User talk:Artistboynyc

Welcome

November 2007

Welcome to Wikipedia. Everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, adding content without citing a reliable source, as you did to Sexual Compulsives Anonymous, is not consistent with our policy of verifiability. This is especially important when dealing with biographies of living people, but applies to all Wikipedia articles. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you are already familiar with Wikipedia:Citing sources please take this opportunity to add your original reference to the article. Thank you. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:39, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't start an edit war

I appreciate the work you're doing on the SCA article. You may not know that it was once deleted, because the information contained in the article was not supported by reliable sources and it contained a lot of original research, and didn't maintain a neutral point of view. It was one of many twelve-step articles I re-wrote so it wouldn't get axed again. If you can provide citations for the information you added, and and re-write it to keep and encyclopedic tone, then I won't revert the changes. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 20:52, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no original research now sited. Thank you for your interest in SCA but our membership is now contributing to this article and we do not need your help. A warning has been left on your talk page, and will be escalated as necessary. We appreciate all the hard work at deleting you have done. Appropriate citations to the SCA website have been added, and our general membership has been alerted to the obnoxious deletions that have been occuring.

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artistboynyc (talk • contribs) 20:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If original research is cited appropriately, then it's not original research. At any rate, yes, there is still plenty of original research in the article. SCA does not own the SCA article. I don't have an anything against your fellowship, and I would like to help you improve the article. At any rate, I'm not sure what you mean by alerting your general membership to my obnoxious deletions, it does sound threatening to me. I edit under my real name and I take comments like the ones you made here very seriously. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:21, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Response

There is no original research in this article, just the views of members within SCA. Reverting this article to include information which alludes to members of SCA as having brain dysfunction borders upon libelous, and yes, we take this seriously. Very seriously. Please refrain from your deletions until you think about the larger consequences. Thank you. Jeffrey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.155.57.125 (talk) 21:36, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If the views of SCA members are not published in reliable sources, then they are original research. Please read the policies. At any rate, you've got this all wrong -- the article that researched the correlation between the questionarre results (which I cited, and was published in a peer-reviewed neuroscience journal) wasn't saying anything pejorative about SCA members or addicts in general. In fact, it was very complementary about the serendipity of the material, the fact that it correlates with measurable differences in brain function is fascinating -- as the researchers found it. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 21:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an article on sexual compulsion, nor does it claim to be. This is an article about Sexual Compulsives Anonymous. Please see the article on Alcoholics Anonymous for a comparison. Members of AA contribute to this article in the same manner as members of SCA are now contributing to this article. The article on AA is not an article on alcoholism. The article on SCA is not an article on Sexual Compulsion, but merely sexual compulsion as we define it and how it is treated with our support group. Your questionable allusion to the SCA literature as pointing towards signs of brain dysfunction borders upon libel and I would be very careful if I were you. There are now at least 2 members of SCA working on this current edition, and we appreciate and care about Wikipedia. More have been alerted to this issue and this article is now in appropriate hands.--Artistboynyc (talk) 21:56, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's not libel, I was summarizing research from a peer-reviewed academic neuroscience journal, abstract is here. I cited it, and will be happy to provide you with a copy. I'm sorry if I offended you, it was not my intention. At any rate, what you're doing is referred to as wikilawyering and is very bad.

I contribute regularly to the Alcoholics Anonymous article, in fact I've written almost every article about twelve step groups on wikipedia, have a look at my user page for a list. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your diligent efforts in editing Wikipedia. As noted, this article is not about sexual compulsion, but about SCA. Your comments are very much appreciated however, and have given us important insights on how to focus this article. For example, qualifiers have been placed to remove any hint of 'defining' sexual compulsion. I would suggest you create an article specifically for the concept of sex addiction (if there is not already one) and then, yes, your research links (peer reviewed or not) would be fascinating and appropriate. I must repeat again, this article is about SCA, a fellowship of men and women struggling to recover from sexual compulsion - as we define it. An allusion to brain damage or dysfunction is ... if not libelous... a bad joke at best. An article on sex addiction itself is needed, and I think you'd be a great contributor and perhaps we can work together on it someday.--Artistboynyc (talk) 22:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Really? It doesn't seem at all like my comments are appreciated, in fact it seems like threating lawsuits against me is very very unappreciative. Maybe I'm wired like that.

At any rate, addiction is a brain dysfunction (among other things). That's what the study was documenting, and it mentioned SCA's questionnaire specifically. When paper tests correlate well with neurological tests, it adds value to them as it means they are actually measuring something demonstrable. It's a complement to SCA -- e.g. it shows evidence that a non-professional group developed an instrument that's as good (or better) for evaluating sexual compulsivity as ones developed by professionals. It's not at all intended to be insulting.

Now, it is worth discussing whether or not something like this should be included in an article. But, in this case removing it (and continuing to add tons of original research is hurting your article, and even putting it in jeopardy of being deleted.

In order for a group (or any topic for that matter) to have an article in wikipedia they have to meet certain notability guidelines. For instance, information about that group has to be published in multiple reliable sources. Please read these guidelines before responding, as they're important.

If you do a Google Scholar search on Sexual Compulsives Anonymous to see what has been written about it in peer-reviewed journals (reliable sources) you'll find very few sources that do more than list it as one of many twelve-step groups, or one of many sexual addiction support groups. In fact, I only found two good reliable sources among the 72 results, and I included both of them -- you just deleted one.

Now, look, I'd like to a have rational, reasonable, discussion with you about all of this. Can you stop making vague threats against me? I'm not in SCA, but I'm in recovery, and I know what the score is. I'm only trying to help you. I'm coming up on 5000 edits (1000 more than is necessary to be a wikipedia administrator) and I know quiet a bit about how wikipedia works.

Can you put the knives away and talk to me like a person now? -- Craigtalbert (talk) 22:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Calling someone brain damaged is not a great way to start a conversation. Nor is responding to that by accusing someone of libel (my part in it). But as there is such profound homophobia in this society and as SCA has been struggling against homophobia since its inception, it is an obvious conclusion that this is just another baseball bat with SCA tied to the fence. The article is posted for deletion, and will just be another rallying cry at this point. I'd love to talk, I don't know Wikipedia all that well. But I know that SCA has been saving lives for 25 years, and is a thriving international organization with every right to be on Wikipedia as AA. --Artistboynyc (talk) 23:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't call anyone brain damaged. I do sympathize with you, but this is really just about wikipedia guidelines. Take some time to read WP:NOR, WP:N, WP:V, and WP:RS. They're the corner stones of wikipedia's content guidelines. -- Craigtalbert (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Inappropriate language

Please be aware that no-one owns any article on Wikipedia and no-one can deny the right of another editor to participate in the ongoing improvement of articles here. Also, please be aware of our rules with regard to conflicts of interest, and language such as "libelous" suggesting threats of legal action. --Orange Mike 22:32, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Homophobia

Please review article on Homophobia before proceeding. This article is perceived to be under attack, and for good reason. Wikipedia has a policy asking for tolerance of all members, including all sexual orientations.--Artistboynyc (talk) 23:03, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is proud of our history of tolerance. All participants in this project are expected to follow the same norms, including verifiability of sources and assuming good faith on the part of our fellow editors. --Orange Mike 02:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Edits to Sexual Compulsives Anonymous

Please refrain from making unconstructive edits to Wikipedia, as you did to Sexual Compulsives Anonymous. Your edits have been automatically marked as unconstructive/possible vandalism and have been automatically reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox. If you believe there has been a mistake and would like to report a false positive, please report it here and then remove this warning from your talk page. If your edit was not vandalism, please feel free to make your edit again after reporting it. The following is the log entry regarding this warning: Sexual Compulsives Anonymous was changed by Artistboynyc (c) (t) replacing entire content with something else on 2007-11-19T23:11:15+00:00 . Thank you. ClueBot (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not delete content from pages on Wikipedia. Your edits do not appear to be constructive and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use the sandbox for test edits. Thank you. --Fredrick day (talk) 23:14, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please Contact Me Regarding Coordinated SCA Response to Wikipedia Article

--DavidN4SCA-NYC (talk) 03:24, 24 November 2007 (UTC)Dear Jeffrey -[reply]

Please be advised that I have been in contact with Craig, via telephone. This was partially in response to his call to the SCA "Hotline" in NYC. I would have sent you an email using the link on this page but apparently you have not assigned an email address to this account. I believe that it important that we have a similar conversation as soon as possible. I was also made aware of the situation via an email from an account (WoodHeartWonder...@) entitled "SCA besmirched?..." but I am not sure that this is your email, or originated from some other source.

In any event, the matter was referred to me due to my familiarity with the background (History, Talk Pages, User pages, Wiki policies, etc.) as well as the sense of hard feelings over some of the issues touched upon. As the NYC Intergroup Secretary and a member of our ISO delegation, I have some suggestions for an action plan. I also am very keen on hearing more about your views on the matter than you may have had time to express in writing on the site itself.

Would you please contact me at your earliest convenience?

I can be reached at (212) 496-6376 or using the "E-mail this user" link on my user/talk pages. I believe you will need to login to your wikipedia account in order to see these links.

With the ISO Convention coming up in February 2008, I would like to firm up some of these ideas soon, preferably before the next Intergroup meeting on December 9, 2007.

I look forward to hearing from you at your earliest convenience.

Sincerely,

David N., NYC IG Secretary, ISO Rep