User talk:Randomtask9432

Welcome!

Hello, Randomtask9432, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. 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 on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! --A Nobody^{My talk} 17:49, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ADHD article[edit]

Although I agree with your reverting an edit here because of improper sourcing, I think your edit summary was an overreaction. Russell Barkley has, in fact, published prolifically in a number of peer-reviewed journals (which should have been cited here rather than the source that was used), and you have no idea whether the editor you reverted is Russell Barkley. If I had to guess, I would say that the editor is not Barkley because he has much more pretigious venues in which he can publish than Wikipedia. But either way, that was an inappropriate statement. Thank you. Cresix (talk) 01:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, I shouldn't have reacted so strongly, even if the sourcing was improper. But I thought there was sufficent reason to suggest that Barkley did add it, since if you go to his Wikipedia page, and his webpage, he clearly is proactive when it comes to projecting a web presence. Comments on his wikipedia page seem to support what I'm suggesting Randomtask (talk) 15:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your response. A web presence is irrelevant. Many people, especially leaders in their field, have websites. And if their books and speeches are in demand (as is the case with Barkley), their websites are a venue for viewing their books or other items. I mean no offense to you pesonally, and I agree that Russell Barkley needs cleanup, but the idea that Barkley would try to use a Wikipedia page to promote himself is utterly laughable. With over 200 peer-reviewed journal articles (most pertaining to ADHD or related topics), prestigious academic positions, immediate recognition by almost anyone with expertise in ADHD, a Wikipedia article is likely to be the last place that Barkley would focus his attention. That's not to say he doesn't have critics. Anyone with that level of reputation will receive criticism, some of it legitimate. But to say that he would tinker with his Wikipedia page to promote himself is roughly equivalent to saying that Watson and Crick would change their Wikipedia pages because helping to unravel some of the mysteries of DNA wasn't good enough. Cresix (talk) 23:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the problems of the above statement speak for themselves Randomtask (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]