Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by FatherTree (talk | contribs) at 22:42, 26 June 2007 (→In regards to []). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Reverts to your edits...also, please read Misplaced Pages policies

Yes, I did revert your edit, based on discussion on the talk page among a few editors. Please Assume Good Faith. I encourage you to read wikipedia policies on editing and also on editor conduct. RalphLender 16:20, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

And I encourage you to read them also. Please Assume Good Faith. FatherTree 16:23, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

NASW is different than the UT chaper

"WHEREAS, The physical restraint of children for purposes other than safety violates the NASW Code of Ethics, which prohibits physical contact that may be harmful; therefore, be it RESOLVED, That the National Association of Social Workers is opposed to the physical restraint of children for purposes other than safety.

— Delegate Assembly " DPeterson 22:59, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

OPEN THE PDF FILE! THAT IS THE REFERENCE. PLEASE OPEN EACH AND LOOK AT EACH THEY ARE THE SAME. FatherTree 23:21, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

'You have said your piece, please stop cluttering up my talk page with shouting and the same arguments you've already made...it's bordering on harrassment. DPeterson 23:42, 15 May 2007 (UTC)'

Sorry you interpreted that as shouting. I was trying to emphasize clearly where you are not understanding. You seem to be not working with the others and putting erroneous data on the article. I have asked you questions and you will not answer. You tell me to discuss and then you will not discuss. I feel that you seem to think you own this article. And I am allowed according to wiki rules to post on your talk page. FatherTree 12:19, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop Harrassing me

Your comments are now harrassment, please stop now. If you wish to discuss the topic, discuss it on the article talk page and leave me alone. RalphLender 15:52, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not harrassing you. Look up the rules. You are saying we need consensus but refuse to discuss the points. I asked you politely many times. You simply do not want to cooperate. That is how it appears to me. FatherTree 15:55, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Formal Mediation

A request for mediation has been filed with the Mediation Committee that lists you as a party. The Mediation Committee requires that all parties listed in a mediation must be notified of the mediation. Please review the request at Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy, and indicate whether you agree or refuse to mediate. If you are unfamiliar with mediation, please refer to Misplaced Pages:Mediation. There are only seven days for everyone to agree, so please check as soon as possible. shotwell 19:20, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Model and Mechanism

By a scientific model or a mechanism, I mean a theoretical mathematical or physical construct, which one can use to predict and formulate hypothesis about the world, so that the predictions can be experimentally tested. Does this answer your question?Vorpal Blade 17:14, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

to me model and mechanism are 2 diff things FatherTree 17:38, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Request for Mediation

A Request for Mediation to which you are a party has been accepted. You can find more information on the mediation subpage, Misplaced Pages:Requests for mediation/Attachment Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, ^demon This message delivered by MediationBot, an automated bot account operated by the Mediation Committee to open new mediation cases. If you have questions about this bot, please contact the Mediation Committee directly.

AN/I

In case you are not aware of this. Lsi john 01:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

In regards to DPeterson

DPeterson has asked you before to desist calling him Becker. As a matter of courtesy, could you refrain from referring to him in this manner in the future? Thank you. Shell 15:53, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not call him 'Becker' The point of all of this is that he is admonishing Mercer for self-promotion. But he promotes Becker. I think he is Becker and does self promotion. I have never called him 'Becker' I did ask him if he is 'Becker' and I do not see what that is construed offensive. I am not Becker, nor Cline, nor Weiderman. What is the big deal? FatherTree 17:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

From the diff given earlier, you could have been asking if he was Becker or implying he was Becker and asking if he was a good researcher. I apologize for guessing the wrong one. In any case, you've obviously asked the question before and haven't gotten an answer. DPeterson does not wish to answer the question for whatever reason and is not required to. Please stop asking.

On a side note, if you're experiencing difficulties with others making false accusations, I would be happy to speak with those people if you could provide diffs showing what is happening. Thanks. Shell 19:26, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

DP has several times made accusations against me and others have told him that they were false. He does this a lot. He uses too many complaint procedures here. Now as far as him being Becker the point is that he constantly accuses Mercer of self-promotion yet he is very often putting URL's leading to Becker's site. And he used the same IP as Becker. Now it just seems hypocrtical to accuse someone who is willing to use their real name of self-promotion when this person remains anonymous and so many bits of info seem to point to the fact that he is Becker. Do you see my point. Thanks for the concern. FatherTree 22:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)