User talk:82.19.66.37

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This username is an alternate account of 130.88.168.152.
This username is an alternate account of 82.0.206.215.
This username is an alternate account of 213.235.24.138.
This username is an alternate account of Step13thirteen.




Contents

[edit] WP:EL

Can you please discuss the removal of the more revealed link before removing it again? It actually does not contradict anything in WP:EL. In fact, WP:EL states explicitly that there should be a link to an "alternate viewpoint" on controversial subject matters. Thanks. 82.19.66.37 11:38, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

It actually talks about avoiding undue weight. Additionally states external links should be to "sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons." More revealed doesn't count. You are effectively vandalizing the article, and next time I will report it as such. If you continue to violate WP:EL your IP will be blocked. — Craigtalbert 19:01, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

You fail to say why "more revealed" doesn't count. These published books were written by notable authors and experts in the subject of addiction, and opponents of AA, including Stanton Peele. It most certainly does have more detail than could be put into the article. Avoiding undue weight in said policy is to do with "number of links", as opposed to "POV" of links, especially on controversial subjects such as this. In fact, having only one (promotional) link on the AA page gives undue weight to the "pro AA" camp. I am struggling not to become frustrated at you accusing me of vandalism, but am also trying to stick to WP:DR, so I don't want an argument. I don't think that any wiki admins will be overly concerned if I choose to make a (much needed) edit, in line with wiki policy. I shall return the link. If you feel like replacing it with a better "anti-AA" link, I will be more than happy to discuss it with you on the AA talk page. In the mean time, I would be interested to hear more information as to why you see "more revealed" as a bad link for the page.... 82.19.66.37 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Reasonable people can disagree. But I believe WP:EL is pretty clear in this case. I will report continued violations of these policies as vandalism. — Craigtalbert 22:15, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I am equally sure that WP:EL is very clear about this. So the link stays, until you find a more suitable one. I am not overly worried about being reported for vandalism, as it isn't vandalism. 82.19.66.37 20:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slow Motion Revert Warring

Of your last article edits, 11 of 13 of them are to insert the link to the More Revealed site. I have given you the strong advice that it is likley not an excellent external link, and that a more appropriate external link could, and should, be found. You have not attempted to find a different external link, nor have you engaged other editors in the search for a more appropriate external link on the talk page of the article. You alledged on my talk page that you "did link to the peele site," but I found no evidence of you doing such from this IP address. I'm loath to do it, but could you please read the conflict of interest policy again, at WP:COI, and strongly consider if continuing to engage in a slow motion revert war to insert what, to many eyes, must appear at this point to be a site related to you is appropriate? Thanks. PouponOnToast 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, the site isn't related to me. And I did put in the Stanton Peele link. Indeed there is a large section related to it on the AA talk page. I would like the orange papers, but am imformed that if it is anonymous then it is not a suitable link. I am, as ever, open to suggestion about a new "negative" AA link, but think that one of those three are best. I'm not sure how the site could be considered to be considered to be related to me. I think that is something that you have perhaps made up to "discredit" the link..... 82.19.66.37 20:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Edits to Alcoholics Anonymous: [1] [2]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. — Craigtalbert 23:07, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I have read most of that stuff. I am pretty sure that I am not contradicting it. I think that you are. 82.19.66.37 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your edits to Alcoholics Anonymous [3] [4] - second official warning

Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites with which you are affiliated, and links that attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policy for further explanations. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. Thank you. — Craigtalbert 04:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Removing comments from talk page

I would like to see some form of precedent which shows that this is acceptable. Really, if you don't like what I say, and want to disagree, then I guess that is your business. When I add a comment about sources that can be used in an article, and somebody removes them on extremely spurious grounds, I personally consider this to be "vandalism", and will report it as such next time.

At the top of Talk:Alcoholics_Anonymous you'll there is a specific notice that wikipedia is not forum. The articles talk page is not for flame wars, trolling, or for off topic discussion. I will continue to remove attempts to divert discussion on the talk page away from the article. -- Craigtalbert 20:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

As stated before, if you remove my contributions from the talk page, all of which have been related to content that is acceptable in the article, I will report you to wiki admins. Please consider this to be my only "official warning". 82.19.66.37 16:33, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

They haven't been related to the article. Report me, see what happens. In the mean time, I'm going to continue to remove irrelevant comments. — Craigtalbert 18:51, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia Guidelines

Please take a look at WP:FORUM, WP:TALK, WP:ATTACK, WP:CIVIL, WP:DE and the response to the 3O request. -- Craigtalbert 17:18, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Once again, do not remove my contributions to the talk page. I will report it as vandalism. If you don't want to discuss archieving the talk-page, then I suggest you dont do it. It's called consensus, and is something that should be achieved before you take such actions. I have read all of those policys. Not sure why you left that message on my talk page. 82.19.66.37 14:12, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
My opinion is that many of your contributions distract from useful work on the article. If you followed the policies you've read, I think you'd share me concern about keeping the talk page on topic. Here's an olive branch: what would it take to get you to keep your contributions on the topic of the article rather than pro- and anti- AA debate and commenting on other editors? -- Craigtalbert 19:27, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Uhhh, all of my contributions have been related to content on the article. It is also vandalism. Once again, I will report it as such. 82.19.66.37 21:59, 21 July 2007 (UTC) -- Craigtalbert 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I know you've been reporting it as vandalism. I've also noticed that your reports have been ignored. Why do you think that is? -- Craigtalbert 22:04, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding edits to Monster Munch

Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia, 82.19.66.37! However, your edit here was reverted by an automated bot that attempts to remove spam from Wikipedia. If you were trying to insert a good link, please accept my creator's apologies, but note that the link you added, matching rule petitiononline\.com, is on my list of links to remove and probably shouldn't be included in Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia's external links guidelines for more information, and consult my list of frequently-reverted sites. For more information about me, see my FAQ page. Thanks! AntiSpamBot 18:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding your edits to Alcoholics Anonymous:

Your recent edit to Alcoholics Anonymous (diff) was reverted by an automated bot. The edit was identified as adding either test edits, vandalism, or link spam to the page or having an inappropriate edit summary. If you want to experiment, please use the preview button while editing or consider using the sandbox. If this revert was in error, please contact the bot operator. If you made an edit that removed a large amount of content, try doing smaller edits instead. Thanks! // VoABot II 19:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, but a recent edit of yours has an edit summary that appears to be inaccurate or inappropriate. Please use edit summaries that accurately tell other editors what you did, and feel free to use the sandbox for any tests you may want to do. Thank you. NASCAR Fan24(radio me!) 19:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alcoholics Anonymous "Truce"

Working on the AA article definitely eats up a lot of time, and seems to yield very little in terms of results/changes. You and I are in agreement about that. I also get the impression you're an atheist, like me. So we do have somethings in common.

My general feeling is there's too much back and forth on the talk page and too little actual research. There's too much discussion about each piece of added/removed content. A lot of the shit that gets added are from things like the addiction counselors magazine which may not be a completely useless source, but there are obviously better sources out there that would be harder to argue with.

We could stop a lot of the back and forth about More Revealed, the Orange Papers, magazines, newspapers, and even citations from AA literature if we made an effort to stick towards writing the article based on peer-reviewed research.

Also, in the spirit of cooperating, I'll tip my hand to you a little bit. I'm all for people getting together to solve their common problems. I'm a humanist first, and an atheist second. Anything that helps people is great, I don't care if it involves the word 'God' or not. I'm with you about not forcing people to attend AA, NA, etc. as a condition of their parole or court rulings. I know there's a ton of people in Twelve-step groups who also suffer from something like True-believer syndrome, and more than that I know of many people in twelve step groups who have tried coerce people in to other religious beliefs. The disease model of addiction has it's failings (as do the others). But, I also don't think you should throw the baby out with the bathwater. -- Craigtalbert 00:58, 1 October 2007 (UTC)