User talk:Sitadel

Welcome!

Hello, Sitadel, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions, especially what you did for Asperger syndrome. 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 and then place {{helpme}} before the question on your talk page. Again, welcome! Colin°^Talk 09:16, 5 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

AS discussion[edit]

Hi Sitadel,

Just a note - I've reformatted your post for a more readable version using <blockquote></blockquote>; there was an edit conflict so I over-wrote your second version, but the compare feature shows that mostly you were removing stray comments (which were unfortunately replaced by my post - I'll have a go at removing in a second. There's also a reply for you. I haven't changed any content, just how it is displayed. WLU (talk) 15:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV tag[edit]

Hi Sitadel,

I have removed the NPOV tag - given my review of the articles you have posted on the Asperger talk page, I see no evidence of new information on Asperger syndrome that requires integration with the main page. All the studies you have brought up were from old discussions, already dealt with, and almost all failed to mention Asperger syndrome and differentiate it from HFA, autism, ASD or PDD-NOS (the primary reason they are not cited). Again, if you find new information specific to Asperger syndrome, then this should be posted on the talk page and discussed - the editors are not averse to pointing out advantages, they are averse to including inappropriate or irrelevant (a strong word, but accurate) information on the page. However, as discussed on the talk page, high-functioning autism could easily soak up those articles with room to spare as there are minimal citations. Note that if you persist in replacing the {{NPOV}} tag despite multiple editors disagreeing, you may be in danger of violating the three revert rule which can get you blocked from editing wikipedia and it's talk pages. I don't point this out because I doubt your good intentions (I don't, I believe you mean well but do not understand the wiki-specific issues you are encoutering on the talk page) but you may not be aware of the 3RR and it's always unpleasant to be blocked for breaking a rule you were not aware of. Thanks, please feel free to ask me any questions you may have about wikipedia or comments on the talk page. Also, for your reading pleasure, here is an essay I wrote for new editors, you may find some useful information therein. WLU (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

About the POV tag[edit]

Hi, Sitadel, just a note about the POV tag, so you don't run afoul of WP:TEND, WP:POINT and WP:DE or more urgently, WP:3RR: [1] "Rather, the tag should be removed only when there is a consensus among the editors that the NPOV disputes have indeed been resolved." You can be blocked if you edit war to re-instate a tag against consensus. The tag has now been moved/removed by WLU, Casliber, Mastcell and myself, while Eubulides and Colin have also agreed that you have presented no new POV concerns. I encourage you to work towards developing consensus on the talk page, and to set aside the mistaken notion that there may be any attempt to bias the article towards a "pathological" or "negative" view; if you can put forward new, reliable, secondary sources that have been overlooked, they will be quickly included. No one working on the article is interested in furthering negative bias. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:56, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PS, sorry for the duplicate message, I edit conflicted with WLU, who was also coming here to look out for your interests. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wow[edit]

I am amazed at the thinly veiled threats here. Consensus is not numerical, it is policy-based. When people on *both sides* of an issue agree, then consensus exists. A numerical majority does not suffice, and policy is clear on this point.

I have not transgressed policy and don't intend to. Now, about reverting all my contributions and tagging - that is a different matter.

Don't do me any favors, guys. Sitadel (talk) 21:57, 6 February 2008 (UTC) Sitadel (talk) 22:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please WP:AGF - you're talking to editors with Tens of thousands of contributions - we have a lot of experience and we're more familiar with policy, guidelines and wikipedia culture than you. These are not veiled threats, these are statements detailing the consequences of your actions should you continue with your pattern of edits against the wishes of multiple contributors (some of whom are admins). And if you notice, the few reliable sources for the claims of 'advantages' have been integrated into the page as best they can given what they say about AS.

Also note that SandyGeorgia is one of the most congenial editors on wikipedia; she has seen this exact same issue come up about four times times now. Each time with the same articles, the same comments and the same replies, with different editors and every single time the same references to policy, the same polite comments, the same examination of the evidence. Most editors would have given a far less civil treatment than she. But feel free to ignore our comments if you find them lacking in merit. WLU (talk) 22:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really sorry you interpreted the comments that way, Sitadel; they were intended to guide you in policy. In the meantime, Wiki consensus work is underway on the article talk page. I won't trouble you here again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unblock request[edit]

Hello Sitadel. I see that you created a new user account to protest your block at WP:AN/I. Creating such a new account to edit after you have been blocked is prohibited by official policy at Wikipedia:Sock puppetry, so your post there has been removed.

If you still wish to contest your block, you may do so by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. Thank you. — Satori Son 21:52, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanx for the notice, I had hoped to avoid the appearance of sock puppetry by using a name which clearly indicated I was not trying to hide my identity; in any case I have contacted the Admin directly, who i believe has made a simple mistake.

But thanks for the info on contesting a block ... Sitadel (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sitadel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I cannot be a sock puppet, as I have nowhere chimed in with another editor to create the appearance of consensus. Neither am I attempting to evade a ban. I am simply an editor returned to Wikipedia. I am not actively using any other account. I have invoked my Right To Disappear.

As for being a single-purposed account, I haven't been here long enough to have another purpose (in this incantation.)

As for being tendentious and dispruptive, read through my contributions. I made 3 well-sourced edits, set a POV tag, and placed a complaint on the admin board when all of these were deleted.

I really don't care if you lift the block or not, frankly i am a busy person with worthy demands on my time elsewhere.

But I still care about wikipedia. And I wonder if wikipedia still cares about itself. About what kind of place it has become. Are you to be an egalitarian, selfless society devoted to truth , or just another sycophantic tribe who enforces its tenets only insofar only in the interests of its entrenched members?

The former is new to the world, the latter - we already have in the form of universities. Except universities at least have standards of membership.

Do as you will.

Decline reason:

You claim I really don't care if you lift the block or not and then post a screed about your dismay with Wikipedia. This isn't a valid unblock reason. Denied. — IrishGuy ^talk 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

The block reason is: Disruptive tendentious single purpose account, likely sockpuppet. Your edits have been tendentious and disruptive, you are a single-purpose account, and I believe that it is likely you have edited before under other accounts, one or more of which may be blocked. Guy (Help!) 22:25, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have addressed these concerns (all of them) above. As for editing before under other accounts, all wikipedians have the right to disappear; unless it is to avoid a block. If you suspect I am a previously banned user, please support that assertion (by saying whom, for instance.)

However, you say "which may have been blocked", which indicates rather clearly you really aren't convinced yourself. I think it's only fair you withdraw these assertions. Sitadel (talk) 22:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

To Irishguy; I honestly do not care. There was a reason I left wikipedia long ago. Your job was to determine if what JzG said had merit. Instead you responded emotionally to my personal views which aren't relevant. What you do here reflects on wikipedia itself, I may not even return to use the acct.

THe question is - can you guys do the right thing on principle alone? Does it matter? Sitadel (talk) 22:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

Sitadel (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

Last one, jimbo is right. The reviewing admin did not respond to the content of my reasons (above). Does it matter?

Decline reason:

I'm going to suggest something a bit outside the box here. Email a user with checkuser access. These are users who have been vetted by Wikipedia and can be trusted to respect your privacy. Reveal to them your previous account so that he or she can confirm that you are not evading a block or other community actions against your previous account. I don't think any admin is going to unblock you without knowing all of the facts and a very pertinent fact is your previous identity. --B (talk) 02:25, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Your suggestion is most welcome, B ! I will do just that, and ask them to place their determination on my talk page. Sitadel (talk) 04:07, 9 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]