User talk:MichaelExe/Archive1

Welcome!

Hello, MichaelExe! Welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions to this free encyclopedia. If you decide that you need help, check out Getting Help below, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and ask your question there. Please remember to sign your name on talk pages by clicking or using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your username and the date. Finally, please do your best to always fill in the edit summary field. Below are some useful links to facilitate your involvement. Happy editing! Closedmouth (talk) 16:12, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Request for informal mediation

A request for informal mediation has been opened at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-09-16/Socionics.

Named parties to the mediation are:

• User:Rmcnew
• User:Tcaudilllg
• User:MichaelExe
• User:Rick DeLong
• User:RudieBoy

I am offering my services as an impartial mediator for this issue. Discussion regarding the raised matter can take place at the Mediation link above.

Informal mediation is non-binding and seeks to find consensus. Although I am an administrator I do not exercise any of my administrative rights while conducting mediation. If any parties find me unacceptable as a mediator, please advise and I will attempt to find a replacement.

Manning (talk) 05:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Socionics

Rick and I both share similar views concerning socionics. Though I wouldn't necessarily say that our views are one, and I disagree with him about certain things. And while we do agree that esotericism is present in socionics to some degree, and that socionics is both pseudoscience and protoscience, the difference is that Rick isn't going to do anything to appears to be an academic or objective analysis of socionics, meaning that he comes off like an apologistic proponent. I look at it academically. And while we both agree that socionics is based on outdated scientific techniques (pseudoscientific and protoscientific techniques), Rick has not come to any conclusions past what he has learned experentially. I do indeed lack this experience, but then I have the will to look at the past. He could be very right about some things with socionics as they are now, but maybe not so much about back when. I may be right about way back when, but maybe not so much as socionics stands now.

Tcaulldig on the other hand usually has absolutly nothing good to offer qualitywise, and tends to insert alot of cut-and-dry remarks.

Neither Rick Delong or Tcaulldig have done much to present any sources. It is also not a matter of me having a side, and those two having a side. It is a matter of socionics credibility on wikipedia in general. Either we all produce credible sources, or socionics does not deserve a place on wikipedia. I can totally see some editors attempting to frame that there are "sides" conflicting between myself and some other editors, post no sources whatsoever, and then try to get rid of the one person who has been attempting to do anything with finding viable sources. I can also see the same editors attempting to suppress leigitmate views in socionics theory again that have been there from the foundation, such as Ausura Augustas belief in and supposedly scientific and speculative ventures into the world of chakras. It would be dishonest to try to hide that from people. Rick Delong has admitted that this is the case before. Though, I don't think he realizes (or wants to admit) that the way she links them is blazeingly similar to the way some proponents of some religions link the tattwas to the human body. It doesn't surprise me that he would attempt to disassociate socionics from those religions. He certainly has an apologetic viewpoint in favor of socionics as a potential science (protoscience).

In relation to how many links have been posted, in varying degrees of credibility, it would be better to preview all of the links before considering anyones points on the matter. For example, Rick Delong attempts to disassociate the tattwas from the socionics functions by claiming that the shapes are universal symbols, which is true, but doesn't really explain anything in the light of the fact that there is a credible socionics article where the tattwas, chakras, and socionic functions are compared together. To me, that article is much more credible than Rick Delong's statement that the functions are universal symbols. That is just his opinion on the matter. I think he is trying way too hard to disassociate socionics from the mess of esotericism floating around by some extreme proponents, while yet maintaining some respect for the anti-esoteric view in socionics theory and self integrity by making a few omisions to the esotericism that is present. So far he hasn't proven his opinion to be backed up by anything. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks ... I'll just rewrite the whole esotericism according to the information on the socionics.ru website, since you think that is reliable enough. --Rmcnew (talk) 00:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Statement_of_consensus

Statement of consensus

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Socionics#Statement_of_consensus

By posting to this list, you concur with the proposed consensus that socionics sources, in relation to esoteric sources or not, may be freely placed in the article so long as they meet wikipedias standards for verifiable sources. You also agree to never inappropiatelly remove portions of the socionics article that are supported by noteworthy sources, and for insufficent reasons.

Agree to consensus:

1. Rmcnew -- --Rmcnew (talk) 23:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree to consensus:

1. XXXXXX

As per WP:BURDEN and WP:VERIFIABILITY, origional reasearch and portions of the article may be removed when there are no viable sources backing the material. Any content of any sort concerning socionics may be admitted into the article taken that there are reliable and verifiable sources to that effect, regardless of viewpoint of the editors, and according to official wikipedia policy. Editors should not remove content that is supported by sources worthy of wikipedias standards. --Rmcnew (talk) 23:11, 30 September 2009 (UTC) [edited because the consensus agree as first written here by tcaudilllig is against wikipedia policy]

Debate against the claim from some editors who want to discredit the Moscow Socionics School by claiming the techniques there are fringe compared to other schools

There are some editors who are attempting to isolate the credibility of a whole socionics school that is located in Moscow, Russia, for reasons that are insufficent to wikipedias standards. In comparison it should be noted that scientifically the socionics school in Kiev, Ukraine headed by Alexander Bukalov wouldn't be any more credible than the one headed by Tatyana Prokofieva in Moscow Russia. In fact, if you were to look at a webtranslated version of this article ( click here for help) from the Kiev school and compare this to the chakra article (click here for help) from the Moscow school you would see that it is absolutely rediculous to make a claim that any of the socionics schools are any more scientifically credible than the next. Because 2 or 3 editors sware up and down this material is a minority fringe isn't sufficent enough for it to be claimed as such, especially when there are several PHDs in socionics and other fields who are knowingly allowing (and even encouraging) these sort of strange research comparisons between socionics and esoteric and religious philosophies to go on, while there are no known reliable sources where any such PHD in the socionics realm has condemned these strange techniques. In any case, I am sure that this would be enough to help you make your decision. --Rmcnew (talk) 03:12, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's not whether or not it's a fringe theory that's made me uncertain, but the fact that it may be a tiny-minority (see WP:UNDUE). In this case, policy says not to include their views, except in an article devoted to these (which wouldn't make much sense at this point, without too many other tiny-minority views to accompany them). MichaelExe (talk) 11:15, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I would debate against these viewpoints being fringe for the simple fact that the main schools are publishing these things through their journals. Fringe, in my opinion, would be to have a few isolated people who might stay in the mainstream, and have different ideas. These are the main schools in socionics who are discussing these things and people with PHDs either encouraging or being neutral about it. I suppose if you wanted to talk about fringe viewpoints, speak of about 2 or 3 editors viewpoints who are trying to say that these are fringe viewpoints, because they are embarassed that mainstream socionics actually does do these sort of things and for some agenda or another want to frame socionics as something else that excludes these things things about socionics theory, in general, that they find distasteful. That in itself is a fringe viewpoint and what is going on with the other editors. It is misrepresentation for the sake of their own fringe view. In tcaudillligs case, he wants to think it is some analytical psychology things that has these intimate ties with Jung. I don't deny this, even PHDs in socionics have emphasized the connection to Jung, but tchaudilllig has never done anything except lift up Gulenko as a theorists, post unreliable and unverifiable sources, make personal insults when things don't go his way, bruteforce his insufficent opinion, do the the same sort of origional research I have been accused of, and generally skew socionics in the article away from things he personally finds embarassing about socionics theory. Rick Delong, I repect his opinion, and he knows much more about the culture than I do, but he has not lifted a finger to do any sort of critical or academic analysis past his own experiences, and he is an apologetic defender of the face of socionics theory. Yet, that is what makes his opinions uncredible. He is an apologetic defender of socionics theory. He is going to word his speech in ways that isn't going to embarass himself or other proponents. Rick Delong knows that esoteric, mystic, spiritualistic and religious themes are widespread throughout socionics theory. He isn't going to say it outright, though, nor is he going to make any statements on the matter that would seem like he was acknowledgeing such is the case with socionics in general. I don't blame him. Personally, I don't see anything wrong with acknowledgeing these embarassing things accepted as standard in socionics theory. Those things exist. Why deny them? I say talk about them, but talk about them neutrally, especially when those things have credibility. And they do. --Rmcnew (talk) 14:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It's the fact that it's the only (questionably) reliable source we (you)'ve found regarding socionics and esotericism that has me uncertain. That, and whether we should trust an article that was not finished. MichaelExe (talk) 20:09, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

It is not quite the only reliable source. There is the one from Olga Karpenko. There is also the one I posted as a link and translation on the talk page that shows quite clearly that socionists have been using new age type alternative healing methods with chakras during their workshops. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Autism spectrum

You suggested the link to the Asperger's page being replaced with 'Assburgers' was not vandalism. How did you come to this conclusion?

My edit was not vandalism. I should have put "btw" before "this edit isn't vandalism". >.> MichaelExe (talk) 03:36, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

D'oh! I actually hadn't perceived your edit as vandalism. In fact, it was such a legitimate correction, I disregarded its meantion and read your summary as 'haha, my friends and I call it assburger, too; this isn't vandalism, btw...' . I thought you were implying that because other people jokingly call it 'Assburger', the vandal may have made the change without knowing any better. It was such extreme good faith, I simply had to ask how you justified it. Of course, now I understand what you meant (and saw that our little buddy is persistent in making the change).

Anyhow, sorry for the communication breakdown.

-K10wnsta (talk) 21:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for Adam to come out in my theatre (or on DvD). I saw the preview with my friends and jokingly said "that guy has Asperger syndrome" about 3 seconds before "Adam" says "I have this thing that's called Asperger syndrome". Then, I probably got a high-five. =O

I also wouldn't be surprised if a lot of people actually thought it was called "Assburger"; a couple of my friends thought so at first. XP MichaelExe (talk) 21:54, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe, by using a joke edit summary like that, you create more work for other editors. If you had just put "uncapitalizing syndrome", it wouldn't create the idea that your edit was vandalism, leading other editors to have to check the edit. Please see WP:FIES, thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:04, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Re: Your comment on my talk page

Please do not pollute my talk page with unsolicited and inappropriate advice that is just plain inaccurate. In my jurisdiction psychologists and psychotherapists are NOT "covered." If you are just a shill for Big Pharma then say so. Durwoodie (talk) 09:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

October 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. The recent edit you made to Psychiatry has been reverted, as it appears to have removed content from the page without explanation. Use the sandbox for testing; if you believe the edit was constructive, please ensure that you provide an informative edit summary. You may also wish to read the introduction to editing. Thank you. Alansohn (talk) 14:58, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Psychiatry brouhaha

• For your information, User:Durwoodie has been blocked for 48 hours. Given the way this person has been behaving, I would not be surprised to see an indef block anytime soon. As for the related warning just above, given that Alansohn re-reverted himself almost immediately, probably realizing belatedly what was going on, there is no problem with removing that warning from your talk page, of course. --Crusio (talk) 00:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

advice, perhaps unwanted

Hi, most of your thoughts seem reasonable, but I would like to gently suggest that there is hardly anything that annoys other editors more than writing reams of text about minor points. If you run into a situation where, as in the Asperger's page, "the current wording is accurate, but it could be better", and discussion shows that other editors don't agree, please just let it go. If you continue down this path, you will pretty soon find that other editors are not even willing to pay attention to your arguments, and I don't think that would be a good thing. Regards, Looie496 (talk) 16:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Agree. Other editors are very busy, and taxing the same group of editors across multiple pages (Schizophrenia, autism and Asperger syndrome) over minor issues is not the best way to proceed. When other editors disagree, please let it go and move on. I'm also concerned about warnings I've seen you leaving to IPS; they aren't very civil, and we don't "ban" IPS for vandalism: there is a difference between banning and blocking. You can find a list of standard template warnings on my user page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:36, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

I'll remember to say block than ban, next time. I find template warnings less civil than an actual message, and template greetings, less personal and appreciative than actual written out messages. I more or less agree with Wikipedia:Don't overuse shortcuts to policy and guidelines to win your argument (because this is also considered uncivil).

Also, I haven't been targeting any group of editors (I've got a gazillion psychology and psychiatry pages in my watchlist). You aren't obligated to argue with me on those pages, although if no one protests, I won't be editing against consensus. Anyone can clean up after me, if I make any mistakes (with a reason, of course). MichaelExe (talk) 20:05, 14 October 2009 (UTC)