Misplaced Pages

:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/special archive: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Featured article review | Asperger syndrome Browse history interactivelyContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 20:59, 22 September 2007 editZeraeph (talk | contribs)5,776 edits creating archive at suggestion of User:A Kiwi who will move back anything she feels is inappropriate  Latest revision as of 01:24, 23 September 2007 edit undoZeraeph (talk | contribs)5,776 edits →Here it is - the entire deleted passage redone: it is always a pleasure doing business with anyone who can be so fair and impartial in an objectively adversarial situation 
(2 intermediate revisions by one other user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Here it is - the entire deleted passage redone==
⚫ '''Strang Keep''' because each contentious section leads to a child rticle where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite. Even Z, a personal acquaintance of Baron-Cohen (diagnosed personally by him and his even familiar with her home) has not been able to avail herself of a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a medical school in Dublin. And while Z has reverted many edits, I do not recall her adding a single novel edit that corrected any of the errors, despite her daily hours posting of criticisms on the Talk page. Critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. Ceiling Crash has been an very active and productive participant (some persons have had recent vacations) and if he feels strongly about this, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth ] 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
⚫ ** '''Comment'''
⚫ ::#In terms of Misplaced Pages, "sources of optimism and hope" and "more positive spin" would constitute clear ], and should definately disqualify an article from featured article status.
::#Personally, in fact, I made several "novel" alterations (that were invariably reverted) but very few reverts as such. If you feel that is incorrect, please show diffs?
::#Sadly, I have never met either Sacha or Simon Baron-Cohen (which, is referred to is unclear) let alone been diagnosed by them or had then in my home, and I have absolutely no idea how such a peculiar myth arose?
::#I would be very interested to know what the source is for the assertation ''"has not been able to avail herself of a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a medical school in Dublin".'' It seems to be a wild guess to me? It also seems irrelevant to FAR to me? - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


I choose to replace this on my very own with original signature and time/date stamp, and you can do the same with yours. Every item of yours I removed was in direct response to my inappropriate comments. The last one was your comment about the material that could be moved to daughter/child articles to form a beginning of a real Wiki article. An article has to start somewhere.
'''In reply - My profound apologies to Z and all editors''' The Asperger expert with Trinity University of Dublin who diagnosed Z was not Baron-Cohen, but Michael Fitzgerald. How I got the two mixed in my mind, I do not know, for I had just heard back from Professor Fitzgerald's office regarding my request for a referral for a friend. Here is the quote I remembered incorrectly.


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
per http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive15
:"I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie" - Zeraeph
:http://www.professormichaelfitzgerald.eu/
:http://www.tcd.ie/IMM/research_neuropsychiatric.php
:http://www.jkp.com/catalogue/author.php/id/1105


⚫ '''Strong Keep''' because each contentious section leads to a child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite. <s>Even one critic, personally acquainted with an important researcher has not been able to obtain a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a nearby medical school.</s> And some who reverted many edits would not seem to add a single novel edit that corrected any of the many original errors. Critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (some persons have had recent vacations and have not been available). To those persons, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth ] 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
Again, my profound apologies for my memory slip. But still, I felt it a shame that one's personal physician nor the local medical school library would prove to not have any relevant source material. ] 14:00, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
:::*It is exceptionally hard to see what A Kiwi actually knows,
:::#one way or the other, about the source material in my possession or that of the "local medical school library"?
:::#my relationship to any person or physician (who would be bound by strict laws of confidentiality) beyond that which I choose to state?
:::#how any of this is even faintly relevant to FAR? --] 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


⚫ ** '''Comment'''
::#It is very hard to see ''how'' I spent "daily hours posting criticisms on the talk page" if one actually looks here - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
⚫ ::#In terms of Misplaced Pages, "sources of optimism and hope" and "more positive spin" would constitute clear ], and should definitely disqualify an article from featured article status. - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

'''In further reply''' Due to a your recent WikiBreak, the last 500 posts does not accurately reflect participation, thus referenced the past 1500 to when the present FAR commenced ] 14:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
::*It is also very hard to see ''how'' I spent "daily hours posting criticisms on the talk page" if one actually looks here or here . Perhaps ] is worth a visit too? --] 14:43, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
::::You are correct, Z, that a listing of 1500 is too much to ask, so this is a far more targeted and far shorter listing of only 350 - http://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Special:Contributions&limit=350&target=Zeraeph ] 14:58, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


] 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::::::Good, because, as anyone can plainly see there are no "daily hours posting criticisms on the talk page" even before you make comparison on with the time spent by other editors on the same page which is often far more. What on EARTH is the relevance of dominating this discussion with personal speculation and commentary on me? --] 15:19, 21 September 2007 (UTC)


That is absolutely super Kiwi, it is always a pleasure doing business with anyone who can be so fair and impartial in an objectively adversarial situation. Just one strike because it is mistaken personal information about me, but feel free to replace it if you know it is true about another editor (though some might say it is a bit too off-Wiki and personal for ] even so)? --] 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
::On the whole it might be an idea to take a quick look at ]? --] 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:24, 23 September 2007

Here it is - the entire deleted passage redone

I choose to replace this on my very own with original signature and time/date stamp, and you can do the same with yours. Every item of yours I removed was in direct response to my inappropriate comments. The last one was your comment about the material that could be moved to daughter/child articles to form a beginning of a real Wiki article. An article has to start somewhere.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Strong Keep because each contentious section leads to a child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite. Even one critic, personally acquainted with an important researcher has not been able to obtain a loaned text, a single photostat of any article, not a single citation, not a single reference to any text that must be available at a nearby medical school. And some who reverted many edits would not seem to add a single novel edit that corrected any of the many original errors. Critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (some persons have had recent vacations and have not been available). To those persons, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth Kiwi 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

    • Comment
  1. In terms of Misplaced Pages, "sources of optimism and hope" and "more positive spin" would constitute clear WP:POV, and should definitely disqualify an article from featured article status. - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Kiwi 01:19, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

That is absolutely super Kiwi, it is always a pleasure doing business with anyone who can be so fair and impartial in an objectively adversarial situation. Just one strike because it is mistaken personal information about me, but feel free to replace it if you know it is true about another editor (though some might say it is a bit too off-Wiki and personal for WP:CIVIL even so)? --Zeraeph 01:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)