User talk:DoctorMike

• Take a look at the
  Wikipedia Tutorial and Manual of Style
  .
• When you have time, you can peruse The five pillars of Wikipedia, and assume good faith, but keep in mind the unique style you brought to the Wiki!
• Always keep the notion of NPOV in mind, be respectful of others' POV, and remember your unique perspective on the meaning of neutrality is invaluable!
• If you need any
  help, post your question at the Help Desk
  .
• Explore,
  be bold in editing
  , and, above all else, have fun!

Best of luck, DoctorMike, and have fun! Ombudsman 23:04, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. I just wanted to say that you shouldn't get discouraged that no one's voting in your favor. One of the main things someone needs to be an effective arbitrator is the trust of the Wikipedia community. The only way to get that trust is to be a member of the community for a while. Most of the arbitrators will be people who've been here for a year or more. So don't take those "no" votes as criticism. People are just saying that they don't know you yet. Isomorphic 07:26, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorMike Responds: Thank you for your encouragement. I do now have several support votes, so the POV statement "no one" is no longer accurate. :-)--DoctorMike 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Your statement was impressive and I would have Supported you, but it's just not possible to waltz into a high-pressure, high-visibility role like Arbcom a few days after registering. Please make a name for yourself here with good edits and maybe stand again next year. --kingboyk 10:19, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strange, actually, that you should be allowed to stand considering you are not eligible to vote! Not a personal comment, just an observation about the system. --kingboyk 12:43, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorMike Responds: Minor edit, I didn't waltz, I am seated. As for the second comment, I would suppose that depends on whether we are striving for a "circle" arrangement like AMWAY or Freemasons, or a Democracy. In a Democracy, everyone should be allowed to run. The date of membership required to vote does seem a little far back to my mind--the intent is clearly to prevent voting bots, but it seems to be a case of fighting a war at 18 but not being able to vote until 21 ;-).--DoctorMike 05:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what the others have said. I have no doubt you'll make a great contributor to Wikipedia, but it takes time to learn the ropes. It's rare that someone becomes an Arbitrator without at least first becoming an

tɔk) 19:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Actually, according

tɔk) 08:33, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

Democracy: I do understand that the website is owned, and the founder has no reason nor intention to give up his intellectual property; but that is at the Macro level. At the Macro level sovereignty belongs to the owner. One level down however, is where we exist. The concept of elections shares an uneasy relationship with the Orwellian concept of "some people are more equal than others", and actually undermines "the encyclopedia that anyone can edit" as a concept. This has the potential for the undoing of an idealistic concept--but idealistic concepts do usually become undone--I think the term would be "a victim of it's own success".--DoctorMike 13:21, 10 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not impressed by your failure to answer the questions posed to you. I suspect that you are not even aware of that page at this time. Given that you are stil learnign the ropes, perhaps it would be better if you withdrew? To be blunt about it there are too make people running in this election who have no business being there. You have a good background, but need a year or two here so that you are known and also so that you understand Wikipedia before seeking a post like this. --EMS | Talk 16:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, no I have been travelling. I am aware that any page created creates a talk page, however, it was not on my watch list. --DoctorMike 20:33, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, you are currently standing in the Arbitration Committee elections.

If you aren't already aware, you are only attracting a vote of under 20% support to 80% oppose. This is mostly due to perceptions of a lack of experience.

Statistically, your vote is unlikely to rise above a 70-80% supermajority threshold required for election.

Therefore, it would be helpful if you would withdraw your candidacy from the election. This way there will be less candidates for others to read through before deciding their votes. The best place to announce such a decision would be on your candidate statement on the vote page, or on

Better luck for the future. --Victim of signature fascism | help remove biblecruft 19:10, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nature of my negative reaction to this proposal is that candidates for this position seem to be themselves posting derogitory comments on the Talk pages of the other candidates. This sort of negative campaigning is abhorrent to me personally, and I believe any candidate who does so deserves severe criticism. I will stay in, thank you. These elections should use instant runoff voting.--DoctorMike 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Are you talking about the link to the forum? I removed it because the link is a unneeded piece of self promotion. It doesn't belong on that article.

Also, please sign your comments with ~~~~. dposse 02:08, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KeithOlbermann.org is fine, but i don't think the forums are. i won't touch it again, unless it gets out of hand. We don't need alot of forums, because then it becomes spam. I personally think the forum you are advertising is already too much, but whatever. I bet someone else who knows the rules will delete it. dposse 21:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dposse, please see the KO talk to see the negotiations which have taken place over the forum links. JeffBerg has graciously offered a compromise where several forums will be listed, although his preferred edit is for none. We appear to have a fairly stable consensus for keeping the list (which is not exactly overrunning the article with millions of links, BTW), notwithstanding people rushing in to change it without using the talk page first. Thanks. CuteGargoyle 03:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DoctorMike, please stop inserting the link to your own site into the Olbermann articles. It is not appropriate for the owner of the site to add his own link to Wikipedia. Furthermore, the inclusion of this site as well as other message board sites is the topic of debate on the talk pages. Unilateral edits on your part will only serve to jeopardize the progress we've made toward a consensus. CuteGargoyle 15:57, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can we reach a compromise on this? Please? I've just added a subheading with all the message boards, fan forums, and discussion pages and yes, I even moved Olbermannwatch down there too. I don't really think it should be there either because it's a blog but its at least properly labeled as such now along with all the other fan forums and message boards and the like. I hope I got them all, if I haven't please let me know or add them yourself. I've got them all in alphabetical order too because I thought that was the fairest way to go in listing them all. This way, everyone is listed, and there are no longer any exceptions to the rules. Is this okay? Can you live with this? Thanks.JeffBerg.

Hi Dr Mike,

I noticed that you are a neuropsychologist, and thought you might be interested in this project which I am involved in, The Psychology Wiki.

I won't say too much, as I'd like you to judge it for yourself, but you should find that it is different from Wikipedia, because approximately 90% of our contributors so far are psychologists, either professionals like yourself, academics, or students and trainees.

Its hosted by a company called

Have a look and see what you think

Mostly Zen 23:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

PS As we are a much smaller community than Wikipedia, we can be a little more friendly to beginners. Being 90% psychologist (so far) there is less chance of your work being edited by someone with no training in that particular field.

Also, our current featured article is a non-technical guide to recovery from Acquired Brain Injury (written for Social Rehabilitation Trainers, rather than specialists like yourself). Even if you could just improve our article on brain injury and link references to your own work, you contributions would be greatly appreciated :) Mostly Zen 23:19, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Mike, this is why the Psychology wiki is going to work, we can attract experts, and even the undergraduates amongst us are capable of reading your research and understanding the basics of it. This means we won't revert your edits unnecessarily, as we understand that you know what you are talking about. I wish I'd been in contact with you when I was writing my project now! :) Mostly Zen 22:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The