Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 21:01, 10 September 2006

NOTICE: Unsigned postings may be removed at any time for any reason.

Archives:

• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 1
• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 2
• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 3
• User talk:FCYTravis/Archive 4

More threats by Lar

--SPUI (T - C) 15:34, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

He carried through.--SPUI (T - C) 16:21, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Please do not edit my talk page

I have deleted your comment:

The abuse claim is ludicrous, and so is the poll. I added material to the protected page that DPeterson and his allies specifically requested to be added - I had previously objected to this material, but in a spirit of cooperation, agreed to disagree and replaced it per their wishes. This settled one of the problems under dispute - in DPeterson's favor. Would DPeterson rather I not have put it there? If so, why did DPeterson request that it be put back? The poll is equally absurd - it consisted of three people, including DPeterson, all of whom are DPeterson's editing allies on related pages. Such a "poll" clearly doesn't represent any sort of community consensus. I did not protect the page - it was done by a third-party admin at my request to stop the edit war. FCYTravis 01:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/User_talk:DPeterson"

Since it does not belong in that section. I ask again, Why don't you agree to mediation? I believe you continue to abuse your admiin privl. Furthermore, more than 3 have commented. regards. DPeterson 01:36, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

You may not tell me not to edit your talk page, when you have specifically accused me of abuse in the AMA request. FCYTravis 01:38, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Will you make a show of good faith and consider mediation?

I would like to see the See also section on the Advocates for Children in Therapy restored. I also think that as I said on the talk page for Advocates for Children in Therapy

"I do believe the See also section belongs here and so do other editors. I do not think that as an admin AND A PARTY to an ongoing dispute you should be using your admin priv as you are...however, if I am wrong, I will certainly apologize for holding a mistaken belief and will change my thinking accordingly. I really would like to resolve this dispute in an collaborative manner. I think that is possible and would like to work to that end. I see mediation of a path to that end."

So, the section belongs there and as a party to the dispute who is an admin I think you abused your status. Once the protection is lifted, then either you, me, or another editor can replace the See also section. We should follow process. I urge you, again, to reconsider and accept mediation. Will you? As a show of good faith? DPeterson 01:57, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

RV your talk Page

Before you freak out and wonder why I reverted your talk page, let me explain. An annon user (User:67.172.128.217) added nonesence to your talk page, then blanked it. I have given him a removing content warning. The three edits he made are the only ones the ip has made, so it might be an experienced user. -Royalguard11 03:25, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Your vote

Please see the comment made at . Your vote, "per Rschen7754", was made on the choice at the time that C2 was too vague and C3 was too long. C2 at the time of his writing was KY X, and C3 detailed out the primary/secondary/supplemental route name - both of which were not meant to go on the page and were therefore struck out after he made his vote.

I hope you will take the time to reconsider between the two presently available options and ignore what is now struck out in Rschen7754's comment - done to prevent future confusion. Seicer (talk) (contribs) 14:15, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

In Case You Are Interested

Re: the dispute on the Advocates for Children in Therapy page, thought you might be interested in this Position Statement by the American Psychiatric Association on Reactive Attachment Disorder. It is stated there:

"While some therapists have advocated the use of so-called coercive holding therapies and/or “re-birthing techniques”, there is no scientific evidence to support the effectiveness of such interventions. In fact, there is a strong clinical consensus that coercive therapies are contraindicated in this disorder. And unfortunately, as recent events attest, such unproven and unconventional therapies can also have tragic consequences."

http://www.psych.org/edu/other_res/lib_archives/archives/200205.pdf#search=%22%20%22attachment%20disorder%22%20site%3Apsych.org%22

This statement about harmful treatment practices is completely consistent with ACT's own statements on harmful practices, as described on their web site. http://www.childrenintherapy.org/ They are both concerned with the same thing. So as a replacement for the disputed paragraph stating that ACT is not part of the "mainstream," it may be worth citing to the above paragraph and noting that ACT's positions "are consistent with those of the American Psychiatric Association." BigTop100 20:50, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. The fact that the APA does not cite ACT, but does cite many other groups and sources adds further support to the statements that represents consensus on the talk page. Dr. Becker-Weidman 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Administrators Should Set Example and follow Misplaced Pages standards

When I copied the material, there was a lot and I made an error in not getting it all copied. It seems that every time you add a comment to the request for unprotection of Advocates for Children in Therapy the section gets moved to completed, when there has, in fact been no review, except for your comments. I made a mistake. Assume Good Faith is an important principle among Misplaced Pages editors...I'd assume that as an administrator you would be even more careful about how you conduct yourself...especially when you are the one involved in the dispute and the only one...at least so far, according to the poll. regards.Dr. Becker-Weidman 20:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing at all whatsoever to do with the movement - it is handled by an automatic script program. The request has been seen by numerous administrators and none have seen fit to unprotect it. Thus you can safely assume that moving it up over and over and over again will not do anything to change that. Yes, I don't assume good faith of you, because you're asking that I be blocked. That is not in any way, shape or form a good faith action. FCYTravis 22:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

You are the only one who started and continued the "edit war." You have not acted in a manner consistent with your status as an administrator. You have side-stepped and 'refuse to participate in mediation'; you engage in refusal to assume good faith, and you have misused your administrative rights. your refusal to participate in mediation, and follow Misplaced Pages policies and practices really is in appropriate for an administrator...you do not set a good example as an administrator should. Dr. Becker-Weidman 23:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I have started the "edit war" because you and others continue to push clearly inappropriate, biased and unsourced attacks on an organization into that organization's article. I have the weight of Misplaced Pages policy on my side, and that's pretty much the end of the story. There's no need for "mediation" - if you wish, I will take this matter directly to the Arbitration Committee - I have little doubt that they will quite correctly see this as a basic matter of reliable and verifiable sourcing not being present. I have made numerous requests for any reliable source which makes the arguments you are pushing, and each time nothing of substance has been offered. Sorry, but I won't be driven off by your accusations. FCYTravis 23:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

And those sources have been provided, but you don't seem to accept them; although several other editors find the sources reputable and adequate.DPeterson 20:59, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Those "sources" show nothing of the sort, and those "several other editors" are all people recruited to work on this single issue, as even a cursory examination of their contributions will show. They do not constitute a "consensus" of Wikipedians in any way, shape or form. FCYTravis 21:01, 10 September 2006 (UTC)