:Guh. I'm sick too (though for me, that actually means more time to spend on WP... usually too busy!) --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User_talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
:Guh. I'm sick too (though for me, that actually means more time to spend on WP... usually too busy!) --[[User talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">'''SB_Johnny'''</font>]] | <sup>[[User_talk:SB_Johnny|<font color="green">talk</font>]]</sup> 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::Sympathies. Glad to see you around though. :-) [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
::Sympathies. Glad to see you around though. :-) [[User:KillerChihuahua|KillerChihuahua]]<small><sup>[[User talk:KillerChihuahua|?!?]]</sup>[[User:Heimstern/Ignoring incivility|Advice]]</small> 15:16, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
== late reply ==
KC,
Not sure whether to bring this up, or let it die. But I just noticed you replied to my comment a few days ago on ANI, re Giano/Sandstein. That, I suppose, is why it's probably a bad idea to comment on a page and then un-watchlist it.
It was not my intent to offend you, and if you look again you'll see I phrased it as a rhetorical question, or a request, not as an accusation. Still, it was exaggerated, and I'll apologize for that; exaggeration during an already heated dispute is dumb.
what I was *trying* to say, is that - even considering the rationale in your edit summary (which I did read at the time) - the effect of your revert was to restore, yet again, an inflammatory comment in a situation that was already obviously heated. There were several other approaches you could have taken besides restoring it. I found it at odds with the philosophy shown in your earlier request to me that I remove a sarcastic comment, not directed at anyone in particular, in an RFA. Just knocked my sense of symmetry out of whack. If Collectionian had called Giano a fool, and been reverted by someone else, would you have restored that comment too?
Anyway, sorry to have upset you with my ill-worded comment. Like I said, maybe this is all better left in the past, so I'm happy to discuss more, or let it drop, or agree to disagree, your call. But I didn't want to leave your comment hanging unanswered. --[[User:Floquenbeam|Floquenbeam]] ([[User talk:Floquenbeam|talk]]) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
This is not an encyclopedia article. If you find this page on any site other than Wikipedia, you are viewing a mirror site. Be aware that the page may be outdated and that the user this page belongs to may have no personal affiliation with any site other than Wikipedia itself. The original page is located at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:KillerChihuahua.
Talk to the Puppy To leave a message on this page, click
If you email me, be aware that even if I am actively editing, I cannot always access my email and it may be a day or two before you receive a reply. If you message me on this page, I will probably reply on this page. If I messaged you on your page, please reply there.
*Post new messages to the bottom of my talk page.
*Comment about the content of a specific article on the Talk: page of that article, and not here.
*Sign your post using four tildes ( ~~~~ )
And I still see people ranking their personal interpretation of WP:CIVIL above everything else. Above NPOV. Above V. Above NOR.
Oh wait, those are the Simplified Ruleset, aren't they? The basis for all of Wikipedia?
Silly me. Here I thought we were here to write an encyclopedia, and that while a civil environment furthers that aim, the Civility Police are generally counter-indicated by the chilling effect and escalation to which their actions usually lead.
Thanks for the post. Interesting the way it was presented. I wasn't defending Wilson or his comment. I was defending Wikipedia against recentism and POV, but some editors assumed I was defending Wilson.DCmacnut<> 13:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Concur: I "got" that; I think it was reasonably clear in the article, to those who understand the way WP works. However, its not clear to me that it was clear to the author. *shrug* I've seen far worse in the news media, I would not be terribly concerned. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:50, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Repeated WikiLinks
KillerChihuahua, thank you for the message. I couldn't find the particular thing you mentioned in the help pages. I did read this a long time ago, which is what I based the link on:
In general, link only the first occurrence of an item. This is a rule of thumb that has many exceptions, including the following:
* where a later occurrence of an item is a long way from the first.
* where the first link was in an infobox or a navbox, or some similar meta-content.
* tables, in which each row should be able to stand on its own.
It seems Wikipedia:Linking#Repeated_links has changed slightly since I viewed it last. There is now, apparently, room for debate regarding repeating links in the article body, which was not the case last time I viewed it. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:05, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I hear what you are saying. For me, its kind of a pain to go back up through the article to find a link a few sections back (especially if you haven't read the previous sections). Much easier if you can just have the extra link -- as long as its not overdone, of course. Jrobinjapan (talk) 15:21, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Conceded. Would you prefer to restore the second link, or do you want me to do so? Or do you want to take this to the article talk page for wider input? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:25, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think its really worth putting to a vote for. Let's leave it as it is. If someone else finds it inconvenient they can re-add the link. (Maybe it was just me) Jrobinjapan (talk) 15:31, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that you closed the comment on talk page I made. I would like to say that I meant no offense to anyone, after a second glance at it when I came back from lecture, the tone was sharper than I should have written. Unfortunately what is done is done, but in the future, I will try to avoid such biting language. I am being honest when I say that I meant no offense. I was just attempting to state on the discussion thread why certain editions should not be placed on Joseph Wilson's bio page. I won't go into detail here, but I got a little frustrated and thought the discussion thread was getting ignored. EricLeFevre (talk) 18:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a suggestion, you might wish to remember the canon: Comment on the content, not the contributor. It is almost always helpful. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's definately a good one to go by. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 23:49, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hamster, get your butt over to Talk:Conversion therapy then, and help me explain why attacking one editor, or even starting a debate with one editor, is inappropriate on an article talk page. Today is the "I never read AGF or TPG or CIVIL" poster-child day, I swear. Is it because it is Friday and ppl are grumpy? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 23:51, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A little bit grumpy, maybe. Hyper3 (talk) 23:53, 11 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KillerC, for the fourth time, STAY OFF MY TALK PAGE. MichaelBluejay (talk) 00:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Capitals again.Hyper3 (talk) 00:18, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This is the first time so far as I am aware, and it will do you no good. Its not your talk page; its Wikipedia's. If you continue to ignore policy, I will continue to inform you of it. If you still persist, sanctions may ensure. Please be aware that when I post links to policy on your page, it is in the interests of protecting the community and the encyclopedia. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good grief, I'm going to need some time to read all of this. It took me a few minutes just to get through the banners at the top of the page. Whem I went to the bottom, I read through a bunch of posts between you and W.Beback. Are these last few posts the crux of the matter? Should I read this article, even though I have a cursory knowledge of the subject already? I must say, from my reading of the recent talk page postings, i don't sense any kind of "attack mode" from either side, just a kind of- repartee.
Then. while I was writing the stuff above, I previewed and the last three posts had appeared. Yikes! Holy Shamolies! It all bears close reading, including your talk page M.Bluejay. I promise to get back to you on this K.C. Best regards, Hamster Sandwich (talk) 00:26, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bluejay and BornGay and Hyper are all getting a bit heated under the collar. In addition, Bluejay is trying to add materiel sourced to his self published website... Will has sources - which he'll have to dig out - which should hopefully resolve the sourcing issue, which will be helpful. He has not weighed in on any of the other disputes. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:42, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The mediation I tried to get is hereHyper3 (talk) 00:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, Mediation Cabal, not Mediation Committee, that's why I didn't see it. There is a difference. Lemme read up on that and get back to you, Hyper. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:44, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Did I sound sycophantic enough? Hyper3 (talk) 00:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You sounded vague and non-specific, is what you sounded. NPOV issues? You have to identify them, be specific. You cannot simply say "well, we have issues, see? And we want 'em fixed, see?" You must say "Fundamental disagreement regarding inclusion of reparative therapy" or "Parties cannot reach consensus regarding definition of Conversion therapy - should we include yadda, or merely whatnot?" with something specific in place of yadda and whatnot, of course. So go think hard, and see if you can define the single most important issue, clearly and concisely. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 00:50, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. This is what I need. Although its all a bit like being trapped in an Asimov novel. Will try again - shall I amend this one, or start a new one? Hyper3 (talk) 00:54, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm Wikipedia:Mediation Committee, not Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal - so I cannot really tell you how to approach them. I also caution you that as they have open standards for mediators, your results may vary considerably from instance to instance. You may wish to read some recent meditations to get a feel for how they work before spending any time updating your request. Or you can go for really really informal mediation, as we've begun on your talk page and here. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking softly, but carrying a big stick? He's back, btw, reverting everything in sight.... Hyper3 (talk) 01:09, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Jones/Yarhouse study
I have explained my reasons for removing the Jones/Yarhouse study repeatedly. It says it is not about conversion therapy and didn't prove anything about it. You presented it, nevertheless, in a way that suggests its authors think it is about conversion therapy and that they did prove something about it. That violates WP:NOR, which is clear that kind of thing's not acceptable. Also unacceptable are edit summaries that violate WP:POINT. Born Gay (talk) 01:13, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"I have explained my reasons" does not translate to "I have gained consensus" nor even "I have substantial support". Could we possibly discuss this one edit for a bit? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Alas, this is true. But seriously, the study is not appropriate. I've tried to explain why not on my project page, and on the talk page too. It says it isn't about conversion therapy, so how can it be presented as being about it? It could be rewritten in a way that wouldn't be misleading, but even then it would be undue material for the article, in my judgment. Born Gay (talk) 01:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Really, its the most interesting study, because it is done by opponents on adherents, and the results are fairly favourable (to adherents). This section is meant to address adherents (with due weight of course). The trouble is, everyone wants to distance themselves from other people's terminology, and it has become trendy to say "its not conversion therapy" by which they mean no one is getting electric shocks. But it still is relevant. Hyper3 (talk) 01:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Non-useful, sorry. Are you saying it is sympathetic to advocates of CT? Please provide the link here, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
What, can't read minds? Here is the link to the book. I'm not sure if that is what you want. There is a conversation on the talk page, and here is the edit. I didn't add it, or choose the particular quotation. Hyper3 (talk) 01:49, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh for crying out loud, that's sourced to Christianity today, a partisan site, and is a "self-study" not a neutral third party scientific or even arguably neutral study. You want that in? Why? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ok, the book is a little better... the source still sucks a bit.. reading more... KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(after ec) Nope, the book is no better at all: Stanton L. Jones also wrote a book subtitled "God's Design for Sex" and "Why God Cares About Sex" and Mark A. Yarhouse co-wrote two books both sub-titled "A Comprehensive Christian Appraisal" - these are strongly partisan "investigators" and their "study" is thereby impossibly flawed. They have a soapbox. Is there a source which is neutral at all regarding this study? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"This is clearly the best scientific study yet conducted on change of homosexual orientation and on the question as to whether attempts at such change are inherently harmful. . . . This study meets the high research standards set by the American Psychological Association that individuals be validly assessed, followed and reported over time with a prospective, longitudinal outcome research design." -- George A. Rekers, Ph.D., Th.D., FAACP; Professor of Neuropsychiatry and Behavioral Science Emeritus, University of South Carolina School of Medicine; Diplomate in Clinical Psychology, American Board of Professional Psychology" Hyper3 (talk) 01:58, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Amazon reviews are useless on WP, you know that. And George Alan Rekers is hardly neutral, being an associate and aligned with Dobson. Give me a break, Dobson is a known homophobe with very odd views on that subject. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:02, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It would be good to get a better quote. Hyper3 (talk) 02:04, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say rather it would be good to explain why this should be included at all. As it sits, we have a Christian group who is anti-gay for religious reasons, writing a book about a "study" which explains that they're right. Its the book version of self-published advocacy, and not an independent study at all. Why do you think this should be in the article, and what source might you have for this? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You know better than I do on the US scene, then. My knowledge is more UK. Hyper3 (talk) 02:05, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could have simply read all the reviews; this one is checking out completely so far:
The conclusions based upon the Jones/Yarhouse data, unfortunately, appear biased: Both Jones and Yarhouse work at conservative Christian universities, and compromises in study design and execution were made in order to secure the cooperation of ex-gay members of Exodus International, an organization that claims to support people leaving homosexuality. This book quickly secured endorsements from ex-gay and antigay therapists, but support from mainstream mental-health professionals has thus far been lacking.
Watchdog web sites including Box Turtle Bulletin, Truth Wins Out and Ex-Gay Watch have found the following shortcomings, which I hope are addressed in future studies:
-- The study was conducted by two supporters of ex-gay ministries.
-- They originally sought 300 participants, but after more than a year of seeking to round up volunteers, they had to settle on only 98 participants.
-- During the course of the study, 25 dropped out, and one participant's answers were too incomplete to be used.
-- Of the remaining 72 only 11 reported "satisfactory, if not uncomplicated, heterosexual adjustment." (direct quote). Some of these 11 remained primarily homosexual in attraction or, at best, bisexual, but were satisfied that they were just slightly more attracted to the opposite sex, or slightly less attracted to the same sex.
-- After the study ended, but before the book was finished, one of the 11 wrote to the authors to say that he lied -- he really wanted to change, had really hoped he had changed, and answered that he had changed. But he concluded that he hadn't, came out, and is now living as an openly gay man.
-- Dozens of participants experienced no lessening of same-sex attraction and no increase in opposite-sex attraction, but were classified as "success" stories by Jones and Yarhouse simply because they maintained celibacy -- something many conservative gay people already do.
-- The study purposely declined to interview any ex-gay survivors: people who claim to have been injured by ex-gay programs and who have formed support groups such as Beyond Ex-Gay. Despite -- or because of -- this omission, the authors of this study make the unfounded claim that there is little or no evidence of harm resulting from unproven, unsupervised, unlicensed, and amateur ex-gay counseling tactics.
In short, the study design was so flawed that no mainstream, peer-reviewed, mental-health journal would publish it.
The raw data obtained from Jones' and Yarhouse's surveys will hopefully lead to greater understanding in future studies, despite these researchers' strained efforts to make failure to "change" sound like success.
My project page is here [2]. The full passage from Jones and Yarhouse about the relevance or non-relevance of their study to conversion therapy is this, from page 374:
"Fourth, the change results documented in this study are the results of a set of diverse, religiously based intervention programs, and hence these findings do not speak directly to the issue of the effectiveness of professionally based psychotherapy interventions, what are commonly called reparative or conversion therapies. Psychotherapy delivered by a mental health professional was part of the total 'package' experienced by some individuals in this study, but we are unable to tease out the impact of such therapy from the more general context of change. Though this study does nothing direct to establish evidence for the effectiveness of professional reparative or conversion therapies, however, to the degree that the contemporary mental health field regards such conversion therapies as discredited on the presumptive basis that it is impossible to change sexual orientation these results may and perhaps should open the door for a reconsideration of the possible efficacy of such therapies. In other words, as we argued in chapter three, professional conversion theraies are being regarded as discredited not because a positive evidential base exists proving that such therapies are unsuccessful, but rather in spite of a considerable (though imperfect) research base suggesting that such treatments produce positive outcomes some of the time with some individuals. At least in part, the credibility of this argument is grounded in a general acceptance of the claim that sexual orientation is immutable. The present results suggesting that some change is possible undermine this core assertion, which may contribute to a reexamination of whether professional conversion therapies ever succeed."
So, unlike some other sources that regard ex-gay ministries as conversion therapy (such as Haldeman), Jones and Yarhouse are absolutely clear and explicit that the two are not the same and that the relevance that their study might have to conversion therapy was limited and indirect at most. The form in which Hyper3 added the study doesn't make this crucial fact clear. Even in a rewritten form that did make it clear, it still really wouldn't be appropriate material, as the study has no special importance in the context of conversion therapy that I know of; it isn't used as a source in statements specifically on this topic. Born Gay (talk) 02:17, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're back to disagreements about scope. How do you solve that? Hyper3 (talk) 02:20, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
please specify the disagreement to which you are referring, thanks. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:22, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Definitions are hard to come by: see this and scroll down to terminology. There is debate and "de-synonymisation" to avoid unhelpful implications. Only the dead will not resist being corralled with electric shock advocates. But its the same thing in description, people are being helped to change their sexual orientation. Hyper3 (talk) 02:27, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bed time for me. Thanks for your help in coaching the conversation. More soon. Hyper3 (talk) 02:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts on last night's exchange are that we should include both the Yarhouse study and the critique. Anyone coming along who knows about this will keep trying to put it in. A lot of BG's work can be included. However, that only really raises the larger issues of scope. New proposal below.Hyper3 (talk) 14:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Back again. Jones/Yarhouse should be in because it is a study relevant to the page (or SOCE if we define CT narrowly). I am not an expert, and don't think we are being asked to assess it apart from some basic checking of it as an appropriate source. If anyone can tell me why the source is inappropriate, then I could respond from wikipedia policy. None of us are experts, and wikipedia consistently rejects expertise as the standard, but encourages the wisdom of crowds. When it goes in, then all the relevant criticism goes in too. Hyper3 (talk) 08:49, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.
”
Jones/Yarhouse isn't part of the fringe: "a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials." Are they scientists respected by the mainstream who merely differ? Hard to say, as I don't really know, but I think it is at this point that some debate emerges. Yet if we can mention the fringe theory (according to Jimbo), how much more should we mention those who can substantiate the methodologies they use scientifically, even if their basic stance is that of a tradition alternative to the liberal humanist tradition? Hyper3 (talk) 09:02, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AIV
Hey, could you check out the discussion here? ceranthor 02:00, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We're both at fault - me moreso for not looking being for removing the report. My bad. ceranthor 02:07, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree: you trusted in my competence, which in this instance was misplaced trust. I appreciate your diligence in setting this right; I thank you, and I reject your very admirable attempt to shoulder the blame yourself. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 02:10, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KC, I notified the user about his perfectly correct report - and called it wrong. I should take some blame too. ceranthor 12:32, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Possible solution for conversion therapy
I think we keep running up against the problem that reparative therapy has been merged with conversion therapy. Let's create a series of articles, with appropriate links. We allow Born Gay to have his restricted version of Conversion therapy, perhaps in two articles CT and history of CT. We also create a reparative therapy page, but the new overall article is called SOCE and all the other articles refer back to it. The truth is that if we can agree that CT has the stricter meaning, and we don't have to shoe-horn reparative therapy and ex-gay concerns into it, then Born Gay is doing a fantastic job and needs to be allowed to get on with it. I am still unhappy at the way he has conducted his communications, but apologise myself for taking a more aggressive/sarcastic tone in the latest exchanges. There is more to talk about, but if this could be agreed and proposed to other users, then we could move on. Perhaps the AR material could go onto the SOCE page for example. This would follow the trend for SOCE people to distance themselves from CT, which means we don't have to make the case (that I was trying to make) that we should see through this fiction. We can include everything more adequately in a SOCE page, with all the usual policies in place, but expressly writing it as a minority view within the debate about sexuality. Thoughts? Hyper3 (talk) 14:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think one thing at a time. Why do you think the Yarhouse "studies" belong in the article? KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:14, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In an article about a minority viewpoint, policy as I understand it allows that viewpoint to have greater weight, and sources that would otherwise be unreliable are allowed when they are used to validate information about themselves... so NARTH articles our reliable in order to describe NARTH, and Yarhouse would be relevant because of its relevance to the subject, and the way it illustrates how ex-gay adherents function and what they claim. I am not suggesting that it should go in without the criticsms that others have had of it, but that if it does not go in, it would be strange as it has been a feature of the way the conversation has gone recently. People would keep trying to put it in. I think it is better for all that it goes in critiqued and sourced well, rather then it is missed out. There is a new paper that responds to some of the criticismsHyper3 (talk)
As one of the people who helped bring Intelligent design to FA status, I can assure you that NPOV means giving the majority view the majority of the weight, the minority view the minority of the weight, and the far fringe or pseudoscientific view virtually no weight - to the point that its generally only mentioned if the article is about the fringe or pseudoscientific view, as it is in the ID article. We don't unbalance by giving UNDUE weight to the fringe view, regardless of the article. That would be a gross violation of NPOV. ArbCom has upheld and confirmed these policies. What you are describing is the "Sympathetic POV" not the "Neutral POV" and that has been repeatedly rejected here on Wikipedia. The suggestion that we adopt a sympathetic pov led to the fork WikiInfo, established in 2003 by User:Fred Bauder, which does have such an approach. See the userfied article User:Ned Scott/Wikinfo - which I should inform you I personally have not checked for accuracy - for more about WikiInfo. If you prefer a sympathetic POV, you should consider contributing there not here.
Now, please explain why you think the Yarhouse "study" belongs in the article? Thanks much! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 21:41, 12 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think the question is relevent, but it could be (in the main) that the study allows, within the scope of the Conversion Therapy article, that the theory behind the "therapy" is contentious/polarizing. It's obvious that a "Faith-based" theraputic technique is going to provoke the strongest kinds of reactions. Let me ask- are there any "definative" statistical sources that we can lean on in this case? All I really look for out of this kerfuffle is a balanced approach. One that allows for the contrasting viewpoints to live harmoniously upon the article page. Hamster Sandwich (talk) 01:23, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's an excellent question, and one to which I do not have an answer at this time. My vague recollection is that there are a couple of reputable studies, but I don't remember any of the details. Right now I'm focusing on getting the edit warring resolved, to which end I had the article protected for a week and am trying my utmost to get people to deal with one issue at a time to resolve them. Thus far, BG has been the only respondent to stay on topic, and his view has been made very clear. No one wishing to include the Jones/Yarhouse content has responded with rationale as yet - I certainly don't count "there is other stuff with the same problems!" as a rationale for inclusion - but we're only a day or so into the week. I have hope, as always. I'm not sure whether item 2 will be the second study brought up on article talk, or the reparative therapy issue Hyper wants to move to the front of the line. Perhaps we can do both at once, if people can manage to stay on topic and color between the lines (keep each subject in its own talk page section.) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 01:31, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KillerChihuahua, I'm uncertain about exactly how to interpret the no original research policy, and could really do with some advice on this. I'm asking with regard to conversion therapy in particular [3], but it's a general question. BG 05:37, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note to say I'm not ignoring this; I'm not sure how to reply just yet. Thanks for your patience! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:14, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Objections to Evolution
Yeah, I'm thinking I know exactly what kind of editor that is. I'd venture a close watch is warranted. --KingÖomie 13:26, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the name is a clue, but there are really great editors like User:Pastordavid who have a strong personal pov which they don't allow to affect their npov editing. Then again, there are always the Gastriches. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:45, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Names can be a dead giveaway. I've been noted[peacock prose] for my overwhelming pro-monarch POV. --KingÖomie 13:50, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oddly enough, no one has ever accused me of being partial to murderers or canines, although there is the kennel to consider, and Uncle Ed once thought it was witty to call me a "bitch". I was not amused. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 13:55, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Puppy Cabal? More like 'Kibbal', amirite? --KingÖomie 14:03, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Were bad puns listed among the types of taunting which led to the animal attacks? Just curious... They certainly should be.[citation needed]KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 14:11, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever tried to compose a pun in Deer? Screw up the verb conjugation, and they'll just think you're a moron. They'll probably still maul you. D'oe! --KingÖomie 14:19, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh deer, while Kibbal seems somewhat different, Kibble does seem apposite – and here was me thinking this page was filling up with kibble. Hmmf. Will maybe go back to the Kibble Palace for respite. . dave souza, talk 21:44, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd most certainly cite your name if you were POV-pushing on When Animals Attack!. (I thought that'd be more than a stub when I thought it up, but I'll be arsed to change it now)
"The human participants of the show typically taunt the animals, and the "attacks" seen are often self-defense[citation needed]." --KingÖomie 14:00, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Except the one with the farmer and the donkey. That one was the best. --KingÖomie 14:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've wondered if my name might be considered an encouragement of vandalism...it's actually my excuse for my bad housekeeping. The Aunt bit I cannot deny: I have thirty nieces and nephews. I guess that would go towards explaining the entropy bit as well... Auntie E. 17:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a MacGuffin? Dare we miss the next exciting episode?? I wait with baited breath, having finished my after-dinner cheese. . . dave souza, talk 20:48, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hah! I see your cheese breath, and raise you garlic Parmesan breath! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:52, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Get well soon
Hope all is well. --98.182.55.163 (talk) 20:13, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ooohhh...
Nice userpage. You really made it better from what I did :D ResMar 02:08, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Your changes got me going, as it were, so much of the credit is yours! I was stuck, and never would have been able to get this done without your hard work, so thank you! KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 20:23, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
ANI Notice
Hello, KillerChihuahua. This message is being sent to inform you that there currently is a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you.
re your notice
Hello KillerChihuahua. I'm archiving my talk page, but I replied (in an essay-like way) to the issue that you alerted me to--the one that began the ANI thread--here[5], if you didn't see it. I could refactor its contents for use in some 'review' I suppose, but that hardly holds any promise!
I'd like to state (somewhere, why not here!) that as the first editor to remove that tag on the article in question, my intent was to minimize the chances of any of this happening. I can't think of an action more in this encyclopedia's interest than avoiding these entrenched, content-less discussions that charge up people needlessly, gain little for the encyclopedia, and divide editors. The page was on my watchlist; it was not a matter of me going out of my way; and I'd not have commented further, despite strong feelings, if I hadn't felt psychologically dragged into this by the "removing tags is evil and people like Outriggr are attacking me" line. Regards, Outriggr (talk) 00:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Banned user
Hi. The banned user Rbj has been editing Planck units as 74.104.160.199 and 38.104.186.254. Please see Discussion Page for that article, section titled Hi Rbj. The tell-tale signs for those who know Rbj are attitude, phrasing (eg 'sorta') and subject interests (eg Marriage). I have chosen to stop editing Wikipedia but I'm making an exception for Rbj on this occasion. Thanks 121.223.69.138 (talk) 06:53, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
An apology
KC - we've had problems and we've had fights. However, those fights were on reasonable grounds and I apologize for fighting with you. It saddens me to see someone who has no sense of our community, consensus, or any respect what so ever threaten you like that. It is one thing to fight with someone, it is another to purely bully them in a way that is unacceptable on Wikipedia. Ottava Rima (talk) 15:24, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hatchet buried, cemented in, and flowers planted over the grave, with pleasure.
I don't know what to think about this latest stunt from Sandstein. I've not been able to follow the CoM situation with any detail, so I had reserved judgment, but this latest block is beyond the pale, and his reactions to criticism is so hostile and dismissive it is clear he's not willing to accept any opinions which don't support his actions. It seems to me there are several views: that Giano should not have been blocked; that Giano should have been, but not by Sandstein but the length is ok; that Giano should have been, but not by Sandstein and the length is too long; and that Giano should have been blocked, its ok Sandstein did it and the length is fine. The last is S's view of course; but I cannot say I see any significant support for it. Certainly not consensus. Yet Sandstein has not said he'll leave Giano alone in the future; he's not removed the block as not getting community support; he's not only not acted on criticism received, he has rejected all criticism whatsover, and even gone on the attack against the critics. This is very disturbing. I had always thought Sandstein was a sensible admin. I don't think I was in error, but I think his sense is getting clouded out by stress? Involvement? Burnout? Something is affecting him. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 15:41, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Our disagreement at ANI
KillerChihuahua, I am sorry to see that we seem to be taking a very contrary stance to each other in the current Giano thread. While I stand by what I wrote, I regret this confrontation because I have, so far, formed a generally good opinion of your work. Could we, perhaps, discuss this disagreement here, out of the ANI spotlight, with a view perhaps to get a better understanding of what both of us seek to achieve? Best regards, Sandstein 15:46, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish. You "have argued that you should be blocked for editwarring to restore a personal attack, and in fact I intend to block you should you do this again." - this was directly to me.[6]
You characterize my restoration, once, of Giano's comment, as "editwarring". I object, strongly, to such aggressive framing of restoring a post which another editor removed.
The edit you linked has the edit summary of "please discuss this with G.)" This is advising discussion, rather than removing another's comment. It is, as OR pointed out, restoring a comment which was arguably improperly removed.
On that same page, I had removed a comment I thought was a personal attack; another editor disagreed and restored it. You did not block them. Nor did I, nor do I think a block would have been appropriate. Your personal view is that the content in Giano's post is a personal attack. You are entitled to your option. You are not entitled to go running roughshod over everyone enforcing your personal opinion about what is and is not rude.
Blocking for personal attacks is clear: the attack must be "egregious" - like "You are a fucking whore and you shit out of your mouth every time you talk. If you try to edit this page again I will find you and fuck you over!". That is probably a comment people would not strongly object to blocking for. Characterizing someone as a fool, which may be interpreted as saying they are behaving foolishly, is borderline at best.
You are not considering that removing another person's comments is often considered a blockable offense; I did not block the person who removed the content,but advised they discuss it with Giano rather than remove it.
So we have two comments which some find NPA violations and some do not. I submit to you that I don't consider the person who restored the personal attack against me to have been edit warring, as there is room for disagreement on what constitutes a personal attack; that I blocked no one and threatened to block no one; and that you've done precisely the opposite.
You originally stated you thought I should be blocked for restoring a comment and advising discussion, but said you would not do it.[7] You then said you were arguing for such a block. Now you've threatened me with a block if you see me restore a talk page comment which you personally think is objectionable.[8] I'm missing where you are trying to do any good on Wikipedia at all and fail to see why I should not assume you're going to block me for anything you see which you object to - as you have already done to Giano. In short, I'm having trouble thinking that you are thinking clearly, and I know you're not "use(ing) the block ability sparingly".
And finally, why are you here? You say above "I stand by what I wrote" so I have now been informed you stand by threatening me with blocking, for suggesting discussion instead of removal of a post. TPG, removing other's posts, these are all things which have much disagreement, to the point many believe no posts should be removed regardless of how egregious the attack. You have your view, and you are willing to block me in order to punish me for not following your interpretation! You have no room for respecting that I have a different view and that view is valid. You have threatened me with a block if I don't follow your instructions! Allow me, with all respect, to say that is complete and utter bullshit, bullying, and dead wrong. One puppy's opinion.
Thanks. I will reply here as soon as time allows. Sandstein 16:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, how to best format this? Maybe the editwarring part first. The comment was added by Giano, removed as an attack by Tintor2 (talk· contribs), restored by Giano, removed by Tintor2 and then restored by you. According to our policy, "an edit war occurs when individual contributors or groups of contributors repeatedly override each other's contributions, rather than try to resolve the disagreement by discussion." Your restoration of the comment was the fourth in such a sequence of back and forth, hence my assertion that you were edit warring. I find it surprising that you, an administrator, "object, strongly, to such aggressive framing of restoring a post which another editor removed." One half of every edit war is always "restoring a post which another editor removed." Sandstein 17:26, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So now I'm tag teaming? Enough, Sandstein. You're not interested in getting feedback or resolving this; you're clearly here to prove how right you are and how wrong anyone else is. I'm done, at least on this page, at least for today. I'm too damn sick to deal with this. KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 17:32, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmf. Sorry that you're not feeling well, had hoped your return meant a recovery. Do please get well soon, which is much more important than wikitrivia. Best wishes, dave souza, talk 18:06, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, no still sick. Doing better tho, and hopefully will be able to take that tag off in a few days. :-) KillerChihuahua?!?Advice 18:17, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very sorry to hear that you are not feeling well. Get better... NOW! Big dog has spoken. ;) — Ched : ? 03:06, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
just to explain
hey, hope i didnt offend with my remark on sandstein's review page. i was just noting how it could appear to those with a different point of view. not that you asked for it, but here's my (admittedly naive) take: There is one faction of editors who are all about content, and another side that cares more about verifiability. this is similar to the delete/keep crowd, but different. it seems that the content people spend more time in non-controversial, academic areas, while the verifiable people are more active in highly-contested or nationalist/fringe areas where NPOV and OR are constant problems. sooo ... the quality-content people think that someone who doesn't know about a subject shouldn't be questioning its references or the accuracy of its statements. but, for editors concerned with verifiability, the FAR is a good thing. they don't see how that editor was being unreasonable by wanting to be sure all of the statements were sourced and there was no OR. this isn't a statement on anyone's motives, just how editors with different backgrounds might view this incident. well, like i said, i dont know much about this, i could be wrong. i can kinda see everyone's side here. hope you get better soon. untwirl(talk) 03:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Stalking the sick (get well soon!) puppy's pages :) ... for inspiration
FYI: New Signpost solicits "opinion" pieces ... and I submitted(as an experiment, with nearly zero expectation it will be anything more than an amusing surprise to the editor)"Two Wikipedia opinion sonnets linked by 'civility'" :) ...
... and the second line of the second one refers to (and links to diff of) "Sweet pup's manifesto". Again, I believe this to be of no consequence, but letting you know of the link in case the editor solicits a limerick or two from you in response. LOL (If there's been some horrible breach of protocol, please bark below.) Cheers, and get well soon. -- Proofreader77 (talk) 06:38, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Guh. I'm sick too (though for me, that actually means more time to spend on WP... usually too busy!) --SB_Johnny | talk 15:08, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure whether to bring this up, or let it die. But I just noticed you replied to my comment a few days ago on ANI, re Giano/Sandstein. That, I suppose, is why it's probably a bad idea to comment on a page and then un-watchlist it.
It was not my intent to offend you, and if you look again you'll see I phrased it as a rhetorical question, or a request, not as an accusation. Still, it was exaggerated, and I'll apologize for that; exaggeration during an already heated dispute is dumb.
what I was *trying* to say, is that - even considering the rationale in your edit summary (which I did read at the time) - the effect of your revert was to restore, yet again, an inflammatory comment in a situation that was already obviously heated. There were several other approaches you could have taken besides restoring it. I found it at odds with the philosophy shown in your earlier request to me that I remove a sarcastic comment, not directed at anyone in particular, in an RFA. Just knocked my sense of symmetry out of whack. If Collectionian had called Giano a fool, and been reverted by someone else, would you have restored that comment too?
Anyway, sorry to have upset you with my ill-worded comment. Like I said, maybe this is all better left in the past, so I'm happy to discuss more, or let it drop, or agree to disagree, your call. But I didn't want to leave your comment hanging unanswered. --Floquenbeam (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]