User talk:ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion

Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion, 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:

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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! Beeblebrox (talk) 06:22, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Wondering if you could review my edits from over the last few days and let me know if there are any problems, and if you have any suggestions or recommendations.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 03:28, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. [roux » x] 03:29, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I shall do so as well - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:30, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I talked it over with Roux, and he agreed that I could give you my opinion. I dug back into your last 100 edits or so. Your edits seemed very well done, and I have to commend you for all the work you have done. You have added sources and marked information where sources have needed to go, always a good thing. You've even discussed changes on the talk page, which means that your edits are even more neutral than usual, because you have several people working with you. In short, all I can do is award you the:

		The Special Barnstar
		Great job on your recent edits! I can't see any problems, and you have helped the wiki tremendously with your edits. Way to go! - NuclearWarfare ^{contact me}_{My work} 03:38, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 07:45, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Help

{{helpme}} I provided some references at Cure Autism Now but need help making them work with the page.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:34, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let me take a look... [roux » x] 20:36, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Aha... in order to make the references list appear, you need to add {{reflist}} to the References section. I've done that for you. And congratulations on the barnstar! [roux » x] 20:42, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the help.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Sorry to bother you, but I've been trying to do some very basic/simple editing of the Autism Speaks and Cure Autism Now articles over the last week...at this point it appears mainly one other editor and I are involved, and in my view the editor is extremely biased in terms of adding negative content and negative sources, and is so in a persistent unrelenting way...I tried to edit things to make it more neutral, remove some very critical and negative content, change some sources to be more neutral and relevant, and I added discussion at the Talk page about what I was trying to do. Also I noted that I'm still working on trying to find some other sources simply on the merger of Autism Speaks and CAN...positive sources on only the merger...also some sources on the founding of both organizations...positive sources focusing only on this (founders, dates, goals, etc). My efforts and work have almost entirely been removed, and more and more negative and critical content continues to arise from the one editor. I think there has been a persistent problem with this type of thing with many autism related articles eg Tito Mukhopadhyay, Autism Every Day, both of which were full of hostile content...perhaps my revisions will all be undone at some point, thus creating an endless game of revision tag, which I won't do. And note the banner at the top of the Autism Speaks talk page about the recruitment issue. Anyway, to cut down on the reading, I won't summarize everything here again...I did about as much as I can at the Talk page. (I'd be impressed if you'd be able to track the evolution of things over the last week...I have no idea how to do that in an efficient way...all the edits and reversions, all the entries in the Talk page and when they were done, etc). Anyway, wondering if you can assess all of this and provide your feedback to me. My last comments at the Autism Speaks Talk page were the last I'll do there...I see the editor I'm objecting to has added more comments and one on my Talk page...at this point I don't see any possibility for me to be productive with what I feel is unrelenting bias...I'd like, if possible, for some others to be involved. I've expressed all of my points as much as I can do, and am wondering if some others could consider them, and weigh them along with the other editors points. Lastly, I'll mention that another editor SHEFFIELDSTEEL did away with a paragraph in the former Cure Autism Now article and explained in the Autism Speaks Talk page [[1]]...his/her edit was objected to by the editor I discuss above Eubulides. This editor, to me, seems very driven to add and source negative content where every possible, from the start onward, even when introducing the article. I believe this editor is biased against Autism Speaks and CAN, and can't tolerate a neutral introducing and coverage of some very simple aspects of the organizations (founders, goals, mergers, etc). These are two highly distinguished organizations...the largest in the US...the most highly respected...there are endless articles supporting them...yes there are criticisms but (1) they pale in comparison to the immense national and international support, and (2) these criticisms and disputes don't have, I believe, a place in a simple wikipedia article, especially in the introductory sections, and (3) in the template there is already a section on Controversies and at many of those articles you can find some objections to the organizations.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 01:47, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:TLDR. Have you tried talking this over with the user? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP)} 01:54, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Heyo ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion. I would suggest reading up on the dispute resolution process. If the issue is only between you and one more editor, then I would suggest WP:3O. If there are more people involved, you may start an WP:RFC or some form of mediation. If there are concerns of disruption (see: WP:DE, WP:TE), you might want to ask advice on WP:WQA on resolving the dispute. I would suggest keeping your notes short and simple though, so that others will have won't have a hard time to review them.
I hope that helps, Jaakobou^{Chalk Talk} 03:03, 15 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} Did I do this RFC correctly? [2]

It appears that it has been corrected. [3]. DoubleBlue (Talk) 06:07, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}}

I did a RFC request at the Autism Speaks article...no one else became involved...it's been a couple weeks...the user who my RFC was directed toward (Eubulides, whose done what I'd now consider underhanded, disruptive edits, and continually stifles the progress toward a better and more neutral and positive article) is actually person who responded to the RFC and took it upon himself to make judgments and decisions to, in his mind, resolve the dispute, which I find concerning and inappropriate. I read as much as I could about the dispute resolution process and before I start the next step, I wanted to be sure I was doing it right. I was thinking of doing a WP:DE...is this the best next step...if so how do I proceed...do I proceed with this at the articles Talk page, or somewhere else?
This is my last contribution to the article [[4]]. Which has largely been removed. Yes of course I wouldn't consider it 100% good, but still I consider it to have added to the progress of the article in many basic ways.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 03:03, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

RFC's (requests for comment) are not directed at other users; they are solely on the content of an article. RfC/U is for commenting on user behaviour. I suggest you look at our dispute resolution process to look for whatever will be the most appropriate venue. If you decide to go with informal mediation (which is what I recommend), I'll let you know now that even though I'm an informal mediator, I will not be able to participate as we have interacted before. Cheers. //roux 03:55, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant the content of the article. By talking about the users conduct I meant the content he was providing. Appears disruptive to me, in the sense that the user is stifling the progress of the article, and continuing to provide biased sources and statements that he fervently argues have the best content. Is this a content issue, or conduct issue?--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 04:06, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Deal with the content first. Behavioural issues, if any remain unresolved by resolution of the content issue, later. I really suggest MedCab for the issue. An uninvolved member will take up the case and facilitate a conversation between you two. //roux 06:11, 26 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{helpme}} I revised this article over the last few weeks Tito Mukhopadhyay. Originally it was this. If anyone has time to compare the two, I'm wondering if what I've done is acceptable, good in certain ways, bad in certain ways, productive, or lacking, and what you'd recommend for improvements. Overall, I reduced it quite a lot, added a lot of references, deleted a lot of irrelevant narrative, a lot of POV (both positive and negative POV's), etc. But I see I have no section-structure, which makes me think I haven't been very analytical in my coverage of this person's history, status, etc ... that is, I kind of combined it all together in one paragraph.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 07:46, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya. The best way to get feedback on edits you've made is to sit back and see what edits people make afterwards. Generally speaking, if nobody changes what you wrote (or not substantially), you probably did something right :) See WP:BRD for some more info on how the editing cycle works here. If you want an in-depth review of all your edits, you can check out editor review, but it's probably best to wait until you have a few thousand under your belt. //roux 07:51, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

hi

If you want to put links in your edit summaries, they have to be internal. In other words, write [[Asperger syndrome]] instead of [[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Asperger_syndrome]]. If you put the http on there it produces the same result as if you were to try to link to [[5]] within a page. Edit summary links can be piped, too: write [[http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Asperger_syndrome|my comments]] if you want it to look neater. Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 03:17, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom elections are now open!

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:56, 24 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]