User talk:Pgm8693

Getting Started First steps • FAQ Wikipedia Tutorial • The five pillars of Wikipedia How to: edit a page • upload an image Getting help Village Pump Where to ask questions or make comments • Request administrator attention Place {{helpme}} on your talk page and a small message explaining the problem The Commmunity Resolving disputes Assume good faith • Civility • Etiquette No personal attacks • No legal threats IRC channels • Mailing lists		Policies and Guidelines Neutral point of view • Reliable sources Verifiability • Citing sources • No original research What Wikipedia is not • Biographies of living persons Sock puppetry Fair use • Image use policy External links • Spam • Vandalism Deletion policy • Conflict of interest • Notability Things to do Be bold in editing • Help develop an article Pages needing attention • Peer review Translating articles Cleaning up: General • Spam • Vandalism Talk pages User scripts

ukexpat (talk) 19:27, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you have sought guidance in dispute resolution on a page besides

I didn't look at the sources, but assuming they're accurately represented, your changes look fine to me. Thanks for your additions. Ward3001 (talk) 18:29, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really want to pursue "not a psychologist" I think maybe your best bet would be

WP:RFC. That might generate a lot more opinions, although many of them will not be psychologists. But from the standpoint of your position, the worst that would happen would be that there would be no consensus to change, and it's possible that the consensus might be to remove "psychologist". That would be a true consensus that I would respect. Ward3001 (talk) 22:05, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

Barnstar!

		The Socratic Barnstar
		The Socratic Barnstar is awarded to those editors who are extremely skilled and eloquent in their arguments. I'd like to give you this barnstar after reading through your long discussion on the Dr. Phil McGraw page; you delivered a very extensive, cogent, and well thought-out argument, while your opposition got more and more incivil and threatening. It was also ultimately good of you to discontinue after the last steaming post which implied you were "edit warring," "disrupting Wikipedia," and threatened to have you blocked (and admonished you for accidentally signing with your IP). Hope you come back and keep contributing at some point; remembering that the WP:CONSENSUS that the other editor kept referring to is often trumped by cogent reasoning (this is noted in many policies, especially ones which were degrading into "votes," e.g., AfD). Peace and Passion ☮  ("I'm listening....") 23:23, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]