Hi Penbat,
About 6 Months ago you left a message on Phil Whiston's talk page enquiring about a pillbox you had seen in Mudeford Wood. To answer your question, besides guarding the airfield, it formed part of an anti-tank island designed to divide the expected invasion by the German 6th Army. The Christchurch library has a book entitled 'Christchurch the Golden Years' which has a picture of this and other pillboxes in Christchurch. I would like to write a piece for the Christchurch page about it and hoped you might be able to get a picture of the one at Mudeford for me. :)--Ykraps (talk) 14:10, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi i since picked up some historical booklets about Xchurch from the beach shop at Mudeford (They have quite a good selection). One of the books gave a list and OS coordinates of about 8 pillboxes around the perimeter of the Christchurch airport. I was thinking of ordering a custom large scale OS map from the OS website so i can exactly pinpoint where the pillboxes are/were. There is actually a sketch map of the pill boxes in one of the booklets as well. I think that most pillboxs have now been destroyed. I know there was one opposite the end of Caroline Avenue, just in the school playing field. There was/is actually 2 pillboxes in Mudeford Woods but i only knew about 1. I discovered the 1 years ago but tried to look for it recently but couldnt spot it as it seems to be obscured by undergrowth. --Penbat (talk) 15:20, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
found the 1 pillbox in Mudeford Woods - i was looking in the wrong place. Not visually very inspiring and i dont have a camera. --Penbat (talk) 19:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat,
I think you're right, most of the pillboxes have now been destroyed. There were at least two in and around the Mudeford Wood area but I thought the larger 6 sided one was now houses. I was brought up in Christchurch and used to know where most of them were. Many of them were on private land and where as that didn't bother me then, I don't feel comfortable trespassing now. There was one at Latch Farm which has been built over but the one next to the railway line, between Bargates and the Avon is still there; as is the one on the island at Tuckton Bridge. I think the biggest tragedy was the destruction of the one at Sandhills which went when they built the road between Mudeford Quay and Avon Beach.
It would be nice to do something about Xch hospital but other than the fact that it used to be the town workhouse, I don't know a great deal about it. Do you think there is enough for an article or should we try and work something into the existing article on Christchurch.--Ykraps (talk) 09:34, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Found a internet database for WW2 stuff like pillboxes but very incomplete but it did tell me there is 1 at Hinton Admiral railway station. I have just realised that the 6 digit OS coordinates i have for mudeford pillbox positions are not precise enough and really need 8 digit OS coordinates. The 5 sided pill box i saw in Mudeford Woods is only about 100 feet away from new housing. Can you give more precise info on the "one next to the railway line, between Bargates and the Avon" so I can find it ? I think the main Christchurch defenses were concentrated near the Avon, the mudeford defenses were just to cover the airfield etc. I dont personally know much about the history of Xchurch Hsp. It is justified as a separate article and could be created as a "stub" - assuming that somebody can add more info later.--Penbat (talk) 10:35, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
just double checked and pill box is 6 sided not 5 sided, my booklet seems to be wrong unless it is referring to a different pillbox.--Penbat (talk) 16:27, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I took this photograph the other day, you can find it on wikimedia commons. The pillbox can just be seen at the far end.
The pillbox between Bargates and the Avon is really easy to find. Leave Xch via Bargates, over the railway bridge, turn right into the industrial estate, turn right again (second right if you're driving as this is no entry), go as far as you can and you will see the tank traps ahead of you, follow the tank traps to the left and the pillbox is at the end. Go after 5pm or parking will be very difficult. The tank traps stretched the other way too as far as the Stour and there was another pillbox the other side of Barrack Rd on the site of MEXE (I don't know if that is still there, I will have a look when I've got time). I think the one at Hinton Admiral is near the bridge. I would think you could find it if you follow the railway line.
Hi Penbat, and thank you for your encouragement. However, instead of committing myself to improving certain articles, I rather follow my impulses on the spur of the moment, working on an article and leaving it again. After all, it's not my job. Quite a lot of the articles your created or contributed to are on my watchlist though, so you'll probably find my edits every now and again. Lova Falktalk18:38, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, I closed this discussion as "merge". I could do the actual merging as closer, but I thought you or other participants in the discussion might have clearer ideas of how it should be done and might want to do it instead. It doesn't require any administrative tasks, just merging then redirecting (if you have any questions about this or whatever else I'm happy to help). I figured I'd wait a few days and see if anyone wants to do it, then do it myself if not. Just letting you know in case you wanted to. Peace, delldot∇.21:37, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx I do have the knowhow. I will probably get round to doing the merge myself in the next day or two unless somebody beats me to it. --Penbat (talk) 21:41, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It doesnt matter hugely but Template:Scams is probably best deleted eventually.
Thank you! Nice work. I can't think of any reason why Template:Scams is better off deleted than as a redirect, can you? I'd rather leave it so folks looking for the old one will know where it is now. Thanks again! Peace, delldot∇.02:51, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat, I see you have recently visited BarretBonden's talk page. Just to let you know that I haven't forgotten our discussion about Christchurch Hospital and that I am still keen to see an article on it but I am currently busy with the Christchurch page. When I was in the library last there was a book about the hospital, when it was the workhouse, but it was in the reference section and I didn't have time to take any notes. This might be a good starting point?--Ykraps (talk) 10:58, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your efforts. Christchurch Hospital certainly is worthy of an article although, as a bigger hospital, Royal Bournemouth Hospital is worthier still although obviously doesnt have much from the historical point of view. --Penbat (talk) 11:07, 24 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You mentioned that it's widely accepted that there are advantages to bullying for the bully, yet the article fails to mention this.
Also, although not everyone agrees that there are advantages for the target, i cited proper references. I think it's incredibly biased of you to just sweep this under the rug. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, and as such, it should show both sides of the coin, even if it is slightly weighted.
It's fair enough to say that the negatives outweigh the positives, but please don't just ignore the advantages as they are there.
Hi, Penbat, because I edit psychology articles I happened to see your conversation with Lova about the index of psychology articles. An arduous task, but a worthwhile task. Please keep it in view of editors in your user space, okay? -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 22:14, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mobbing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Active Banana (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Personal claims on a talk page are not sufficient to support challenged statements within an article. Find a third party source framing it in a way that adds encyclopedic context to the content in the article. Active Banana (talk) 19:27, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As an outside viewer, the starter of this appears to be you Penbat. I also agree with Active Banana's above statement. Just because you made comments on a talk page doesn't mean anything if someone else disagrees with it. Looking at the talk page, nobody has agreed with your most recent additions. If someone disagrees with what you say, then you continue the discussion. You don't start an edit war. Ωphois19:30, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am not saying that you didn't. I was just pointing out the fallacy of your edit-war accusations against Active Banana. The consensus on the talk page appeared to be against the inclusion unless proven otherwise, and for what ever reason he still disagreed with you afterward. Making one revert is not an edit war, especially since you made more than he did today. Ωphois19:35, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But another user also questioned the content on the talk page. You provided the links as requested, but for whatever reason he still disagreed. Making one revert is not starting an edit war. Ωphois19:40, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Doniago is just being opportunist. He previously admitted he knows nothing about the subject. He has previously harassed me previously no end and this time he certainly deserves to be banned and i will step up measures this time. --Penbat (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
I can dig up all the historical links demonstrating Doniagos past harassment if you wish.--Penbat (talk) 19:54, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I apologize for itchy trigger finger in placing the edit war template. However, the discussion about whether or not to keep this primary sourced content had not reached any consensus and the concerns were not beeing address in the version of the content returned to the article. Active Banana (talk) 20:56, 28 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hey no problem. I'm doing some reading in prep for adding some paragraphs to that article. Funny thing is it that I know a lot I want to add, but I need to back anything up with sources (there's some interesting patterns of behavior with sexual abuse for example that I have seen played out more than I can count). Also if you are using a search engine at some point and run across an abstract, but can't access the full text, let me know. I can get to most any medical work (psychology is medicine too, of course) especially if it's an US based journal.Legitimus (talk) 21:02, 29 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thx for response. There is a fair chance that I may only need 1 search and that is to search for all section titles containing the word "abuse". It is not important that a bang uptodate version of Wikipedia is used. --Penbat (talk) 19:30, 4 September 2010
(UTC)
I'll just wanna report Active Bananatalk for editing too much the article Regine Velasquez it's not right to destroy someone's personality and reputation, as what Active Banana did to the article and also he deleted some facts there making it pale and inconsistent, they're so many articles in wiki but banana always focusing to do an edit wars in the article that i'd cited. If you want to review what Banana edits and change, Go to the article of Regine Velasquez and view the history when active banana start to edit and removing the essence of what the article means start in August 17 2010. Please review this if i'm right or wrong. Thank you in advance and may god bless you!User:Russart_1999 (talk) 20:30, 8 September 2010
(UTC)
Ive got enough on my plate right now and don't particularly want to get involved but found Active Bananas involvement on mobbing to be very heavy handed and unreasonable, himself triggering an edit war and then trying to warn me for edit waring. Also i dont think he had any relevant expertise on the subject. What most people would have done is have a reasoned discussion on the talk page before making radical deletions and gaining a consensus. Also he seems to be opportunistic - piling in when there is some action to be had.--Penbat (talk) 13:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, good job with the Stanpit stub. I hope I can do something to expand it. I've been having another look at Christchurch Airfield/RAF Christchurch, as its still confusing me a bit. I think it is purely supposed to be about the RAF station, and is part of a series of articles. RAF Hurn has its own article in addition to Bournemouth Airport. I'm wondering whether we should revert the edits we have made and try and write a seperate article about Christchurch Airfield. Any thoughts?--Ykraps (talk) 07:20, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with separate Christchurch Airfield and RAF Christchurch articles. There can be a short summary section and link to RAF Christchurch within Christchurch Airfield. However it is awkward that in the case of RAF Christchurch and RAF Hurn, it was more significantly under the control of USAAF than the RAF.--Penbat (talk) 08:09, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A week or so ago I created a stub Suicide of Billy Lucas which was decently referenced, rather too stubby, and was hit by speedy deletion. I have very little time on WP at present, but wondered if you might pick that topic up and run with it? Billy was 15 in US High School and hanged himself after serious bullying. If the original stub were userfied (eg) into your area it ought to be simple to work into an article which will survive and grow. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:07, 22 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I wasn't being lazy, I have been trying to add it but I don't seem to be able to. I am clicking on the 'edit' part of that section but the info box doesn't show. Any ideas what I'm doing wrong? If you can help me understand how to do it, I will gladly put it in. Best regards--Ykraps (talk) 15:17, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was trying to edit the info box in the article(s). I thought there should be an easier way. To upload images to commons from geograph, you have to download them to your computer first. If you search around on mine and Barret's talk pages, you should find instructions as I've been through it with him already. I've got to go to work in a second but when I get back, if you still haven't had any joy, I'll see if I can help. --Ykraps (talk) 07:19, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Right. Firstly you need to save file to your computer thus: Click on 'How to re-use this image', scroll down to 'Wiki template for image page', click 'search' to make sure it hasn't already been uploaded, (apparently you can copy and paste the 'Wiki template' when you upload to commons but I just find this confusing and so proceed as follows-), take note of the author and date, click on 'download this image', save where you want.
Uploading image to Wikimedia commons: I'm not good with computers as you've probably realised by now, so I log out of Wikipedia and put 'Wikimedia commons' into my search engine. The first thing it finds is the site you need and should take you to the main page. To upload an image you need to create an account in exactly the same way as you do for Wikipedia. After you've done that, return to main page. On the left hand side you will find an option for 'upload image', click on this, choose 'work is from somewhere else', for source file name click 'browse' and find the image you've just saved, select it. 'Destination file name' you need to keep a note of. Whatever you put here is exactly what you need to type to retrieve the file (case sensitive too). The file name must end '.JPG'. The original source will be 'Geograph.org.uk', add date of work and description and any additional info you see fit. Now somewhere you should paste the 'Wiki template for image page' that you copied from Geograph.org.uk but as I've already said, I find that confusing so I select 'attribution share alike 2.5' from the drop down menu for licensng which seems to be exactly the same. Add categories then upload.--Ykraps (talk) 10:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK but do you actually type in "See below" for Permission and what do you actually select for License as 'attribution share alike 2.5' isnt an option for me on the drop down menu?--Penbat (talk) 12:44, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've uplaoded the images and added them to the gallery above. Ykraps advice is good but I think it's better to copy and paste the Wikipedia template from geograph. This provides coordinates and a geograph template, and links the image and author in the summary which is essential for licensing purposes. Plus if you do this there is no need to select a license from the drop down menu. Here's an example of the steps I would take:
Save the image to your computer
Create an account at Wikimedia Commons and go to the upload page.
Browse for the file on your computer
Rename the file - for example: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/413530 could be named Mudeford Woods - geograph.org.uk - 413530 (the 413530 being the image's ID number on geograph.org.uk)
Select and copy the "Wikipedia Template" from the "Find out how to reuse this image" link (located under the image on geograph) and paste it into the summary box on the Commons upload page.
My reasoning was that Mind Games (the album) is likely the primary topic. Since when searching, I'd imagine many users don't use the correct capitalization, I figured it would be helpful to provide a link directly to Mind Games on the hatnote. Your thoughts though? Arbitrarily0(talk)19:12, 29 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat, Thanks for your comments. I believe it is quite usual to break up an article in this fashion when it gets too big (see Landmarks of Hoboken, New Jersey) and it is likely that I will have to do the same with the history section at some point too (see History of Poole). I would much rather keep it all together but I am hoping to get Christchurch accepted as a 'good article' and so must follow the custom. I was going to add some more info to the Mudeford article but I see you have already got it. BTW the info I have on Sophie Dawes says she built B.H.House although as you pointed out, she was a baroness first (I can't read my own writing). I copied this info from p128 of Christchurch The Golden Years (M.A.Hodges). Does this conflict with the information you have?--Ykraps (talk) 16:51, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That clearly states it was sold to Sophie Dawes so I need to check the info I've got. It was something I scribbled down in the library one day, not thinking I would use it anywhere so it is possible I got confused. I'm not certain that web site satisfies the criteria for a reliable source but, of course, that doesn't make it incorrect! I will see if I can dig anything else up to support it the next time in the library. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 07:04, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That website in turn gets its info from "Samuel OJ (1985) Bure Farm in the Homage of Bure, Mudeford. Christchurch Local History Society" which i am trying to get a copy of. In any event it seems unlikely that a woman of that era (especially Sophie Dawes who must have had a limited education) had the knowhow to commission a new building like BHH. Also, 1837 seems a likely date as Sophie Dawes would be in her late 30s by then but if the statement specified is true that BHH was built at the start of 19C, Sophie Dawes would only be 5 years old. This site also says she bought it in the 1830s: http://www.south-coast-central.co.uk/regency.htm. I note it isnt the first time that there has been evidence contradicting the Hodges book. --Penbat (talk) 09:15, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think some of the dates in Hodges books are wrong. He claims the fusee factory in Millhams Street was demolished in '65 and I'm sure it was still there when we came here in 1970. However, as I said, it might be my mistake so I will check next time in the library. Sophie Dawes wouldn't have had money until later in life and certainly not at 5 years old so something is amiss!--Ykraps (talk) 13:40, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't recall seeing sources for his books but I will look for that too. I believe he is quiet respected in local history circles and writes many articles. It's ironic that Wikipedia is often lambasted for being inaccurate and here we are questioning the validity of Hodges' works! :)--Ykraps (talk) 16:54, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There was a building (of which I've seen a photograph) set back from, and to the left hand side of, the entrance to the castle and it is this building (demolished in 1888) that Hodges and Newman claim to be the old court house. Christine Taylor claims this building was rebuilt to the right of the perfumery, which sounds very odd although others (can't recall who)have also claimed this building to be the old courthouse. The perfumery is more commonly known amongst residents as the old court house and is listed as such but documented opinion is divided.--Ykraps (talk) 08:10, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Yes I have seen that website, thanks. The Local History Society often hang about in the library and are often available to answer questions.
It occurred to me that it may be a little excessive to create an internal link for the term "insult" in a section of the occupational psychology entry. I think the readers will understand what it means when there is research on incivility and the impact on people of incivility at work. I am not opposed to adding internal links, but I think we can overdo the addition of links. I did not want to remove the internal link without consulting you.Iss246 (talk) 19:46, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know why "Outline of psychology" is at the bottom of the OHP page. It is on the bottom of many (but not all) of the pages covering the divisions of psychology that are enumerated in the psychology sidebar. I didn't check all of the pages. In one instance, a link to the outline was in the "see also" list of internal links but not on bottom of the page. Maybe the outline should remain on the bottom of each page to give readers a link to the outline. I say "maybe" because I haven't yet formed a firm opinion about the matter. Iss246 (talk) 21:49, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The version of Sam VankinSam Vaknin I deleted was one unsourced sentence. Even though I deleted it under criterion G4, it arguably met criterion A7 as well. If the article had sources and a clear assertion of significance, I would likely have handled it differently. —C.Fred (talk) 19:17, 18 October 2010 (UTC), edited on 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I also left BardsRhyme (talk·contribs) a message explaining how to create a draft of the article in user space and with instructions to contact me on my talk page or put helpme on his to get assistance once he thinks the draft is ready. —C.Fred (talk) 19:27, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. Let me ask this question, then. Are you trying to start a new article on Vaknin from scratch, or do you want the old article restored as a starting point? —C.Fred (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen the old article and there may or may not be issues with the content I dont know. It is much easier to have something to work from rather than a blank canvas. If there are issues with the old article they can be flagged with appropriate banners and worked on.--Penbat (talk) 12:59, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Gah, it may be even more complicated than I thought. There are versions in the history which had personal information, so it may be difficult to restore what was there. If I can figure out how to do it safely, I'm willing to restore it into your userspace. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the thing: if I restore it, I need to restore the edit history so that the text is rightly attributed to its creators (that's a requirement of the GFDL that Wikipedia text is licensed under). If I do that, I run the risk of also restoring personal information that should not be exposed (e.g., phone numbers and social security numbers), so I need to clean all that out of there in the process of restoring. If it weren't for the personal information issue, I'd have already restored it and put it in your userspace. Since the information is there, I need to tread carefully. —C.Fred (talk) 21:50, 29 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but that version was subsequently deleted, so unless he moved the offending versions out, they're still in the article history. —C.Fred (talk) 14:36, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat, are you watching for new articles as I'd only just moved it into the mainspace and was coming to tell you about it. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 19:20, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks I'd forgotten that. BTW you're causing me no end of trouble with edit conflicts. Any chance you can type a bit slower to give me a chance? :) --Ykraps (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just had a flurry of small tweaks not helped by a slow Wiki response. No more changes in mind at present so the coast is clear for you.--Penbat (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've already visited Wikipedia:Requested moves and the user seems to be on some sort of a mission! I would have started my comment as you suggested but I wasn't sure that I'd understood what was being proposed, it seemed too bizarre!--Ykraps (talk) 21:06, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the good word - have become addicted to "article upgrade" as it makes me clarify what I think I know on the subject, but the occasional spot of recognition is always welcome!Jacobisq (talk) 04:02, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
Added ADHD to the DSM-V page, will also do the remaining childhood disorders (Conduct Disorder, Oppositional Defiant Disorder). Anne2608 (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have closed the deletion review of Sam Vaknin early and moved the article back to mainspace.
The DRV did what I wanted it to: it got fresh eyes looking at the article to see whether it was improved. Since there were no other editors opining that the article should not be recreated, I found myself in a situation parallel to an AfD where I was the only !vote to delete an article. In that situation, if I changed my !vote, the article would be speedily kept. Likewise, by removing my objections to recreation, I saw no reason to wait out the full seven days of a DRV, so I moved the article back to mainspace straightaway.
I'm sorry if you feel like the process dragged a bit. However, I think the article is now stronger for it, both for having more references in place and for being able to say that it's been through DRV. —C.Fred (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
yes you did push me to make improvements which is all to the good and the DRV will prevent any spontaneous attempts by an admin to delete it.--Penbat (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
your probably right, i deleted this because the abuse template mostly has links to many areas that are not really related to human rights and so I thought it merited trimming - but in the light of day I was probably abit nuts Ajbpearce (talk)
Any further suggestions regarding the 'Bullying' article?
I've attempted to add a paragraph at the: Bullying article to address your concern that not all bullying targets are selected for their perceived vulnerabilities. If you have any comments on this addition, please let me know over at the: Article's talk page.
Thanks mate. Incidentally I still have some interest in the Christchurch stuff but dont personally intend to do much more than tweaking. --Penbat (talk) 17:25, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You've got me interested in this man Vaknin now - Fraud or Fruitful? He was in a book I had last year, All About me - I have pressed the reserve button. As for the rest, it's amazing what a battered copy of Otto Fenichel, still will half an index, can turn up! Jacobisq (talk) 04:11, 9 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat. A while ago (see above)we were comparing notes on BHH and discovered we had conflicting information. I have since found this [[1]] which seems to suggest that Sophie Dawes bought BHH but then had it rebuilt. Does that fit with what you have?--Ykraps (talk) 11:17, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S thanks for reverting the HOC move the other day.
Hi http://www.msbnews.co.uk/regency_p1.htm is a duplicate of http://www.south-coast-central.co.uk/regency.htm which i had already added as an external link in Mudeford. "The still-wealthy social adventuress ordered it rebuilt in the style of a French villa, but died soon after." is a little ambiguous but implies to me that she ordered the rebuilding but it never happened. If it had been rebuilt the text would have just said "The still-wealthy social adventuress rebuilt it in the style of a French villa, but died soon after." Anyway it certainly reinforces the idea that she was not the original builder of BHH. --Penbat (talk) 12:39, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a page in the manual for when 2 people have the same name, and you want to put a "For Sandor Rado the psychoanalyst see Sandor Rado (psychoanalyst) on the other person's page? Redirect doesn't seem to cover it, but it must come up a lot. T & F Self taken "under advisement" Jacobisq (talk) 10:24, 10 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hello. I did a little digging about the subjects you alerted me to on my talk page. The source on Sycophancy unfortunately is buried pretty deep in the archive and I would have to retrieve it in person, something that is difficult due the hours. But regardless, it's so very old I doubt it would be helpful. Sycophancy is a broad subject though, with a variety of psychological motivations, everything from survival (e.g. Stockholm Syndrome) to greed. Perhaps using alternate terms will help.
I totally agree adult grooming is a valid concept. However, I think the nets we cast need to use other terms. "Victim Grooming" might be more appropriate. I have found this so far using that term, in relation to perps seeking adult victims:
Thanks very much for your efforts. The only problem with victim grooming is that it would include "child grooming" which is fine except it would mean that child grooming would have to be renamed as "victim grooming" which may face resistance. I recently worked out that sycophancy is probably closely related to Codependency but regardless of that there really ought to be at least a bit of meat in sycophancy.--Penbat (talk) 16:38, 21 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No no I was saying to use "victim grooming" as a search term (possibly with negative term such as "-child") to tease out the right sources. Adult Grooming is fine for an article subject/title since lay-readers more than likely might only be familiar with child grooming.Legitimus (talk) 23:24, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain to me how "Well, we did our best. These things happen" is an example of rationalization? It doesn't seem to fit the definition of 'making excuses'. Cheers --84.251.222.22 (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It isnt necessarily sincere. They may not have actually done their best or even if they did do their best they may lack the competence to do the job well.--Penbat (talk) 22:35, 2 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestBot picks articles in a number of ways based on other articles you've edited, including straight text similarity, following wikilinks, and matching your editing patterns against those of other Wikipedians. It tries to recommend only articles that other Wikipedians have marked as needing work. Your contributions make Wikipedia better -- thanks for helping.
If you have feedback on how to make SuggestBot better, please tell me on SuggestBot's talk page. Thanks from Nettrom (talk), SuggestBot's caretaker.
Hello Penbat, in a recent edit you added a link to Collective narcissism in the 'See also' section of the Collective article. The 'Collective' article is about specific groups of people, a collective in its sense as a noun. The collective in a 'collective narcissism' (as an adjective) refers to any group. It seems to me the two are not related. What do you think? Grim23★ 21:53, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
If you have no objection I'm going to remove the link. Grim23★18:00, 24 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible that the bot is confused and found similarity where none actually exists. If that is the case, you can remove the tag from the article. The article will be reviewed to determine if there are any copyright issues.
If substantial content is duplicated and it is not public domain or available under a compatible license, it will be deleted. For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material. You may use such publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences. See our copyright policy for further details. (If you own the copyright to the previously published content and wish to donate it, see Wikipedia:Donating copyrighted materials for the procedure.) CorenSearchBot (talk) 00:02, 5 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sam Vaknin article group-vandalised response to slp1
Also, here is my response to slp1: "Slp1, what do you mean by "conflict of interest"??? I resent your innuendo. I am a Macedonian journalist. Vaknin is very famous and controversial in my country and I have been following him for years. I interviewed him a few times and and, believe me, I am not his friend. Everyone in my country knows that!!! Also, what you say about the "Unadulterated Arrogance" article is completely untrue (don't want to use the word "lie"): the authors cite Vaknin as an expert - repeat: an expert - multiple times. Why don't you bother to read it? Or - if you read it - why do you misrepresent it? It is available on my website: http://www.scribd.com/doc/38412589/Unadulterated-Arrogance . Do you have an agenda against Vaknin? Because I see that you have been deleting references to his work everywhere and not only in this article (see the entry on Narcissistic Supply). Liran (Zoran) 77.28.13.173 (talk) 22:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC) 23:35, 06 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
thanks i will keep an eye on things and act accordingly. Slp1 is not especially knowledgable about Vaknin. He may not always get it right but I think he accepts that Vaknin has high credibility as an expert. There is however one valid point that citations from third parties about Vaknin are considered more reliable than first hand claims on his website etc.--Penbat (talk) 23:02, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with slp1 on this caveat 100%!!! What I do not agree with is when he misrepresents facts (for instance, regarding the article - see above; regarding the fact that Vaknin's work on narcissism is cited in more than 200 books as an expert (most recently in Joan Lachkars' books in the series "How to Talk to (a narcissist, a borderline) published by Routledge) and regarding the fact that his work is cited in 800 professional articles in scholarly magazines. I am no friend of Vaknin, God knows, but I am a friend of Wikipedia and the truth. No personal agendas or dislikes must influence it. Zoran (Liran)77.28.13.173 (talk) 23:14, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Slp1 asked for the criticism section to be removed but i dont think he generally has had a big impact on things. I never though that you had a personal agenda or a bias. Slp1 may have wrongly construed a bias after checking out your IP address. If you can give me any more cited info about Vaknin preferably from other third party sources such as independant newspaper articles or psychologists etc I dont mind adding more material.--Penbat (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hey. I realize some of the changes I made to the Vaknin article are unfair, but I feel that the end result was, nonetheless, more informative and better structured. I don't understand why you had to revert all of it. The current article is a mess, what I made of it was much better, not even considering the difference in content. Couldn't you just have censored out the unacceptable content? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.144.126.160 (talk) 23:43, 6 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to consider using the Article Wizard to help you create articles.
Hello, I notice that you recently created a new page, Bullying in academia. First, thank you for your contribution; Wikipedia relies solely on the efforts of volunteers such as you. Unfortunately, the page you created covers a topic on which we already have a page - School bullying. Because of the duplication, your article has been tagged for speedy deletion. Please note that this is not a comment on you personally and we hope you will to continue helping improve Wikipedia. If the topic of the article you created is one that interests you, then perhaps you would like to help out at School bullying - you might like to discuss new information at the article's talk page.
If you think that the article you created should remain separate, you may contest the deletion by adding {{hang on}} to the top of the page that has been nominated for deletion (just below the existing speedy deletion, or "db", tag; if no such tag exists, then the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate and adding a hang-on tag is unnecessary), coupled with adding a note on the talk page explaining your position, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Additionally if you would like to have someone review articles you create before they go live so they are not nominated for deletion shortly after you post them, allow me to suggest the article creation process and using our search feature to find related information we already have in the encyclopedia. Try not to be discouraged. Wikipedia looks forward to your future contributions. Cind.amuse19:14, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bullying in academia until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. Cind.amuse20:34, 3 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why, thank you!! That is most kind. The weird thing is, the only time I've ever witnessed mobbing in academia was student-on-staff; a bunch of Econ 101 students mocking the Nigerian teaching assistant. Gnash, gnash, I did nothing. Hope his life went OK anyway. Best wishes and keep up the good work, Novickas (talk) 22:17, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Dysfunctional family: Disruptive anonymous editor insists "The six basic roles" section is a "fringe theory."
Children growing up in a dysfunctional family have been known to adopt one or more of these six basic roles
The Good Child (also known as the Hero): a child who assumes the parental role.
The Problem Child (also known as the Scapegoat): the child who is blamed for most problems and may be partly responsible for the family's dysfunction, in spite of often being the only emotionally stable one in the family.
The Caretaker: the one who takes responsibility for the emotional well-being of the family.
The Lost Child: the inconspicuous, quiet one, whose needs are usually ignored or hidden.
The Mascot: uses comedy to divert attention away from the increasingly dysfunctional family system.
The Mastermind: the opportunist who capitalizes on the other family members' faults in order to get whatever he or she wants. Often the object of appeasement by grown-ups.
Hi Penbat, There's a disruptive editor (User talk:79.97.92.28) on the Dysfunctional family article. Insists the "Six basic roles" (above) is a "fringe theory," and objects to the "Effects on children" section where it states that they "...may have moderate to severe mental health issues, including possible depression, anxiety, and suicidal thoughts." Also, he/she placed five improvement-needed wiki templates at the top of the article, such as "needs to be completely rewritten," "neutrality disputed," "inappropriate tone," etc. This isn't the only Wikipedia article where there have been complains of edit warring from IP user 79.97.92.28. If you revert any of the changes, expect that they will soon be un-reverted. You may need to get an admin (if you aren't one yourself) to have the article semi-protected.
Thanks for discussing this. I suppose Americans have done a great deal of thinking about this and research, which is why their stuff dominates reliable sources. No so sure that even Europe has considered it this much. In the 70s, as I recall, one of the Scandinavian parliaments was considering legalizing sex with minors "in special cases." It didn't fly, but the fact they could even "consider" it. Any legislator trying that here were be persona non grata pretty quickly.
In the third world, this is quite different. In many Moslem countries, as you know, children are sex segregated and taught by a same sex teacher. While this has bad side affects from an American pov, the girls are far less likely to be hit on by a teacher.
In other countries, in rural areas, they would take the alleged perp apart. Again slowing dowm perps a bit and slowing down reporting abuse, as well.
And they all have different laws. I know that there is one branch of thinking that says "we are all alike," but this falls down somewhat when confronted with reality. Prior to the split, there was no real place where another country, with different experience, could "fit it" to the article, probably with stub information. It would have looked lame and been reverted.
So either we go along with an article dominated by the US "forever." Or try something different today to encourage the contributions of other countries.
I would suspect that there is generally less abuse in other countries because of quick punishment and a society that doesn't put up with "everything." Most of the teacher abuse, while reported, goes essentially unpunished - the witness won't testify, would make a bad witness, the teacher has employed a clever lawyer, etc. Most of them are dropped or plea bargained away to nothing. As a result, we have, and will continue to have, I suppose, sexual abuse by teachers.
While our scholarly research seems to work inside out society, not sure it is applicable outside. Student7 (talk) 12:26, 24
March 2011 (UTC)
Hi Penbat, Yesterday I inserted a new section on EAP and how it is manipulated by management as part of a bullying tactic against employees but you reverted my edit minutes after I put it up. From your note on the history page it appears you had some incorrect preconceived idea what the new section was about and reverted without reading it first. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 11:03, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see in EAP you are having a dispute with User:Kuyabribri. I am personaly quite sympathetic to including your material in a bullying section in EAP but not workplace bullying for a start we dont have EAP here in the UK and EAP is a subject in its own write. --Penbat (talk) 11:29, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What does my alleged "dispute" have to do with this? Isn't Wiki suppose to "world view"? I suspect the readership of this article is broader than the UK. I think EAP is a US/CDA thing (at least for the time being ... it may spread or collapse). Initially, I had it in the EAP article because if a target was offered EAP by management they're going to Wiki or Google "EAP" not "Workplace Bullying". Actually, Kuyabribri suggested I insert it in the Workplace Bullying article. Albertoarmstrong (talk) 11:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi,
I just had a second look at your comment. For clarification, I had a "dispute" with another editor that lead to an "edit war", but Kuyabribri stepped in as a referee (I don't see this as a "dispute" with Kuyabribri).
Please stop adding citations to Vaknin outside of the Sam Vaknin article. Per WP:SPS, self-published sources may only be used in article about themselves. Despite his renown, he does not qualify as an expert in any topic I'm aware of. If you'd like more input, we can start a thread at WP:RSN but the principles are well-established. Will Bebacktalk04:32, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why are you reverting my edits? You started a discussion but now you're just reverting instead of giving reasons. If the links and citations in question still don't meet WP policies and guidelines the material will need to be removed again anyway. Will Bebacktalk10:12, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Also, why are you adding back entries to "See also" sections, like here,[2] when those links are already in the templates at the bottom of the page? The only reason for adding something to that section is if there isn't a link on the page already. See WP:SEEALSO. Will Bebacktalk10:19, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
PS: While we differ on the suitability of the Vaknin cites, please know that I'm impressed by your contributions in the psychology field. I am approaching this just as an impartial enforcer of the project's norms, and have nothing against you or the source. Don't be discouraged. Will Bebacktalk09:28, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat, I'd like to ask you please to stop adding this as source material to articles. It's self-published, including the book, and therefore can only be used in the article about the author; see WP:SPS. You're not doing him any favours by adding it to other articles, because it starts to look like spam, which has implications for him, even though he's not responsible for it. It's best for these issues to stick to mainstream, academic secondary sources, or which there are plenty. SlimVirginTALK|CONTRIBS19:48, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I do not agree that it is SPS and it was User:Jacobisq who made most Vaknin additions to other articles. I strongly resent the idea that myself and User:Jacobisq are spamming - the Vaknin material has in some cases been unflattering to Vaknin. Also by implication you are smearing User:Jacobisq by criticising his judgement - he is a bone fide independant scholar. I also resent the smear that i am trying to spam Vaknin - personally i have mixed feelings about him.--Penbat (talk) 20:01, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm responding late to your post on my talkpage; I have been inactive for a while. Just so you know, I actually agree with Will and Slim Virgin's edits and other posts on this matter. I am personally disappointed to see you have twice reposted the same list of sources "proving" Vaknin's stature [3][4]. I have already pointed out to you that you are quoting as sources self-published, non-reliable books such as those by Lisa Scott and David Thomas.[5][6], and even the other sources don't support your contention as far as I can see. In future, please don't ignore the feedback you yourself asked for and received. Get other opinions if you disagree, at WP:RSN, but it isn't fair to other editors and the encyclopedia to just repeat the same posts without listening to the responses you get. --Slp1 (talk) 19:08, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Penbat,
I hadn't reviewed the Bullying article for some time, only to find out yesterday that the very rambling, grammatically poor, and redundant "Semiotics" section had been inserted into the article by a new editor, Kkmcbride. I found this section to be so convoluted and poorly written that I felt I had to delete this whole section. I could see that Mcbride had put a geat deal of work into this section, and I felt bad about summarily deleting all of this work. In Mcbride's defense, there were some references and sentences scattered throughout that looked like they might be "salvageable".
At any rate, I created a discussion area about this deletion on the article's talk page, in case Mcbride wants to talk about the deletion, and I was wondering if you might be able to provide any of your own insights on Mcbride's Semiotics section if such a dialogue might ever take place there?
Hi Penbat, hope you are well. You may recall that sometime ago you and I were pondering when and why the ducking stool appeared. The answer, I discovered while in the library, is that it was remade in 1986 as part of the centennial festival celebrating Queen Victoria's charter which confirmed Christchurch's borough status. The court leet was also re-established at this time. Regards--Ykraps (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, Penbat. I apologize for not replying to your request for help with a page about the category sooner. I was caught up in other things and put it off, and as it happens, nothing was posted to my user page since then until now and I forgot about it.
I'll look at your start page on the category soon. Please know that I am very far from an experienced Wikipedia editor and reviewer; in fact, my first new article just got reviewed and the template to that effect removed (that's the post to my user page that got my attention). I'll offer what I can; perhaps it can be brought to the point of being ready to put up in mainspace, where some more experienced people will then look at it as well.
Sounds good. I did that when I put up the page I created. One reason why is that in creating a fresh page, there were so many incremental edits early on-it's a natural habit when you're used to saving your work frequently in typical applications and I hated the thought of putting in some time on a change and then accidentally closing it in the browser-so I wouldn't bother with meaningful edit summaries until things had firmed up enough to make them worthwhile. Moving the page preserves that, while copy and paste starts the history fresh (If I'm wrong about that, please correct me.) Maybe I should start editing outside the browser.
I don't think there would be anything improper about removing that redirect, though adding a link to that section to See also might not be a bad idea. Although the link in "Abuse" links there-please forgive my ignorance, but what are those things called, those collective groups at the bottom?-but I don't think it would hurt anyway. Your call on that.
(I did that on my page, Isaac Wunder order. The subject begins with another action, Keaveney v. Geraghty which is too small an issue to merit a page, so it links to the Origins section, using an {{anchor}} template. I learned to do that when the reviewer of the page changed "Origins of the Isaac Wunder order" to just "Origins" and broke the link on the redirect page.) Rhsimard (talk) 23:17, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I definately want to make "legal abuse" a separate article. The structure of abuse is unusual as it is has both a list structure and a conventional article structure. I would just have the lead text for "legal abuse" in abuse plus a link to "legal abuse" and some "see also" links. The "see also" links in abuse are localised for each individual type of abuse rather than for abuse as a whole. Im a bit confused whether i can do a Wiki move from my sandbox version over the redirect but in any event i could do a copy and paste but that would mean losing the history. Personally i quite like the idea of the "legal abuse" article in mainspace without any of your comments and concerns about validity so it can be assessed afresh by others on a clean sheet of paper. --Penbat (talk) 08:47, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It's good to see the article is now up in mainspace. Thanks for taking care of that. Sorry you had to edit the sandbox pages to keep them out of the category; my bad.
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. Rymatz (talk) 12:24, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you think that this notice was placed here in error, contest the deletion by clicking on the button labelled "Click here to contest this speedy deletion," which appears inside of the speedy deletion ({{db-...}}) tag (if no such tag exists, the page is no longer a speedy delete candidate). Doing so will take you to the talk page where you will find a pre-formatted place for you to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. You can also visit the the page's talk page directly to give your reasons, but be aware that once tagged for speedy deletion, if the page meets the criterion, it may be deleted without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag yourself, but don't hesitate to add information to the page that would render it more in conformance with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, you can contact one of these administrators to request that the administrator userfy the page or email a copy to you. andy (talk) 09:32, 27 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The disambiguation you have chosen for this article is terrible to say the least. How do you not agree that it is a defense mechanism when it specifically says in the article "Rationalization is a defense mechanism"? Disambiguations are not chosen based on alternate names and if they are, they are done when a common disambiguation is used by a multiple terms. Rationalization in mathematics, economics and sociology are based on their fields, so either this article should be named for psychology, or it should be named for what it is, a defense mechanism. Alternate names like "making excuses" are poor disambiguation choices. Obviously since there was some kind of dispute on psychology, fallacy or whatever the case is, should be irrelevant, because defense mechanism is indisputable in what it is and is clear to which article you are talking about. — Moeε20:46, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Er of course it is a defense mechanism but it is also a fallacy which explains why it is in both project philosophy and psychology. Making excuses is an everyday phrase that everybody has heard of but only a few members of the general population would have heard of rationalization. A while back i had to struggle to get a move to "rationalisation (fallacy)" cancelled so count yourself lucky.--Penbat (talk) 20:58, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In my experience, the phrases of the general population should not disambiguate the articles. That's why disambiguation pages like Rationalization exist, so when they are searched the general population can choose which article they are talking about, in addition to "making excuses" already redirecting to the article itself. Layman's terms isn't really the norm. — Moeε21:06, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcissistic abuse until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on good quality evidence, and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. The Resident Anthropologist(talk)•(contribs) 21:41, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I removed a section on the envy article, but i cant seem to get rid of it without screwing up the references. I dont think it should be there, i posted why on the talk page. Theamazingspiderman20 (talk) 19:41, 14 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi there, I'm semi-randomly asking users if they would be interested in helping me with my research on Wikipedia. I am writing a dissertation on Wikipedia as part of my undergraduate course at the University of Cambridge. The results will almost certainly not be published to the public, and participants will be anonymous if requested. What I am asking is for you to complete a questionnaire with a number of general, subjective questions about your experiences working on Wikipedia, for example concerning Wikipedia's culture, your motivation in participating and so on. It should take 10-20 minutes. Much more information is available if you are interested. Please reply here or on my talk page. Thanks! I really appreciate any time you can give! Thedarkfourth (talk) 06:47, 30 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Traffic to Outline of James Bond stayed the same (though it was at the higher-level already), which leads me to suspect changes made somewhere in Wikipedia.
Thanks for uploading File:One House Left Standing.jpg. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.
To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.
For more information on using images, see the following pages:
Thanks for uploading File:Abracadabra_(Claire_Hamill_album).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
If you have uploaded other unlicensed media, please check whether they're used in any articles or not. You can find a list of 'file' pages you have edited by clicking on the "my contributions" link (it is located at the very top of any Wikipedia page when you are logged in), and then selecting "File" from the dropdown box. Note that all non-free media not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Melesse (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've corrected the error... Removed the redirect on the talk page. Are you ok with this? I hope I didn't screw anything up; I don't think so. Mrtea(talk)21:45, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes i just did a move on the talk page only - i was about to delete the remaining redirect and you had just done it. Anyway looks OK now.--Penbat (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I noticed you created the ICD-10 template for personality disorders and I just wanted to find out where you got permission to use the ICD-10 terms. I have been trying to get permission to use the Dutch ICD-10 terms and found a project committee who are eager to help me in the Netherlands, but they claim that the US-based World Health Organization has not granted a CC-by-SA license to use the ICD-10 terms. Part of me just thinks that the text snippets plus code numbers are not something you can possibly claim copyright on, since I really don't see much art in there (and the corrections to codes all seem to have come from the international community and not from the WHO themselves). I just don't want to step on any toes. I put a message on the project page for medicine, but I guess no one really cares that much. I feel that using the ICD-10 codes would help enormously in cleaning up interwiki links. Could you please comment? Thanks, Jane (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I'm looking up the articles on Narcissism, because I need to know something about it. Now, I do realise that Wiki is not a medical journal, but it does claim to be an encyclopedia, so we have to do our best.
Back in November 2011, you tweaked the article Narcissistic leadership. It was only a tiny tweak, but it was the sort that had a large impact, because its ultimate effect was to mask an act of vandalism. I notice that you edit articles on psychology fairly often. This means that you establish yourself among others as a person who watches and checks, so therefore, if you pass an edit, it is presumed OK. In this case the edit which you tweaked and allowed to remain intact was a blatant act of vandalism, and if you know anything about the subject, it should have jumped out at you as such.
To critics, "narcissistic leadership (preferably destructive) is driven by unyielding arrogance, self-absorption, and a personal egotistic need for power and admiration."[1]
Your tweak was to fix the bad spacing in the newly inserted edit: (preferably destructive). Having tweaked the spacing, you left the stupidity to remain.
What should have alerted you to the fact that it was a vandalism?:
The wording. How could "preferably destructive" even possibly be correct and enhance the meaning?
The material was inserted into a quote. Nothing can be added to a direct quotation.
I know I must sound like a nasty critical person. But if regular editors do not keep an eye out for this sort of stupidity, then there is no hope for Wikipedia! How could this stuff be allowed to remain in the second sentence of the article for three months, when a number of regular editors have visited the page?
I urge greater diligence!
(yes, and in case you are wondering, I am autistic.)
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
If you are going to argue about his mental state would you please do it on the talk page rather the through edit summaries. Thank you. Britmax (talk) 09:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adult grooming until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.
Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article.. Maratrean (talk) 10:57, 3 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially defines the term (Wikipedia is not a dictionary), followed by very subjective selection of examples. It is sourced, but this is a case where sourcing alone does not produce a good article.
You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the {{proposed deletion/dated}} notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.
You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Mobbing. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24-hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. If the edit warring continues, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Active Banana (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Template:Abuse cases has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:15, 21 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for uploading File:Abracadabra_(Claire_Hamill_album).jpg. The media description page currently specifies that it is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, it is currently orphaned, meaning that it is not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the media was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that media for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg)){kind=link}
