)

::::::*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)