Tcaudilllg

Welcome!

Hello, Tcaudilllg, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 23:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

WT:NPA

Hello. I've replied to your post at Wikipedia talk:No personal attacks#Am I the only person who thinks this policy is a problem?. You seem to be mistaking my meaning, and I think you're accusing me of some kind of deception about which I have no clue. Please see that page for my apology and another attempt at clarity. I assure you that I have no intention of performing any kind of "bait and switch" or anything else intellectually dishonest. I expect you to hold me to a high standard in this matter; if I'm not making sense, please be so kind as to explain how. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm..., well we have very different thinking styles: you put more emphasis on behavior, myself on phenomena. I'll take your word for it that you weren't trying to bait-&switch me. Tcaudilllg 01:51, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that. I hardly know what to say to you over at WT:NPA. Our conversation there hardly has anything to do with that policy. It sounds as if you're basically opposed to WP:NOR. Is that a fair characterization of your position? -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Not quite. My comment at NPA was misplaced, actually. (I meant to respond to NOR, but I wasn't paying attention to the page I was responding to.)

Now as for the NPA thing, I would tentatively place Alfador in that "extremist" category. Tentatively, I would say, because I don't know him. But I did write my response so as to test him, so as to entice, I suppose the word would be, him into revealing what his position really is and why it is that way. Obviously his concerns do not limit themselves to the personal; he is concerned with chaos on a wide scale, destruction, etc. I see him as projecting his fears onto me, when really I'm just trying to smooth the waters without ignoring the issues. I can't tell if, if it came down to him as to whether there was a NOR policy change or not, he'd "go down fighting" or just appeal to reason and try to work out a compromise. I'm trying to tell whether or not he's a PoV warrior.

There is a belief about Wikipedia that's pretty widespread these days as the "answer" source. I don't think that's a bad thing, but it's conflicting with the aim of trying to make Wikipedia fit the traditional image of an encyclopedia. I'm not convinced that with a little more tolerance of opinion, we could have our cake and eat it too regarding this matter. Tcaudilllg 21:49, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Well since for some reason you seem to have this tacit obsession with me let me make myself clear. It would appear that your only goal is to disrupt a process because it does not meet your own personal objectives. You want to fill Wikipedia with personal theory and unsourced synthisis and ideas. The community has spoken, and your ideas have been rejected. Please take it with good grace and drop the issue. Quite frankly I'd also appreciate it if you could refrain from using amateur psychoanalysis to label people. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 22:11, 8 November 2007 (UTC)Whatever gave you the impression that I am an extremist

Need I say more? As versed as I am in psychology, you seem to know more about me than I do. How could you know I want to corrupt Wikipedia beyond all reason? Of course that's ridiculous.

"The community has spoken"? Really? Er wait... who is the community in that context?

My impression of your will to "abide by the community and to respect its decisions" is that you already know what the community will decide, and on that basis can argue for someone to abide by the community's will as you yourself do. If you did not believe the community would agree with you, you probably wouldn't be a part of it.

I'm not obsessed with you any moreso than I am any other person who finds it difficult to compromise. But certainly at this point in my life, and in my personal research, such people are of great interest to me.

Oh, and I use socionics and analytical psychology to "label" people, not psychoanalysis. I'm trying to put contrary functions together toward a common end, as is my nature. (Jung's concept of the transcendent function) You seem to find the prospect of such ends threatening, a trait extremists in general tend to share. Certainly they must be frightened over something or they wouldn't be extreme.

I may be mistaken, but intuition suggests I'm not. Tcaudilllg 23:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You seem to have created a situation where, in your own mind, you can only prove yourself right. "I claim that you are an extremist, and if you disagree, that proves what an extremist you are." Are you afraid of the idea of commenting on the content and not on the contributor? The sense in which "the community has spoken" is that WP:NOR enjoys the support of broad consensus. This idea has been tested hundreds and hundreds of times, and each time, Wikipedia rejects original research.

Maybe we could "have our cake and eat it too," and maybe Wikipedia could be an "answer" source, ignoring the idea that "answers" have to be verifiable. However, this idea has never really caught on here, and many of Wikipedia's supporters cite our policies such as Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research as what sets us apart from the rest of the Internet, and what makes Wikipedia valuable.

As for "trying to tell whether someone is a POV warrior," are you flatly rejecting the idea that it doesn't matter? It is entirely possible to talk about the contents of the article without labeling ones interlocutors in any way. Each time we talk about each other instead of about the content, we disrupt the discussion which should remain focused on content. With your background in psychology, surely you realize that ad hominem remarks simply begin an unending cycle of accusations, counter-accusations, bad blood, and no good work getting done. This is why we have our Wikipedia:No personal attacks policy. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:05, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Case in point below. I appealed to Alfador's reason, and yet he refused to engage me in discussion. I was actually expecting he would, because I had made some polite overtures. Yet he does not; he is dismissive. Tcaudilllg 23:06, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I just do not wish to carry on multiple discussions in the same section. Excuse me if I want some order to my affairs. Anyway, I did acknowledge them on the relevant talk page. If you wish to discuss something else with me, feel free to take it to the talk page of the affected article/policy, or to my talk page, but I do not wish to, and will not, jumble multiple discussions together because you insist on being confrontational and challenging every facet of my actions.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:43, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

A humble suggestion

I don't know why this didn't come up earlier, and its partially my fault as it should have occured to me to mention this. Perhaps some of the original research ideas and synthisis would have an easily accessible outlet in the form of one or more of the Wikia Wikis. A good portion of these seem to embrace original ideas and interpretation, so long as they are well argued, and they may actually suit your needs better as they can generally be much more specific than Wikipedia, delving far into the realms of detailed information that Wikipedia would label as cruft and not include. Perhaps some of the ideas you advocate would be embraced there. However, I should caution that just as you had problems with it here, attempting to jump in and reform policies on these other wikis that you disagree will most likely be met with just as much hostility. In fact, many of these communities do not have the safeguards place to protect users from rather quick banning by sysops.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 20:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you explain to me what about this is original research?

" Wilhelm's stature and mystique has inspired many allusions between himself and historical themes. Partially owing to the strong parallels illustrated by the series' creators between the world of Xenosaga and actual history, many fans believe Wilhelm to be a symbol for real life religious and mythological concepts. A leading comparison is to that of the [[Demiurge]] of the [[Gnostic]] religion, who is said to be the creator and "caretaker" of the physical domain. Demiurge is portrayed as antagonistic to the will of the Supreme Creator, just like Wilhelm is antagonistic to U-DO's will. He also tried to entrap elements of the divine in the physical world, much like Wilhelm tries to seal away the "eyes of God", Abel and Abel's Ark, in order to have his way with the world. Also, Demiurge employed agents called Archons, powerful beings that acted on Demiurge's will. Demiurge's Archons can be comparable to Wilhelm's [[Testament (Xenosaga)|Testaments]]."

Those are simplistic conclusions that anyone who was familiar with both Gnosticism and the character could reach. (especially in light of the overt Gnostic references in the first game) It helps to be familiar with the material, to know what in the context of it is "obvious" and what isn't. Tcaudilllg 00:11, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I didn't come here to argue that. If you wish to continue fruitlessly arguing that point, you can do so wherever you've been ranting about it so far. Obviously you have no interest in my suggestion and just wish to continue with your current rantings here, and, seeing as how I've grown rather bored with this, have fun.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 01:24, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Nice job on the socionics article. Care to justify yourself here, ignorant one? http://the16types.info/forums/viewtopic.php?p=296087#296087 Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:48, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Ignorant? You're treading on thin ice with WP:NPA by continuing to treat other editors as you do Sir. Fortunately I'm rather good natured and have better things to do and waste my time with petty name calling from a frustrated editor. The addition was unsourced. You of all people should know the current policy on that, and whether you agree with it or not, it is to be respected unless consensus, and thus the policy, changes. Provide a link to a credible source with the addition to the article and it might very well stay, so long as the community believes it to be credible.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 05:25, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Might I also point out (quite ironically and admittedly to my own amusement), that whatever point you are trying to prove has just been directly opposed by everyone who posted in that forum. They seem to be even more irritated with your antics than the editors here, but that may just be a side effect of WP:NPA, I can't be sure. In any case, good point you proved there.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps your "friend" said it best in the first reply.... "random socionics concepts do not belong in wikipedia pages like "creativity" because they have nothing to do with creativity as a whole. they instead belong in the socionics article. "--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 08:49, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

You're a college student, right? If you don't mind me asking, just how old are you, exactly? I'm only asking because it's been scientifically proven (you can read this in lifespan psychology journals and texts) that people undergo a change in reasoning at about their 22nd~23rd year. (from "defense of principles" to "cognitive relativism")

As for the forum comments, I've batted with those guys for years. There are actually at least six people on the forum in ardent support of my theories, which an investigation of my participation on the same would make clear to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Once again, I should be pointing out that I am not going to do your work for you. Telling me to go find your proof isn't going to cut it. If you feel you have something to prove (and obviously you do), the onus is on you to find that information and bring it to me. I'm not going to go digging through your muck trails of people who are upset with you to find the that one shining beacon of light who just happens to disagree with you. So far, what I'm getting out of this discussion is that you felt the need to make a post remotely attacking me, just to get a bunch of your peers, who you expected to come to your aid, to announce to you (and incidentally anyone who views this discussion) that you have been carrying on there much the same way as here and they are tired of it. As for my age, it is of little consequence. I could go by your rationale and just tell you to find it for yourself (some creative digging on your part should provide my true identity), but I don't think you'll bother anyway. Oh, by the way, I'd love to see some of these psychology journals, I have plenty of database subscriptions available to me, so care to give me an article name? I'm not going to waste my time looking up information that I neither care about, nor believe exists with credibility as a result of your consistent track record of refusing to source your statements.--Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 09:09, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Screw this, go look it up yourself. As you say, you don't care about it anyhow. Tcaudilllg (talk) 10:04, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

"Go look it up yourself," a telltale sign of no source to begin with. If you genuinely believe that cuts it I can understand now why you have so much difficulty with Wikipedia. --Oni Ookami Alfador^Talk|@ 15:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Get off my talk. We have nothing to say to each other. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

NOR Request for arbitration

Because of your participation in discussions relating to the "PSTS" model in the No original research article, I am notifying you that a request for arbitration has been opened here. I invite you to provide a statement encouraging the Arbcom to review this matter, so that we can settle it once and for all. COGDEN 00:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam in Mysaifu JVM

Hello, this is a message from an automated bot. A tag has been placed on Mysaifu JVM, by another Wikipedia user, requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. The tag claims that it should be speedily deleted because Mysaifu JVM is blatant advertising for a company, product, group, service or person that would require a substantial rewrite in order to become an encyclopedia article.

To contest the tagging and request that administrators wait before possibly deleting Mysaifu JVM, please affix the template {{hangon}} to the page, and put a note on its talk page. If the article has already been deleted, see the advice and instructions at WP:WMD. Feel free to contact the bot operator if you have any questions about this or any problems with this bot, bearing in mind that this bot is only informing you of the nomination for speedy deletion; it does not perform any nominations or deletions itself. To see the user who deleted the page, click here CSDWarnBot (talk) 12:30, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding socionics article "Esoteric links to socionics"

I see your point. I went ahead and put the category back with a link to the tattwas article. That seems to be a more appropriate place for it.

Notify about Arbitration

I notify you about Arbitration for your love to popularize exotic theories in wrong place (Socionics). User8080 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Excellent. I'll point to your communication with Rick and Lytov. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:55, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Completely indifferent to your attempts to "stand up against me"

I am completely indifferent to the fact you think you have to "stand up to me." I view my self as the anti-christ that keeps socionics real and the "sheep from settling". If no one else is going to take a stand a tell the truth about the origin of socionics, and the fact that I bothered to be the one person who takes a stand against "the socionic sheep who believe what they are told and never think for themselves" and that makes me the bad guy who "tells people how it is with socionics", I will be the bad guy who "tells it like it is."

All I know is that it is impossible for anyone to do any research into the matter and not eventually find the real truth. And so long as the "wolf is on the prowl" some people are going to be looking into the matter. Now, you can be the "dog that protects the sheep" all you want and attempt to shield some of this extremity, but I know you are in it for the truth as well. I am pretty sure you just want moderation in the matter. --Rmcnew (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Notability of socionics

Can you produce something that demonstrates the notability of socionics as a recognized psychological study? Mangoe (talk) 18:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Depends on what language you want it in. Most all of the material is in Russian.

The clearest proof of its notability is its leading journal, published by the Socionics Institute in Kiev, Ukraine. There have been hundreds of articles published in it since 1995. However, an understanding of Russian is required to read most of the associated works. Google Trans can help, IF you can get hold of the articles in an electronic form.

According to the journal website, the Ukrainian government relies on socionics in the selection of its personnel. That's difficult to corroborate, of course.

I think this article may answer most of your questions. You should be able to locate it in physical form without too much trouble.

I can get you in touch with an expert, but he'll expect you to communicate in Russian as a sign of respect. Tcaudilllg (talk) 20:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to have to say that a "Socionics Institute" is not going to cut it as a reliable source for notability. Can you come up with a third party? Mangoe (talk) 20:51, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What are you asking for, exactly? Is it not enough that some 20 people with PhD.s endorse it? In the field of depth psychology, there are no supreme authorities, only people who offer observations and have qualifications. If it helps, you can observe on the institute's journal main page that the reviewers are practicing psychologists.

Stop and think for a moment how many revolutionary advances have come out of Eastern Europe. Tetris was the last that we know of. People over there have limited means, strict governments, and much less freedom of the press.

I'll say this: if you can't tell that your relations with other people follow consistent patterns, then so be it. But don't to say to people who can acknowledge those patterns that they cannot speak up for what they see. Socionics is a practicioner's art: if you aren't trained to observe your own mental patterns, they go right by you because you are actively living them and they -ARE- you. It's been said before but to understand socionics you must study its foundations and see it in action.

But if you want to nominate the article for deletion, go right ahead. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I can offer another institution: http://socionics.kiev.ua/ . I believe there is a third one, also. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:22, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I should also make the point that these people are probably just as qualified, if not more so, to speak about public matters of psychology than the editors of such pop sci magazines as Psychology Today. Tcaudilllg (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

The editors of Psychology Today, however, are excellent testimony to the spread of ideas in the psychological community. Thus far you have given me nothing but testimony from those promoting the legitimacy of socionics; the most cursory reading of our policies will show this to be insufficient. How did you personally come to find out about it, anyway? Mangoe (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sergei Ganin's site, after doing a search for "personality types" on the internet. ...I don't know what else to say... but would believe that there is a conspiracy against socionics? Think about it: doesn't the whole notion of relationship patterns between people, that you can't change no matter how hard you try... doesn't that seem kinda "otherworldly"? Look at Psychology Today, the one thing all of those articles they publish have in common, is the notion that if you have a deficiency in something due to a trait, you should try to eliminate it through pure effort. According to socionics, you're gonna fail without outside help saying point blank what you need to do in every such situation: you need by the minute instructions, or you're going to screw it up. A lot of people don't want to hear that, because it's not positive psychology. They would rather live in denial and believe they could change that which couldn't be changed. Some people come to accept this through a willingness to believe that people have dispositions, traits, and that they can learn these by observing people. Others insist that without cognitive evidence you can't know what another person's traits are. Those two poles also vote in opposition to each other, for the record. In the U.S., the conservatives rule psychology and have since Freud. Skinner affirmed it further, and although Alport made the point people had traits, he and Eysenk insisted that you had to have empirical scientific data to prove their existence, which of course is elusive without a working theory of consciousness itself. The Left is OK with figuring out personal quirks, but the Right demands that anything held as true be demonstrated in the context of everything else. It all boils down to politics.

Here's an interesting bit: one of the more recent advances in socionics sheds light on the problem of sociopathy. V. Gulenko argued that there are 32 types, not just 16, before abruptly ceasing any further mention of them. I've done my own investigations and I am positive that those other 16 are sociopathic variants of the originals: people innately disposed to impulsive, selfish thinking at the expense of altruism and social respect. Socionics itself isn't any more notable, any less than MBTI; but the whole notion of a cognitive elementology is very powerful. If you knew that a person would become a dictator before they were even born given permissive social conditions, would you still allow them to be born? Socionics is a new theory of reality and human identity, the current state of which only touches the surface.

Here's a question I'd like answered: why, in the absence of proof that the mind isn't completely plastic, do we assume that it is? Who put that idea in our head at the expense of the alternative? There is no reason to believe the mind is completely changeable, it's just an idea that Freud posited and which we believe, but why? Tcaudilllg (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

brief response

frankly i think you're insane and see no reason to try to talk to you not directly related to the issue at hand. your comment on my talk page was mostly indecipherable. two points:

• material from descriptions on wikisocion and wswiki has been incorporated for the last year and a half. both wikis are GPL. rick has no issue with it (and if he did i would fight him). obviously neither isha nor i have any issue with it. wikipedia has no issue with it because the content is all freely redistributable.
• socionics is notable, according to wikipedia's criteria. nonetheless, it's not very notable, and both you and mcnew have done an excellent job adding bullshit sources that makes it appear far less notable. the page needs a major overhaul, and in total frankness it needs you to leave it the hell alone.

Niffweed17, Destroyer of Chickens (talk) 05:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

You're hopeless. I don't care what you say. Unlike you, I will one day be a professional socionist. So there.

I'm going to replace the existing descriptions with sourced perspectives from all the different key authors. You should help me with it. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Niffweed is one of those people who have bought into the western lie that socionics is "something like Jung and MBTI" and has done nothing but intensely persecute those who tell the truth that socionics has an intense esoteric background. When I literally owned the the16types.info forum for 4 straight years, he made a regular habit of following users around during that time who spoke anything contrary to "his opinion on the matter" and harass them. He even goes so far as to commit slanderous and libelous accusations against people such as "calling them insane" or labeling them with "psychiatric disorders" even as such is libelous false. This tactic seems to be his main response to those who disagree with him and otherwise shows that "his opinion on the matter" lacks a high degree of respectability. --Rmcnew (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Apparent threats

On the fringe notice board you wrote " Delete this page and you'll see Wikipedia go -SCHIZM-. I dare you to salt it. I dare you. You attack progress then progress will attack back.". This appears to be a threat to either attack other editors or vandalise Wikipedia. I hope I am wrong and would welcome your clarification. Thank you. Dougweller (talk) 14:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

All I have to do is call attention to the discord within your own ranks. When deleting articles, one needs to take the process seriously. As it is, the persons who facilitated the debate (by administrative means) failed even to check the Russian Wikipedia article for socionics. (http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=ru&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%D0%A1%D0%BE%D1%86%D0%B8%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0). Their decisions are representative of incompetence at least, bias at worst. I would expect they would at least receive a warning, because this debate borders on censorship.

In general, one should not exalt process over the self-evident. As for damage to Wikipedia, I'm not stupid. I know how resilient this thing is and that if it falls it'll be not from without, but from within. As it is you are trespassing against a legitimate ethic of caring: Wikipedia is a de facto exposure vehicle for information that can help people in their personal lives. As a factor of its philosophy and relationship theory, socionics is a premier self-help tool as thousands have already discovered. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 16:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Mass posting

Please stop sending that message to so many users. It is not relevant. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for the policy on this. Angela. 21:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for posting to you. It's just time to settle what Wikipedia is, is all. We're settling the inclusionist/deletionist debate with a schizm. The reason is that I'm looking down the road and you (Wikipedia) doesn't seem that important to progress. The socionics debacle is a case in point. If Wikipedia takes a more inclusionist stance, then no problem. Or else, they will leave. In any case your encyclopedia wins: you no longer have people pressing to make Wikipedia into "the sum of ALL human knowledge", and those who want to create such will go on and make something else. Who knows, maybe they will fork Wikipedia to do it. There will be less conflict on Wikipedia in any case. (there will still be inclusionist arguments, but not "far out" arguments because those people will have no reason not to go to the new service). And I posted only to ADMINISTRATORS who expressed Left-leaning sentiments (atheists and inclusionists, though in my experience they tend to coincide). If you notice, there is a bid to ascertain consensus over the socionics article. Then, let's hear out EVERYONE. (I admit I don't want to hear out everyone, only to see the indignation of people who more or less work to be of similar opinion to each other, and on a mass scale. I want inclusionism AWAKENED).

Your deletion policy leaves something to be desired. It just doesn't make any sense. We're trying to grow a subculture here by making people aware of the Great Hole in Western Knowledge which has been unknown since the fall of the Iron Curtain, and here our articles to that end are being deleted. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

In other words, you are trying to use Wikipedia for promotion. That's not what encyclopedias are for. Dougweller (talk) 07:23, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

That is precisely my concern in this. To a degree I'm not concerned about whether socionics is novel but accepted psychology, or pseudoscience, or a woo-woo mixture of psychology and the paranormal. At the moment it seems hard for the uninvolved to assess which of these it is, because with the exception of Rmcnew's problematic analysis, there seems to be a complete lack of any external assessment of the stuff. That external consideration is precisely what is needed to make this stuff notable. If it gains enough of a following for others to remark upon it, then I would certainly agree that it's notable. But your argument, T., is that Wikipedia should be making it notable, and that isn't right. Mangoe (talk) 14:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Reversing an AfD deletion

There is no point in posting to anyone who is not an Admin asking them to reverse a deletion decision if that is what happens, as they can't do it. There is no point in posting to an Admin to ask them, because they won't, it would be WP:Wheelwarring and we already have a review process if anyone thinks a discussion was closed incorrectly at WP:DRV (which is not a second AfD, please note. You've already been asked to stop canvassing for the AfD. Dougweller (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have difficulty accepting predetermined outcomes, or even the practical necessity of such. You need to work on that. Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:38, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

My only difficulty is figuring out what you mean by 'predetermined outcomes' and 'the practical necessity of such'. I have no idea if I can accept them or their practical necessity unless you explain it. Your comments aren't obviously a response to what I wrote above, but presumably you think they are. Can you please elucidate? Dougweller (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You keep insisting that we cannot know what the consensus will be in advance of the debate's closure. Why is that? It's plain that socionics is more notable than many things on the English Wikipedia.

You make this big deal about me trying to undermine the encyclopedia. Well if the consensus is negative, then something is wrong at Wikipedia and wheelwarring may be necessary to restore it. I don't think it'll be necessary though, it's only an option in the worst case scenario. It's like if Sarah Palin became president of the United States: all hell would break lose, but you just feel a little more anxious when there is a real official prospect for society to go the wrong path, because we see that sometimes it does. Tcaudilllg (talk) 14:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Getting Personal

Indulging in personal attacks like this [1] are not going to help your cause much. It makes working here unpleasant and will, more than likely, result you being blocked or somesuch. Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well his behavior does characterize him as an extremist under Wilcox' criterion. I don't get into it with a lot of people, to be honest. Just these guys. Niffweed and I have had words before... I've tried to cultivate a friendship with him, but he's unstable. Paranoid, bad. Very paranoid. I see an intuitive correspondence between him and Cheney behaviorwise, I really do. Consider that he came right out the gate and attacked me, before I said anything. Obviously when someone tries to defame you at the the beginning of the discussion, you get a little defensive and paranoid yourself. Niffweed is knowledgeable but, .... I being as civil as I feel comfortable being. Quite frankly this whole affair is perplexing me. I get that Mangoe doesn't get it, but I don't get that people are listening to him. But that's what Wikipedia is: troll paradise. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can tell the idea around this place is that you need to focus on your behaviour. Just because someone else is behaving in an unfriendly or even downright rude manner is beside the point. If Niffweed or anyone else for that matter is being difficult to get along with well you just gotta let that be. Repaying them in kind is not going to help you achieve the things you want to achieve here. I honestly think your time would be better spent improving the Socionics articles so that ordinary folk like myself can learn something about the subject you're so interested in. :) Teh Crafty One (talk) 03:50, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

And that's why they're still here. Because that altruistic "turn the other cheek" attitude is their natural ally. I agree that my time would be better spent editing the socionics articles. But explain to me why they get to be a dick, and I don't...? Seems like they should get some kinda warning, too. If they did, they might back off. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:58, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I don't really know what to say to this. You shouldn't be incivil with other editors because it's not conducive to a constructive friendly atmosphere. If others are rude to you, that doesn't mean you should return the ill-favour. I believe that Wikipedia has processes to help editors resolve these sorts of problems. I want to add that I'm not warning anyone as much as giving some unsolicited but friendly advice. I was rather hoping that you might rise above the pettiness that seems to have arisen in that discussion regarding the Socionics articles. The deletion debate will go the way it goes. Rather than waste your considerable talents fighting with others, maybe you should be noting what the more sensible participants in the deletion discussion have said and improve the articles so that they won't deleted or merged. Teh Crafty One (talk) 05:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I must insist that you tell him to calm it down as well. I'm done with the debate. Tcaudilllg (talk) 05:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Look, don't let it give you ulcers. I've replied to your comment on the deletion page. I really think the best way forward here is not to get into a round of warning people and all that jazz. Try to rework the main article into something that will pass muster under Wikipedia's inclusion criteria. Be prepared to compromise with a view to achieving a consensus. Don't worry about the supposed poor conduct of others, that's their problem. Teh Crafty One (talk) 05:37, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

ANI notice

Hello, Tcaudilllg. 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. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:49, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sneaky edits

nevermind ...

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)

Viktor Gulenko

If you want to add anything from his blog to Wikipedia, you could start an article about him, specifically. His blog posts will be reliable sources there. MichaelExe (talk) 17:12, 26 September 2009 (UTC):

Gulenko introduced the two-type hypothesis in a published piece in 2000. He has been steadily trying to put together the meaning of such a thing since then. (the publication had few details).

The research is going slowly because few people know about it. The esoterism stuff is quite dangerous: it means that a lot of professionals who could contribute to socionics risk being associated with pseudoscience if they do. Rmcnew and I used to be friends: he's told me in private that he intended to create a community of esoterists (read: anti-scientific pseudo-scientists) around socionics. That metasocion.com site in the links section was his attempt to do that, but it failed. Now he has come here to try to use the socionics article for that purpose. I have his notes and I can show them to you. Tcaudilllg (talk) 19:43, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Psychology and sociology are often considered pseudosciences (as most social sciences are), and most of the contributors to socionics have PhDs in psychology or sociology. It makes sense, although it still isn't the official position. Psychology, sociology and socionics have also been proven to work. I've been telling him that if he finds a reliable author saying that socionics is a pseudoscience or esoteric, it can be placed under criticisms or influences (or something similar). Currently, the Esotericism section does not blatantly state that socionics is esoteric, but that it may have been influenced by esotericism.

We could use discussion before adding anything to the article. Everyone can post what they intend to contribute, along with links, and we'll work on it, and check out the reliability of the authors. This should discourage anything that shouldn't be in the article. He'll either eventually find a reliable source or give up. We don't have anything to lose in letting him try, tbh.

I intend to pursue psychiatry, which is more-or-less the link between medical science (neurology) and social science (psychology). I don't care whether or not psychology is a pseudoscience. If it works, it works. Then again, psychologists don't claim it to be hard science, anyway, so the pseudoscience argument is pretty much moot, because it isn't going to discourage anyone from psychology. So, calling socionics esoteric, protoscience or pseudoscience doesn't really change its validity. MichaelExe (talk) 20:36, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Well now who leads science? The Alpha NTs, right? Of which I'm one. So it's like saying that I don't study science. But socionics is a science. I mean really, neurology isn't even complete enough to say anything about personality, is it? We have vague ideas that when you modulate this chemical or that chemical, people are able to control themselves better than before. Which is what psychiatry tries to do, right? So I don't buy the argument that inquiry-based personality theories aren't "hard" science. I ask a person what kind of decision they would see themselves making in X situation; if someone wants to validate that answer, they can ask that person that question themselves. If you think about it, that's reproducibility in an experiment. Now of course you have to put the person at ease before you ask, or else they might lie. But that's just controlling the environment variables. I guess that's why the "hard" scientists don't like inquiry-based study: they don't have enough interest in people to see that they are actually comfortable enough to be honest when asking the question.

What are you going to do if Rmcnew doesn't give up? I don't think he knows where else to go. You see he's been ostracized from the socionics community, and his attempt to create his own community failed, so he's kinda desperate I think to find people who share his views. Tcaudilllg (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Socionics and psychology are still viable sciences, but hard sciences tend to be more black and white, consistent and predictable. 2+2 is always 4, but an abused child doesn't always develop a mental disorder.

In psychiatry and psychology, the diathesis-stress model and biopsychosocial model are used, which state that there are biological, social and psychological factors as well as a trigger contributing to mental disorder. Dealing with any of the factors should treat the patient. If we had a complete understanding of people from a medical standpoint, we'd be able to manipulate our brains, attribution of feelings to causes, and memories, making psychology obsolete. We could basically eliminate the significance of our childhood on our personalities, so instead of being good parents, we could neglect our kids and "fix" them later. This day will never come, though.

However, medication has become the first form of treatment in psychiatry, because psychology is much more time-consuming and drastic, and as our drugs improve, we'll see a decreasing need for psychotherapy. Hard sciences seem to grow much faster than social sciences.

At the moment, Rmcnew's a bit less aggressive in his edits, so I think he's starting to slow down. I've already requested mediation, so if things get out of hand, Manning will probably take over. MichaelExe (talk) 00:58, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Let's say you're right, and you succeed absolutely. Even schizophrenia bows before you. What happens then? What does a world without evil look like, because proclivity to evil is itself a psychological disorder, is it not? Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:33, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'll make the Gulenko article and use his work as source material. It's more relevant to my goals anyway. But as far as I can see the Wikipedia article on socionics is now discredited. It is dreadfully NPOV and probably remain that way until people without judgment disorders are prohibited from editing it. Suffice to say that in my judgment Rmcnew also needs some of those miracle drugs of yours. Although I'm quite aware that you have nothing that could work for him. You have no real idea that he even has a disorder, do you? Tcaudilllg (talk) 12:42, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Tbh, I don't believe in evil. Evil seems to imply permanence (to me). Sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorders are not inherited genetically (although genetics does play a role), but I find that nurture plays a more important part than nature in most mental disorders. No one is born "evil", they develop maladaptive traits and disorders. That's why I wouldn't even use the term evil against Hitler, but disordered instead. Then again, I probably would have assassinated him if I had the chance, if I were alive during the war and knew about the concentration camps.

If we did have drugs/treatment for every disorder, the world would not be void of disorder, because a good chunk of the disordered are reluctant to seek treatment. Initial hospitalization/treatment would have to be against their will, and criminals don't often accept the treatment offered in jail. Then again, I'd prefer a mental hospital to a jail, any day.

As for Rmcnew, his behaviour is inflexible at worst, but he's not the only one that didn't want to compromise or find a consensus/solution. You two are on opposite extremes, and I'm pretty well in the middle. MichaelExe (talk) 16:11, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

And if evil was inborn and permanent, would you accept it? Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm working on an article for Gulenko at User:Tcaudilllg/Viktor Gulenko. If you would assist me with it, I would be grateful. Tcaudilllg (talk) 18:20, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

I would, but that's a pretty big if, though.

I'm actually quite clueless when it comes to socionics. I kind of stumbled upon the article doing Myers-Briggs and Keirsey tests, although I am interested to learn. I'll take a look at it, though. MichaelExe (talk) 18:59, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If you can't see after Rick DeLong told you point blank (if tongue-in-cheek) that McNew is a pariah, then we've nothing more to say to each other. Tcaudilllg (talk) 04:28, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

NPOV

"This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors."

The letter is also less biased than the spirit.

If homeopathy was said to treat any psychological or neurological disorder by a reliable source, I would want it in the article. Then again, all they're really proving is the placebo effect (so in this case, you would mention the placebo effect with homeopathy as an example/support for this). I'm not really offended by people calling psychology a pseudoscience, either. I understand where they're coming from, whether or not it's the same as my own opinion.

If Manning says no to the source, you "win", anyway, just not by your own terms. MichaelExe (talk) 02:27, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing is probably the most stupid thing that's happened on Wikipedia in a long time. At least since the socionics AfD. I'll swear, it's like stupidity and socionics go hand in hand on Wikipedia. Or maybe stupidity and Reuben McNew go hand in hand, I've yet to determine. Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:03, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Are you a fiscal conservative? Have you figured your type yet? Tcaudilllg (talk) 03:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I support the NDP of Canada, so that would make me socialist. I'm ISTJ (LSI or SLI, I haven't looked that far into it yet) and a little OCPD. That doesn't make me wrong.

The section on esotericism isn't going to have "socionics is esoteric" or even "socionics may be esoteric", it would have (if Manning says yes) something like (with a little more detail into chakras after, I'd assume): "Olga Krylova, PhD in math, and Prokofieva Tatyana, Ph.D. in Socionics and Chief Director of Scientific Research Socionics Institute, support a link between socionics and esotericism." The wording is not very explicit at all. MichaelExe (talk) 11:20, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Think about it: the East Europeans aren't going to put out something against Krylova or Tatyana because they don't see the need for it. This is all about the integrity of Wikipedia, at least with respect to socionics. The mainstream socionists don't even care about this article; they're a plane above, and removed from it at least. The English Wikipedia doesn't really matter to them... but now where is the esoterism content in the Russian article? Nowhere, because Dmitri Lytov watches that article like a hawk. If you want to find out what the mainstream socionists really think about esoterism, go ahead and add that line to the Russian Wikipedia. I'll bet it gets reverted within an hour. Tcaudilllg (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

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

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 to 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]

Request for arbitration

 +  
 + You are involved in a recently-filed request for arbitration. Please review the request at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and, if you wish to do so, enter your statement and any other material you wish to submit to the Arbitration Committee. Additionally, the following resources may be of use— 
 + * Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration#Tcaudilllg; 
 + * Wikipedia:Arbitration guide. 
 +  
 + Thanks, --Rmcnew (talk) 17:16, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

An Arbitration case involving you has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you may wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Evidence. Please submit your evidence within one week, if possible. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics/Workshop.

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:49, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

I have looked at your contributions to the evidence page, and while I cannot force you to change your evidence, I would suggest taking another look at what you have written. The arbs do not need a lengthy discussion on the nature of the content dispute, what they're after is evidence of actual conduct issues, preferably supported by concrete examples and diffs. Content issues should only be discussed where they're essential to understanding the background of an actionable issue. In short, assertions that "cannot competently distinguish between socionics and esoterism" are not helpful, but diffs or other concrete evidence that show that this alleged belief of rmcnew is causing disruption to this project woulod be. If the arbs have to go hunting for this evidence themselves, it can lead to delays and prevent the speedy resolution of this case.

If you've any questions or need any assistance, please drop a note to myself or one of the other clerks and we'll be happy to assist however we can. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 10:43, 10 October 2009 (UTC).

I will drop the charges on arbcom if you agree to the following 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 to 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]

A Caution

I'd be careful about casting dispersions on editors you don't even know, as it smacks of incredible ignorance. To judge by the comments left by others here, it obviously isn't the first time. I know what the issues are with Dave and why there needed to a be discussion.

Please remember that on Wikipedia, we try for good faith. Please show some next time rather than making an assumption. Many thanks. Asgardian (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I do assume good faith, and then I ask when I should question it. Again, hostile assertive tones do not impress me, and moreover persuade me that good faith does not exist.

You've only persuaded me of your controlling nature. But this is my talk page and here, I have control. Get off my talk. Tcaudilllg (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Note about Socionics arbitration case

I'm the drafting arbitrator in this case. Please see my note here. Could you please respond there, and let me know that you understand what I've said there, and could you please state when your evidence submission will be finished (or whether it is already finished), and could you please ensure it has been edited to fit the length restrictions. Carcharoth (talk) 05:48, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Please also note what I say here. Carcharoth (talk) 06:15, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Questions for the parties (Socionics arbitration case)

Questions have been posed here. Could the parties please answer the questions by Sunday evening. Thanks. Carcharoth (talk) 09:13, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of David Amodio

The article David Amodio has been proposed for deletion because of the following concern:

Notability not established; Google search does not reveal any independent sources, thus violates WP:BIO

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{dated prod}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing {{dated prod}} will stop the Proposed Deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The Speedy Deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and Articles for Deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Panoptical (talk) 06:20, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

Socionics case update

Please see here for the latest on the Socionics case. Please comment on what has been proposed so far, in the sections provided. Carcharoth (talk) 12:38, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I have completed my proposed decision. Previous sections have been updated here. Findings on Rmcnew's conduct are here. Findings on your conduct are here. Further proposed remedies are here. I am notifying both parties (including you), and the arbitrators. I intend to move this case to full voting tomorrow (Sunday). If you would like more time to respond to the findings, or to comment on the workshop sections, please go to the workshop talk page and comment in the section I will be creating there. Carcharoth (talk) 13:29, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Blocked for making legal threats

You have been indefinitely blocked from editing for making legal threats or taking legal action (diff). You are not allowed to edit Wikipedia as long as the threats stand or the legal action is unresolved. If you believe that a legal action is warranted, you may contact our information team at info-enwikimedia.org and they may forward it to our legal counsel or a more appropriate venue. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below, but you should read our guide to appealing blocks first. Cenarium (talk) 17:56, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Socionics

This arbitration case has been closed, and the final decision may be viewed at the link above.

• Editors of articles related to the topic of socionics are reminded to be civil and seek consensus whenever possible. Editors are encouraged to seek dispute resolution assistance as needed.
• Rmcnew (talk · contribs) and Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) are indefinitely topic banned from all Socionics-related topics, pages, and discussions, broadly construed.
• Rmcnew (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of six months.
• Tcaudilllg (talk · contribs) is banned from Wikipedia for a period of twelve months.
• Users not previously involved in Socionics and Socionics-related articles are asked to give attention to any remaining issues with the articles, including the reliability of sources used. Users should carefully review the articles for adherence to Wikipedia policies and address any perceived or discovered deficiencies. This is not a finding that the articles are or are not satisfactory in their present form, but an urging that independent members of the community examine the matter in light of the case. Participation from uninvolved editors fluent in the Russian language would be especially helpful.

For the Arbitration Committee, Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 06:25, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Discuss this

Note: after the one year ban from arbcom is up, Tcaudilllg can request an unblock, withdrawing legal threats, etc. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:24, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of David Amodio

You may also wish to consider using a Wizard to help you create articles. See the Article Wizard.

Thank you.

A tag has been placed on David Amodio requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done because the article, which appears to be about a real person, individual animal(s), an organization (band, club, company, etc.), or web content, does not indicate how or why the subject is notable: that is, why an article about that subject should be included in an encyclopedia. Under the criteria for speedy deletion, articles that do not indicate the subject's importance or significance may be deleted at any time. Please see the guidelines for what is generally accepted as notable. If this is the first page that you have created, then you should read the guide to writing your first article.

If you think that you can assert the notability of the subject, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hangon}} to the top of the article (just below the existing speedy deletion or "db" tag), coupled with adding a note on the article's talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the article meets the criterion it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the article that would confirm the subject's notability under Wikipedia guidelines.

For guidelines on specific types of articles, you may want to check out our criteria for biographies, for web sites, for bands, or for companies. Feel free to leave a note on my talk page if you have any questions about this. Abductive (reasoning) 23:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Notice of Dispute resolution discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute in which you may have been involved. Content disputes can hold up article development, therefore we are requesting your participation to help find a resolution. The thread is "Talk:The Purpose_Driven_Life".

Guide for participants If you wish to open a DR/N filing, click the "Request dispute resolution" button below this guide or go to Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/request for an easy to follow, step by step request form. What this noticeboard is: It is an early step to resolve content disputes after talk page discussions have stalled. If it's something we can't help you with, or is too complex to resolve here, our volunteers will point you in the right direction. What this noticeboard is not: It is not a place to deal with the behavior of other editors. We deal with disputes about article content, not disputes about user conduct. It is not a place to discuss disputes that are already under discussion at other dispute resolution forums. It is not a substitute for the talk pages: the dispute must have been discussed extensively on a talk page (not just through edit summaries) before resorting to DRN. It is not a court with judges or arbitrators that issue binding decisions: we focus on resolving disputes through consensus, compromise, and explanation of policy. Things to remember: Discussions should be civil, calm, concise, neutral, and objective. Comment only about the article's content, not the other editors. Participants who go off-topic or become uncivil may be asked to leave the discussion. Let the other editors know about the discussion by posting {{subst:drn-notice}} on their user talk page. Sign and date your posts with four tildes "~~~~". If you ever need any help, ask one of our volunteers, who will help you as best as they can. You may also wish to read through the FAQ page located here and on the DR/N talkpage. Please take a moment to review the simple guide and join the discussion. Thank you! EarwigBot operator / talk 19:38, 28 March 2013 (UTC)