User talk:Stewaj7

Welcome!

Hello, Stewaj7, and

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page and How to develop articles
• How to create your first article (using the Article Wizard
  if you wish)
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a

This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can ask another question on your talk page, contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse.

Recent activity on the "Michael Welner" page is of concern. There have been several edits made to the page. Beyond the overt acts of vandalism in which one Khadr advocate went as far as to verbally assault the figure to which the page belongs, there have been edits hat reflect advocacy – absent any real contribution to the page. Individual are attempting to sabotage the page and they will continue to do so.I hope to clear it up with the posting below. I respectfully ask that you restrict the page from outside edits beyond those of your editorial staff. The paragraphs below, which I have included on the page, updates the page objectively and informatively. "In the Guantanamo Bay trial of Omar Khadr, Dr. Welner testified based on a methodology for the risk assessment of a radical Jihadist. He combined clinical factors from deradicalization programs, recidivism data from GTMO detainees, and prognostic indicators from the corrections psychotherapy work of Nicolai Sennels of Denmark with Moslem and non-Moslem inmates, along with information gleaned from interviews of over 20 intelligence and GTMO personnel, and an eight hour interview of Khadr.(1) Advocates sympathetic to Khadr and anti-GTMO NGOs criticized Dr. Welner sharply for using clinical data derived from Dr. Sennels , who has, since leaving his clinical corrections position, expressed strong opposition to unregulated Muslim immigration to Europe. The jury sentenced Khadr to 40 years in prison."Stewaj7 (talk) 19:29, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please ask for protection at

WP:RPP and do not get involved further. Please obey the 3RR Rule.  JoeGazz  ▲  20:05, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you, I have asked for protection. Will take no further action.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:50, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your note on my talk page. I have not been editing Welner's article before a few days ago and I did not realize there has been a lot of vandalism or ongoing conflict on the page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Follow up: I reviewed the complete history of this BLP and find no justification for protection so I requested unprotection. The BLP has only 1 instance of blatant vandalism that I could find and has never had an edit war nor much editing at all within the past 3 months other than that by yourself. I appreciate your work on the article and see that you are a new Editor with this being your single topic of editing,I think. You might be overreacting to normal article development and the necessary inclusion of well-sourced criticism of Welner at times. I'm sure we can work together on the article, there are several other interested Editors and I'm confident that we can reach concensus on the content amicably. Perhaps you could agree to unprotection so we can get started? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:43, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please be aware of [this]. The main problem I think is that you are a relatively new Editor and are not used to editing by consensus and in accordance with a neutral point of view, the Biographies here are not meant to be promotional of the Subject nor condemning, but rather to include both complimentary and critical content from Reliably Sourced articles. Please let us discuss at length on the article's talk/discussion page. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:42, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for engaging in constructive editing, there are a whole lot of policies/guidelines here which most new Editors are not aware of and 1 of the ones least known is that we try to stay away from synthesis. Edits like this one by Empirical9 [1] which uses subjective analytical words like "rebuffed" and "ridiculed" should only be used as a quote from the Reliable Source. I am also sending Empirical9 this message but thought you might not be aware of the synthesis guideline because you are a relatively new Editor. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:39, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your comment on my discussion page,in that case, since the source article says in part: "Neve, head of Amnesty International Canada, denounced Welner's opinions " then its ok to use denounced or criticized because that's what the source says. With the use of rebuff or ridicule in describing the judge's actions, that description is not in the source article.I find it hard myself to not synthesize and sometimes I mess up and will go back and fix it. In effect, our function here is almost dyametrically opposed to what Welner's is in his job. We are not supposed to express any opinions at all in Wikipedia articles; not directly nor by synthesis nor by conclusion, no matter how obvious the conclusion might seem to be, we are supposed to simply condense and record in a balanced way the notable content of articles written by Reliable Sources. Its not an easy thing,especially with complex and highly newsworthy Subjects or topics. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:48, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

btw, I may share your view that Neve's comments were at least 50% ad-hominem and that he was maybe a biased observer, but it does not matter what you and I think about that or even if we are right about that. What matters for this BLP is that Neve's opinions were widely reported in Reliable Sources and that makes them notable enough to go in just as it is fine to include the phrase "powerful and sweeping testimony" in the account, although Neve's comments were much more widely reported. I realize you may only be interested in this one article but even for this it is a good idea to read up on

Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sourcesWikipedia:Neutral point of viewWikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living personsif you haven't already, because all 4 are very important in the ongoing development of this BLP. In terms of the Administrators here,Wikipedia:Administrators, there are so many of them, and some of them have been at this for many,many years and have seen it all many,many times, so its virtually impossible to deceive them, I think. I imagine it may not seem like it, but I really am trying to work collaboratively with you. The BLP is much better and more interesting and comprehensive now than it was 3 days ago, don't you agree? Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 01:19, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Response on Mr.Grangevans2's talk page

In response to your thoughtful comment on my Talk page: I think you have a great idea( about your doing more research). Just to clarify, I have no problem at all with you adding any direct quotes like "quite incredible (emphasis of the judge)." or substantial amount of content like "The first testimony in an American Court on risk assessment that adapted a methodology for radical Jihadism. Dr. Welner’s testimony was admitted without objection from the defense, and his qualifications to render such an opinion were undisputed. The facts underlying Dr. Welner’s opinion that Khadr had shallow remorse, needed deradicalization, and was still resentful and blaming of everyone but himself were never rebutted, nor were Dr. Welner’s assertions about the demonstrated underestimation of future risk in ex-Guantanamo detainees and his explanations for that underestimation. The jury, asked by the prosecution to sentence Khadr to no less than 25 years, was moved enough by Dr. Welner’s ‘powerful, sweeping’ testimony that they sentenced Khadr to 40 years." Others might want to pare it down but I will not, just be sure to reword the content with your own phraseology so its not plagerism while still remembering not to do any of your own interpretation nor synthesis; that can be a difficult task,at least it is for me. Ironically I agree 100% with you that Welner is an important figure but I would say in Global justice; he has brought a tone of "straight-shooterness" into the field of psychiatric testimoney which is stunning and stunningly important, whether one agrees with his opinions or not. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 13:22, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I propose that you and Empirical9 (talk) consider the possibility that a reasonable portion of criticism within the Welner article (right now there is none at all) is not actually a bad thing either for the comprehensiveness of the BLP nor even for the stature of the Subject. Both of you are extremely boosterish of Welner in your comments and edits and condemn mercilessly those, like Alex Neve, who criticize his methods or fees to the point of insisting that such criticism be banned from the article. But I suggest you have a look at Alan Dershowitz which has an entire section on Issues and Controversies, yet I doubt you will find the article to be "negative".

Right now the Omar Khadr article is 5 times as long as the Michael Welner article. I think Welner's impact on society is as important as Khadr's, don't you? So, Welner's BLP needs to be much larger with much more content,I think, E.G. Both the Smart kidnapping case and also the Khadr case deserve subsections in the BLP I think. Perhaps we can all work toward making the article better. Where we differ, is I also want it to be very comprehensive to the point of including the Reliably Sourced criticisms which you two are quite dedicated to keeping out of the article on the basis that you have made a final determination that either the person making the criticism,like Neve, is biased, or that the criticisms are irrelevant.

Bottom line, I really think you are doing Mr. Welner a disservice by wanting to leave the article as a 100% Puff Piece] when he is,at least in my opinion, an assertive,flamboyant trailblazer and as most everyone will agree, people like that usually end up ruffling a lot of feathers. Right now, the BLP does not mention any of that ruffling at all, not one little mention of it. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 00:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In response to your message, I looked at my initial edits on Nov. 1st. The very first one was replacing content put in the article by another Editor which you deleted without comment, which is seen as a tiny behavioural slap in the face here. So,ironically, you first came across to me as a very agressive and tyranically disposed Editor dedicated to 100% control of this one an only article; I now see this in a humourous vein,our initial quite similarly negative views of each other's edits, with the pot calling the kettle black in both my case and yours,perhaps. I have since come to have more appreciation and understanding of where you are coming from, but, won't you maybe consider that you may be coming across,to me at least, as a "my way or the highway" type of contributor with this article? I will grant that sometimes I have been told that's the way I come acoss. But you have more of an excuse than me, because you are a newcomer. However I have tried to maintain composure in the face of terminology like "unctuous"and"vandalism"(which is an exceptionally negative label here), hurled my way.

When I did "arrive" at this article, it immediately looked to me as it still does, highly controlled as more of a promotional article, at least that's the way it appeared to me. I know that my edits were not meant to be malicious toward the Subject, but I was real annoyed at the editing history so perhaps that expressed itself in too undiplomatic edits on my part. My tendency is to concentrate my editing on 1 article at a time and ,again ironically, typically I am trying to insert more neutrality into articles which I consider to be too slanted towards the negative. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Initial edit(s) is plural. I appreciate that you took a moment to review a single revision made; however, beginning on Nov 1st (3 edits) and continuing on Nov 6th (20 edits) you inserted factually unsubstantiated material into a biography basing your information on the opinions of those whose “feathers were ruffled” following the trial. With respect to GeoSwan’s edits, they were both factually inaccurate and tangential in that the focus was on a single source about books. I hope that you would agree that such coverage ignored highly relevant and interesting information that did come out of the Khadr case. Lastly, the promotional nature of the insertion of Amy Davidson’s article, particularly as it was accompanied by wanting content, was inappropriate. If I offended GeoSwan by not offering the reasoning noted above, I offer my apologies. Now my wrong is righted.

Your continued promotion of factually inaccurate material, touting “reliable sourcing” and dismissing the importance of factual accuracy, including contentious information about fees when there has been no financial impropriety on Dr. Welner’s part and operating under the patina of “Neurtality” is malicious. Lets not forget your use of comments by Alex Neve, who’s criticism were irrelevant and informed the reader of nothing, except that a Khadr advocate had an unfavorable opinion. Despite our discussions, you ignore that you have been including lies on this site. How is this neutrality? You call me tyrannical and I have characterized you as many things; however beyond our labels, our actions speak loud and clear.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:32, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to your latest response onm my talk page; Stewaj7 I have replied in detail and at length so I will now try to condense my responses. 1:We are not supposed to make determinations as to what is "reliable material",I don't think. E.g. If George Bush says Iraq has weapons of mass destruction and it is reported in the Washington Times that "intelligence confirms that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction", then that's what we will include in appropriate articles; and we would and should likely also include contrary opinions on that subject if they are also reliably sourced. Then the Reader gets a fuller view to help him or her make up his/her own mind. We are not in the business of pushing one point of view over another. 2: For an Editor who has only ever edited this one article and who tried to freeze out all other Editors for 30days to accuse me, whose edits here are less than 5% of my total, of being "obsessed with Dr. Welner" is too weird and laughable to be taken seriously. And not that it matters, but I have no trouble with the Khadr verdict at all nor with Welner's contributions in Guantanamo. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 16:00, 12 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"one of America's most renowned forensic psychiatrists" is clearly POV. Corvus cornix_talk 05:58, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where was the sourcing? Corvus cornix_talk 06:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That link says he's "noted", not "one of the most renowned". Corvus cornix_talk 06:14, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That works for me, so long as you include the link which shows his claim of notability. Corvus cornix_talk 06:23, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You have been

multiple accounts. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make useful contributions. If you would like to be unblocked, you may appeal this block by adding below this notice the text {{unblock|Your reason here}}, but you should read the guide to appealing blocks first. TNXMan 03:35, 15 November 2010 (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).

Stewaj7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I respectfully request to be unblocked. The petition filed against me for abusing multiple accounts and potentially disrupting or damaging the Wikipedia is not necessary. As can be noticed on my talk page??, Michael Welner discussion page? and the other party’s talk page??, there are some editing disputes that have been ongoing, but resolution is being sought. My error was making a single edit, requesting page protection and inserting a comment without logging in, as a result my IP address was published. However, I made revisions to the those errors that I was able using my sign in??. These were not intentional attempts on my part to covertly break the rules. I also created another account (Torrent012) to make an edit and comment for administrators?? as I was at a public computer and did not have my login information or e-mail handy. Torrent012 has remained dormant and will not be used again as it was not intended to disrupt or damage. Both were novice errors. I have no other account or connection to the other accounts being used to edit Michael Welner. It appears that multiple editors share the same point of view about the character assassination being undertaken by another editor on the Michael Welner page, and have joined in the editing and discussion. This is an honest explanation of the issue, which was an innocuous error. I have operated within the guideline of Wikipedia, barring this, and will continue to contribute constructively. Thank you for your consideration.Stewaj7 (talk) 15:45, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Decline reason:

At [2] you used Torrent012 to say "I am new editor" and to ask for help. But you are not a new editor, having edited since 2009. If your intent was really to use Torrent012 as a legitimate alternate account, you would have made the connection to your old account clear, and not falsely told others that you were new. (The references have been stripped from your above request, as this template does not support them.)  Sandstein  17:59, 15 November 2010 (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.

Appealing Block

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who accepted the request.

Stewaj7 (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

I request to that the block be lifted as it is not necessary. First, to address the reason noted for decline, I am a relatively new editor or novice is a better word. Comments regarding to my (Stewaj7) "newness" have been made several times on my talk page. The distinction as "new" when I asked for help was to denote that I was not wholly aware of how this worked or proper procedure. There was no deceptive intent, furthermore, I have not continued to use Torrent012 as a user, because the creation of the account was simply to gain access to Wikipedia at a time when I did not have my login information or e-mail access. Since the creation of this account, I have made sporadic and few edits prior to November 1, 2010. I even had to edit the template above multiple times just to get it right. In many ways I am a new editor, which is what was being indicated in the message to admin from Torrent012. When I created Torrent012 it was for the sole reason expressed above, to make a time sensitive edit and alert the administrators of what was shaping up to be an editors war. I regret that I did not have the wherewithal or sufficient knowledge of the guidelines to connect the two accounts at the time. However, this event has encouraged me to become more knowledgeable so that I might operate within the guidelines. That said, I respectfully appeal the decision as the block is not necessary.Stewaj7 (talk) 20:15, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Accept reason:

I will unblock you on a balance of probability that you did not intend to continue socking disruptively (the account was only used twice, and not at the same time as this account). I recommend you do not create any more accounts without a thorough reading of

WP:SOCK, as the penalty for socking again is likely to be severe Elen of the Roads (talk) 15:13, 18 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you!. I have reviewed the

WP:SOCK and will never be involved in socking again. It was my error, having not read the rules. As I am more knowledgeable now, it will not happen again.Stewaj7 (talk) 12:59, 19 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Welner

What I see is two SPA's including you, being the most recent of a series of SPA's, insisting that this BLP be a PR piece for the subject and twisting its POV to that end. . That won't fly. It is a misuse of Wikipedia. You have inserted vast amounts of improperly-sourced puffery. The material that you want to exclude is notable, relevant and reliably sourced. It is perfectly appropriate for this article and the tag-team reversions are simply edit-warring. Keep this up and you're likely to have more unpleasant encouters with Admins.

Fladrif (talk) 21:27, 24 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• To clarify in response to the above, there has not been anything in the BLP, prior to the edits by others beginning on November 1st, that is factually inaccurate or unsubstantiated. The page to which
  User:Fladrif refers to as a "PR piece" is a concise biography that reflects the subjects contributions to the field and there has been no demonstration or evidence to the contrary. The material that is under dispute is inappropriate for the BLP, which is further discussed here^[1]Stewaj7 (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Edit warring at Michael Welner

You currently appear to be engaged in an

collaborate with others may be blocked if they continue. In particular the three-revert rule states that making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period is almost always grounds for an immediate block. If you find yourself in an editing dispute, use the talk page to discuss controversial changes. Work towards wording and content that gains consensus among editors. If unsuccessful, then do not edit war even if you believe you are right. Post a request for help at an appropriate noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases it may be appropriate to request temporary page protection. If edit warring continues, you may be blocked

from editing without further notice.

This case has already been discussed at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring#User:Empirical9 and User:Stewaj7 reported by User:Fladrif (Result: Stale). If you continue to revert the article without getting consensus to support you on the article's talk page, you may be blocked from editing. Thank you, EdJohnston (talk) 03:00, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to strike out your edit

I notice you deleted one of your older edits at the discussion page. That screws up the discussion flow for the reader. A better way is to use an s with <>s like this tomorrrow is saturday click on"edit" tab at the top to see how it works. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 20:36, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're being discussed at the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard

Hello Stewaj7. Please see

WP:COIN#Michael Welner. You are welcome to respond there. EdJohnston (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

SPI

Fladrif (talk) 17:59, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

Lede

Thanks for your friendly note. Communication can be difficult here. I'm concerned about content which has been created dorctly or indirectly by the Subject and also that there be no misconceptions for the average Reader of the BLP. Here are 3 things Specifically,

• the Panel is Welner's business venture; it generates income for him.
• The Depravity Scale has standards defined by public web surveys and
• the forensic echo is a publication which stopped publishing 9 years ago.
• None of the 3 have much in the way of impartial secondary source references which have notable content.

In my opinion all 3 of these enties are simply components of the Subject's business enterprises, which is just fine, but,imo, it should not take up any time at all in his BLP much like details of any 1 or 2 buildings that Donald Trump builds should take up space in Trumps BLP.

If consensus is that the top 2 entities deserve some mention, then they must be presented with a description which does not leave the Readers to assume they are arms-length(Panel) or Medically Professionally arrived at(Depravity Scale standards).

I'll put this on the BLP talk page as well and thanks again for being cool about the changes I felt were needed to what you added. Mr.Grantevans2 (talk) 14:11, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Identifying reliable sources

Hello Stewaj7,

I saw

Documenting Your Sources

" chapter of Wikipedia: The Missing Manual. I apologise for the delay in responding to you. (I think I'm the only person who responds to feedback on The Missing Manual, and it's been a while since I last checked the feedback.)

I'm not much of an expert on reliable sources, so I won't risk giving you a wrong answer. However, I will tell you where you can get an answer: the Reliable sources noticeboard. If you decide to ask a question there, try to give specific sources as examples and mention how you'd like to use them. Whether or not a source is acceptable can sometimes depend on what information you are using from it.

To help other editors like yourself who have questions about reliable sources, I added a link pointing to the noticeboard in the "Documenting Your Sources" chapter of the manual. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 23:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

1. ^ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Michael_Welner#Edit_Requested