This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Let me spell this out here. I will fight Sam Vaknin on this site, tooth and nail, to the last man, the last gun, and the last bullet (maybe not in that order?) over NPD related content, but only when, and because, he is wrong and insubstantiated. When he is right, or I am mistaken, as I was about the deletion of http://samvak.tripod.com/npdglance.html, which I had not noticed over Christmas, and noticed today, and which was discussed weeks ago and a concensus arrived at by several people that this one site should stay, I will uphold him as I would any other person. Our personal issues DO NOT BELONG on Wikipedia (and not only because the software does not permit of a swift kick in the place where I personally believe he needs it most, there is also a tiny matter of right, wrong and justice).
That means the same must apply to anyone else. Including http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html, which as it stands, has to be the most ill informed, amateurish site I have ever seen, even before you take into account the "click to donate" on every page.
If you look at the archive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder/Archive_1#Compromise_regarding_External_Links ), Sam Vaknin had to make a case for retaining the one site he has posted here (and he has not even got "click to donate" buttons on it), I see no reason why the owner of http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html should not have to do likewise. No to me, Sam Vaknin, or any of the NPD regulars, but to the real objective community of Wikipedia.
Since I have got to know this site I have come to believe passionately in everything it has evolved to stand for, which is why, even during an heated personal online war, I have not opted for editing Sam Vaknin's text in the ways that would most annoy him, nor even touched it at all. Wikipedia is not about personalities, it is about an evolving coral colony of an information resource that is quite extraordinary.
From now on Sam Vaknin will have to make an objective case for every line he has posted here, sooner or later, and so will I, thus it follows that those who want to see http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html included in the external links must also be prepared to do so, even if it means upgrading the quality of information available.
If the site is upgraded to the point where a realistic case can be made for it's retention I will fight for it myself. But until then it does not belong here (there is more to being right or righteous than knocking Sam Vaknin, though, of course, it does help ;o) )
Either it is about taking the time and trouble to participate in compiling valid, objective, information or it is about personalities, which is it to be? (And that means you too Sam Vaknin) -- Zeraeph 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I advise anyone new to wikipedia to read the "help" pages and explore the various tabs and links to get a better "feel" for the way this site works. -- Zeraeph 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see that this discussion is a bit old, but I very much welcome comments about my web-site and particularly comments which demonstrate that all I say is so ill informed etc. Why did the author not bother to contact me personally and inform me about my short comings? I am always open and very keen to discuss matters. Additionally, I would like to point out that a lot of what I wrote was based on my personal experience and I state this as well. I must have read ca 100 papers on the issue, several books and had conversations with quite a lot of people on this issue. At one point I run a npd forum. Finally, I must have counselled something like 50 people who suffered from a npd relationship seemingly successfully. If I am still amateurish, I must be an idiot.
Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl 05.06.06
P.S. I don't know who tried to add my link to the npd site here, but I can only say that a lot of people have emailed me expressing that my pages have helped them.
P.P.S The biggest difference between my (cognitive) approach and the psycho-dynamic approach is that I don't believe in the myth that npd's are traumatised victims. As we know most bullying in school comes from middle class, well-off girls who think they are above everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofmannengl ( talk • contribs)
Cheers for the comment. Would you please specify what exactly is wrong with my pages. I really would not want someone to follow some wrong advice I have given.
The pages are not thought to be of academic nature (nor are the wikipedia pages) but there to help people who encountered the problem. The site makes this very clear.
However, if you want to read something more academic of mine related to this issue, you could try:
http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/research/abuse.pdf
but I doubt whether it is of help to the general public. Even academics seem to be puzzled over it.
Still, as said I would be interested to learn about my mistake. -- Dr Hofmann-Engl06.06.06
Regards
Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofmannengl ( talk • contribs)
Initially, the talk on this page is a squabble regarding permission to quote and/or paraphrase the DSM-IV-TR. The talk then segues to a discussion involving IPs, and whether or not Sam Vaknin is actually a Macedonian woman. Following we have a who can delete whom first and faster pissing match, that culminates with the posting of Zeraeph's personal information, presumably by Sam Vaknin, who heretofore was attempting to post with an alternate ID or anonymously. When was this talk ever about Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Am I missing something? Or, is a certain participant presenting with various aspects of the DSM-IV-TR NPD diagnostic criteria in action? 72.16.41.16 17:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[And leave everybody's private life to private mail? -- Zeraeph 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]
[I have removed all posts that reference, off topic, personal matters in the hope that we can return to topic and stay there. No all of these posts were my own but I hope all parties find this return to topic agreeable, if not, I apologize -- Zeraeph 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]
you posted my real name, my real life location, and my e-mail address on this discussion area. You started it, not I. Don't post my real name and I will not post yours or your e-mail address or your location. If you want to attribute all the unsigned posts with the unsigned tag - no problem. But then you should apply the tag to your anonymous posts as well as 82.195.137.125. --Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, everything is documented forever in the discussion's history, so you cannot alter the facts by deleting them. --Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, everything is documented forever in the discussion's history, so you cannot alter the facts by deleting them. -- Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)
82.195.137.125 (Zeraeph), please stop removing the link to "Narcissistic Personality at a Glance". It is the source text for this article. Wikipedia rules, copyright laws, (and plain fairness) demand attribution 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others (see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=34367328&oldid=34366908 )
Removing the attruibution to the original text (removing the link, as you keep doing) constitutes copyright infringement and contravenes Wikipedia rules. It is also unfair in the extreme and misledaing.
You and I have a long history of online enmity, invariably initiated by you. It is regrettable that you carry your personal grudges into your otherwise admirable editing work on this article.
The text of the article that I submitted on December 12, 2005 was approved for publication at the time by Nupedia's Psychology Editor (a professor of abnormal psychology) and was peer reviewed. It now constitutes the introductory chapter to my book on the disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited") and I grant Wikipedia copyright permission to reproduce it and treat it as its own content in any and all ways - subject to attribution and credit.
I like the article as it stands now very much. The collaborative effort has improved it, to my mind. It is a lot clearer.
DanielCD, when I edit, I login as Samvak, because I want attribution and I want to be able to follow all my edits in one place. I have no idea who 62 or 82 are. See more detailed response under your questions below. -- Samvak 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC)
[Somebody keeps putting this site up on "external links" http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html it has to be one of the most ill-informed, amateurish sites I have ever seen and I don't think it belongs here. Far better sites have been removed from this article with my heartfelt blessing. Thoughts? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs) .21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]
I fully, fully agree with you! Keep on the good work. Meri.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.208.57 ( talk • contribs) .
Original Message -----
From: "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> To: "Sam Vaknin" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 AM Subject: RE: Permission to reprint DSM diagnostic criteria in Wikipedia
Hi Sam,
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content. Please forward any permission letters, previously obtained, to me for review.
Thanks
Chad
I have just realized that another poster was using this same IP (a router with many users) on 23rd November with very negative effects. This was NOT me. I continue to use this IP without logging in because I do not feel safe to identify myself further around the followers of Sam Vaknin, and if anyone knows a nicer way to put that truthfully, feel free to edit my comment without sanction but I really doubt that such is possible.
Unless (and I do not recall with any certainty whether I did or not) I posted while logged in, from a totally different IP on one quite different topic, over a year ago, (rather mundane) I had never posted ANYTHING on Wikipedia before yesterday.
Perhaps people would like to factor that into their thinking before continuing? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs) . 21:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
As a lot of information was lost during a talk page edit [1] I have saved the old version in archive 1 and deleted duplicate content from this page.
On 4 December Samvak ( talk · contribs) uploaded a version of the page that had beed approved by the Nupedia psychology editorial board [2]. Today, 82.195.137.125 ( talk · contribs) has been editing the article heavily without actually indication what concerns there are about the content. Some discussion will be taking place below. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam Vaknin, woke up this morning and removed acres of other people's comments thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ANarcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=31185242&oldid=31169609
Why was that ok? 82.195.137.125 ( talk · contribs)
Son, I am the administration. I think you should stop your ad hominems. I'll avoid "buddy" if this offends you. Is "dude" okay? JFW | T@lk 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's any point. Try administrator noticeboard if you think there are any merits to your case. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll await responses. I signed your post for you. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Why are the entries that are only a day old (Dec. 9-12) being archived? Comments that young may still be relevant and should be replaced. -- DanielCD 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been nosing around here, and I don't see what the problem is. If the edits were mixed up by saving/adding/reverting mishaps, the person to blame is the person who made those edits. These pages shouldn't be altered in a way that causes comments to be deleted. I'll have to look at the edit history a bit and see what happened. Who made the edits that cut the page up and why? -- DanielCD 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Some comments were deleted and then edited over by 82.195.137.125 and 62.162.217.175. They have been retraced on [[here]]
And put something of the like on the archive page. Now, did I make any wrong assumptions. Comments please. -- DanielCD 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
82.195.137.125 ...It's best to put each new response at the bottom and use the colons to space each comment to tell them apart (look at the edit page to see examples). I'm missing some of your comments because they are all being spaced around on the page. It might be ppl are missing some of what you are saying. -- DanielCD 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Vaknin already has an account. He is Samvak ( talk · contribs). And this is starting to become rather tedious. Civility alert. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
OK...plot thickens. I have two questions here.
-- DanielCD 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved from discussing the article to individual actions by individual users. That's tedious enough. Perhaps you can take over the interesting job of mediating here, because I've got better things to do than being lectured. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Individual actions by individual users" are gravely important if users are actively trying to sabotage this talk page (by constantly deleting anything that would be unfavourable to them) or are trying to use the article as a means of self promotion, using forgery, multiple posting handles and intimidation as a means to do so. A few weeks back some users took active interest in restoring what was a parody of an article littered with multiple links (direct or implied) to a single user here (Sam Vankin) and faced a barage of re-edits trying to impose the afforementioned links to the rest of the wikipedia community. Not only that, but in an reversion to an edit, Vankin made reference to one users greek ip service provider mentioning something seemingly inane ("in greek vandalism even disguised a moral crusade...blah blah..you can find it in the edits history of the talk page) while referencing the users ip adress as being greek, as an obvious means of intimidation. If even the talk page, can't be let alone, but is contantly being "expurgated" to suit the means of a single user, i don't know HOW we can proceed at editing the main article at all. Very importantly also, if most of us here are dealing with a bonna fide npd sufferer verging on the sociopathic bearing (according to his self admission and his actions) so many pathological characteristics of the disorder (has a sense of entitlement,is interpersonally exploitative, lacks empathy, is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her etc. etc. according to mentalheatlth.com ) I don't see how we can procceed to discuss the issues here in a civil manner. We cannot. And hence the awful condition of this talk page. In addition, as others have pointed out before, this page sets a very unsettling precedence of having a sufferer of a psychiatric condition dominate both the article and the talk page of this condition, especially in a condition where sufferer's show little or no real insight into their condition (and npd is typical of that, although narcissists can feign insight to the untrained eye) and where the condition is characterized by markedly antisocial behaviours.
In view of all that, the bottomline is that this page requires careful and diligent consideration by wikipedia editors because individual users lack the time, and frankly, the stamina to put up with the goings on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.38.143.120 ( talk • contribs) .
--
82.195.137.125 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC) quotation of DSM-IV-TR criteria removed ]
It is the responsiblity of the contributing editor to obtain permission for any works he or she wants to include. Such permissions, if obtained by email, should then be forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org. However, under the present circumstances there is a decent case for fair use in that the such criteria (even if quoted for a number of articles) comprise only a small portion of the DSM-IV and are unlikely to affect its market value. Ordinarily in fair use cases, one would prefer to paraphrase their work, but in this case doing so is unlikely to accurately perserve the meaning, so there is a reasonable argument for simply quoting the relevant section. Providing such quotations, properly identified, in the context of an encyclopedic discussion of the disease is also a natural context for invoking fair use. However, since the APA appears to be fairly liberal in allowing reproductions of their criteria, it may be sensible for one of you to ask them for permission so as to avoid any potential ambiguity. Though, it is important to note that Wikipedia cannot accept permissions that are granted purely for reproduction in Wikipedia itself. A grant of permission must be sufficiently broad to be compatible with redistribution under the GFDL. This means that by giving us a blanket permission to reproduce and quote their diagnostic criteria, they would neccesarily be allowing anyone else (including commercial entities) to copy and collect all such information that appeared in Wikipedia. Many publishers are understandably reluctant to grant such a permission. I suspect that the best resolution of this issue that we are likely to achieve is either to accept fair use as justification in quoting their material or to do as 82.195.137.125 suggests and simply link to the criteria as they appear on some other site. Dragons flight 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please take note that Slimvirgin's edit would represent my personal ideal of how the DSM criteria should appear on this article. For the record (see below) I believe we should not only be allowed but ENCOURAGED to use the DSM IV TR criteria on all relevant article, even if (as is understandable, to avoid distortion of meaning, which may be their major concern) they insist such text be rendered impossible to edit. However, see below :o( The APA specifically refused permission for this page, and the decision was made to comply and use a link, pending further information. There has been no further information, particularly on the subject of using a transcription.
If you disagree with this please mail "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> and try to find a way to change his mind, or get permission for the specific transcription Slimvirgin used (which is excellent). Don't revert, because to revert this, specifically refused, page is to risk the APA going on the warpath with whole site.
I have also raised the discussion again here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Thank you -- Zeraeph 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just removed and attempted to replace an whole paragraph that baldly misrepresented the DSM criteria for two disorders. If the would give permission to post the criteria this could have been caught and removed months ago - I just needed to say that -- Zeraeph 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They can't copyright the information. Just rewrite the list in your own words, and there's no claim for them to make about it. The lists in the DSM look like crap anyway, they're made for helping people diagnose things, not writing encyclopedias. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they can copyright that information, because of the unique circumstances of psychiatry: NPD, by definition, is whatever the American Psychiatric Association lists it as being in the DSM-IV-TR. There are no underlying, unquestionable, inherent "facts" about what makes up NPD or any other psychiatric disorder; a given set of diagnostic criteria consists entirely of the consensus opinion of the people responsible for putting together the DSM. Twenty years from now, the DSM's diagnostic criteria for NPD may be wildly different from what they are today; NPD may even be absorbed into an entirely new disorder or perhaps even thrown out entirely, based on the results of psychiatric research yet to come. As such, we have two problems on WP: Not only can the APA copyright the diagnostic criteria, we also cannot paraphrase the diagnostic criteria without inherently changing it and thus rendering it inaccurate. Every single word of every single set of diagnostic criteria is argued over by the best professional psychiatrists and researchers for years before a new edition of the DSM comes out. So if we just rewrite the NPD criteria to "get the general point across," we're going to screw up somehow and leave something out, which will make it a major leage WP:V violation and utterly useless to the reader, possibly dangerously so. I say we keep things as they are, and just link to an external copy of the diagnostic criteria, unless we can get the APA to let us post it here directly (which I doubt will happen, but you never know). -- Aaron 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The manner in which this information is presented is wholly unacceptable. The presentation of the DSM criteria in any wauy, shape, or form is considered a violation. The re-writing of the information to present it is EXACTLY what the APA does not want done.
We have gone over this and over this. The copyright office of the APA stands in direct opposition to the presentation of the material by anyone who is sanctioned to do so, and Wikipedia, despite several attempts by several qualified individuals to aquire that sanction, is not.
You guys are playing with fire and, as we've already been threatened with a lawsuit and a forced shut down of the ENTIRE SITE because of this nonsense, should check your egos at the door and take this stuff down.
Isn't the definition of Megalomaniac is someone delusional about power. MegaloManiac 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks. MegaloManiac 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has always bothered me very much that Megalomania doesnt have its own page. Jack Cain 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Mnemonics are common in the medical literature. So, I think they ought to be apart of Wikipedia. They make things more memorable.
Examples from PubMed -- that is the medical literature:
I see no reason the mnemonic should have been deleted, thus I re-inserted it. Nephron T| C 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Let me spell this out here. I will fight Sam Vaknin on this site, tooth and nail, to the last man, the last gun, and the last bullet (maybe not in that order?) over NPD related content, but only when, and because, he is wrong and insubstantiated. When he is right, or I am mistaken, as I was about the deletion of http://samvak.tripod.com/npdglance.html, which I had not noticed over Christmas, and noticed today, and which was discussed weeks ago and a concensus arrived at by several people that this one site should stay, I will uphold him as I would any other person. Our personal issues DO NOT BELONG on Wikipedia (and not only because the software does not permit of a swift kick in the place where I personally believe he needs it most, there is also a tiny matter of right, wrong and justice).
That means the same must apply to anyone else. Including http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html, which as it stands, has to be the most ill informed, amateurish site I have ever seen, even before you take into account the "click to donate" on every page.
If you look at the archive ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder/Archive_1#Compromise_regarding_External_Links ), Sam Vaknin had to make a case for retaining the one site he has posted here (and he has not even got "click to donate" buttons on it), I see no reason why the owner of http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html should not have to do likewise. No to me, Sam Vaknin, or any of the NPD regulars, but to the real objective community of Wikipedia.
Since I have got to know this site I have come to believe passionately in everything it has evolved to stand for, which is why, even during an heated personal online war, I have not opted for editing Sam Vaknin's text in the ways that would most annoy him, nor even touched it at all. Wikipedia is not about personalities, it is about an evolving coral colony of an information resource that is quite extraordinary.
From now on Sam Vaknin will have to make an objective case for every line he has posted here, sooner or later, and so will I, thus it follows that those who want to see http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html included in the external links must also be prepared to do so, even if it means upgrading the quality of information available.
If the site is upgraded to the point where a realistic case can be made for it's retention I will fight for it myself. But until then it does not belong here (there is more to being right or righteous than knocking Sam Vaknin, though, of course, it does help ;o) )
Either it is about taking the time and trouble to participate in compiling valid, objective, information or it is about personalities, which is it to be? (And that means you too Sam Vaknin) -- Zeraeph 09:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I advise anyone new to wikipedia to read the "help" pages and explore the various tabs and links to get a better "feel" for the way this site works. -- Zeraeph 12:21, 13 January 2006 (UTC)
I can see that this discussion is a bit old, but I very much welcome comments about my web-site and particularly comments which demonstrate that all I say is so ill informed etc. Why did the author not bother to contact me personally and inform me about my short comings? I am always open and very keen to discuss matters. Additionally, I would like to point out that a lot of what I wrote was based on my personal experience and I state this as well. I must have read ca 100 papers on the issue, several books and had conversations with quite a lot of people on this issue. At one point I run a npd forum. Finally, I must have counselled something like 50 people who suffered from a npd relationship seemingly successfully. If I am still amateurish, I must be an idiot.
Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl 05.06.06
P.S. I don't know who tried to add my link to the npd site here, but I can only say that a lot of people have emailed me expressing that my pages have helped them.
P.P.S The biggest difference between my (cognitive) approach and the psycho-dynamic approach is that I don't believe in the myth that npd's are traumatised victims. As we know most bullying in school comes from middle class, well-off girls who think they are above everyone else. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofmannengl ( talk • contribs)
Cheers for the comment. Would you please specify what exactly is wrong with my pages. I really would not want someone to follow some wrong advice I have given.
The pages are not thought to be of academic nature (nor are the wikipedia pages) but there to help people who encountered the problem. The site makes this very clear.
However, if you want to read something more academic of mine related to this issue, you could try:
http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/research/abuse.pdf
but I doubt whether it is of help to the general public. Even academics seem to be puzzled over it.
Still, as said I would be interested to learn about my mistake. -- Dr Hofmann-Engl06.06.06
Regards
Dr Ludger Hofmann-Engl —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hofmannengl ( talk • contribs)
Initially, the talk on this page is a squabble regarding permission to quote and/or paraphrase the DSM-IV-TR. The talk then segues to a discussion involving IPs, and whether or not Sam Vaknin is actually a Macedonian woman. Following we have a who can delete whom first and faster pissing match, that culminates with the posting of Zeraeph's personal information, presumably by Sam Vaknin, who heretofore was attempting to post with an alternate ID or anonymously. When was this talk ever about Narcissistic Personality Disorder? Am I missing something? Or, is a certain participant presenting with various aspects of the DSM-IV-TR NPD diagnostic criteria in action? 72.16.41.16 17:22, 9 January 2006 (UTC)
[And leave everybody's private life to private mail? -- Zeraeph 13:54, 8 January 2006 (UTC)]
[I have removed all posts that reference, off topic, personal matters in the hope that we can return to topic and stay there. No all of these posts were my own but I hope all parties find this return to topic agreeable, if not, I apologize -- Zeraeph 14:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)]
you posted my real name, my real life location, and my e-mail address on this discussion area. You started it, not I. Don't post my real name and I will not post yours or your e-mail address or your location. If you want to attribute all the unsigned posts with the unsigned tag - no problem. But then you should apply the tag to your anonymous posts as well as 82.195.137.125. --Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, everything is documented forever in the discussion's history, so you cannot alter the facts by deleting them. --Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)
Luckily, everything is documented forever in the discussion's history, so you cannot alter the facts by deleting them. -- Samvak 12:28, 08 January 2006 (UTC)
82.195.137.125 (Zeraeph), please stop removing the link to "Narcissistic Personality at a Glance". It is the source text for this article. Wikipedia rules, copyright laws, (and plain fairness) demand attribution 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using_copyrighted_work_from_others (see http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Narcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=34367328&oldid=34366908 )
Removing the attruibution to the original text (removing the link, as you keep doing) constitutes copyright infringement and contravenes Wikipedia rules. It is also unfair in the extreme and misledaing.
You and I have a long history of online enmity, invariably initiated by you. It is regrettable that you carry your personal grudges into your otherwise admirable editing work on this article.
The text of the article that I submitted on December 12, 2005 was approved for publication at the time by Nupedia's Psychology Editor (a professor of abnormal psychology) and was peer reviewed. It now constitutes the introductory chapter to my book on the disorder ("Malignant Self Love - Narcissism Revisited") and I grant Wikipedia copyright permission to reproduce it and treat it as its own content in any and all ways - subject to attribution and credit.
I like the article as it stands now very much. The collaborative effort has improved it, to my mind. It is a lot clearer.
DanielCD, when I edit, I login as Samvak, because I want attribution and I want to be able to follow all my edits in one place. I have no idea who 62 or 82 are. See more detailed response under your questions below. -- Samvak 12:28, 07 January 2006 (UTC)
[Somebody keeps putting this site up on "external links" http://www.chameleongroup.org.uk/npd/index.html it has to be one of the most ill-informed, amateurish sites I have ever seen and I don't think it belongs here. Far better sites have been removed from this article with my heartfelt blessing. Thoughts? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs) .21:56, 5 January 2006 (UTC)]
I fully, fully agree with you! Keep on the good work. Meri.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.162.208.57 ( talk • contribs) .
Original Message -----
From: "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> To: "Sam Vaknin" Sent: Tuesday, December 20, 2005 2:17 AM Subject: RE: Permission to reprint DSM diagnostic criteria in Wikipedia
Hi Sam,
We are inclined to deny Wikipedia permission to use our content as we do not allow anyone to alter our material and we do not want our material posted online. I can assure you that we have complete rights to our material and Fair Use does not apply to DSM material or any other APA/APPI content. Please forward any permission letters, previously obtained, to me for review.
Thanks
Chad
I have just realized that another poster was using this same IP (a router with many users) on 23rd November with very negative effects. This was NOT me. I continue to use this IP without logging in because I do not feel safe to identify myself further around the followers of Sam Vaknin, and if anyone knows a nicer way to put that truthfully, feel free to edit my comment without sanction but I really doubt that such is possible.
Unless (and I do not recall with any certainty whether I did or not) I posted while logged in, from a totally different IP on one quite different topic, over a year ago, (rather mundane) I had never posted ANYTHING on Wikipedia before yesterday.
Perhaps people would like to factor that into their thinking before continuing? .—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.195.137.125 ( talk • contribs) . 21:22, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
As a lot of information was lost during a talk page edit [1] I have saved the old version in archive 1 and deleted duplicate content from this page.
On 4 December Samvak ( talk · contribs) uploaded a version of the page that had beed approved by the Nupedia psychology editorial board [2]. Today, 82.195.137.125 ( talk · contribs) has been editing the article heavily without actually indication what concerns there are about the content. Some discussion will be taking place below. JFW | T@lk 17:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Sam Vaknin, woke up this morning and removed acres of other people's comments thus: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk%3ANarcissistic_personality_disorder&diff=31185242&oldid=31169609
Why was that ok? 82.195.137.125 ( talk · contribs)
Son, I am the administration. I think you should stop your ad hominems. I'll avoid "buddy" if this offends you. Is "dude" okay? JFW | T@lk 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure if there's any point. Try administrator noticeboard if you think there are any merits to your case. JFW | T@lk 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I'll await responses. I signed your post for you. JFW | T@lk 19:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Why are the entries that are only a day old (Dec. 9-12) being archived? Comments that young may still be relevant and should be replaced. -- DanielCD 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
I've been nosing around here, and I don't see what the problem is. If the edits were mixed up by saving/adding/reverting mishaps, the person to blame is the person who made those edits. These pages shouldn't be altered in a way that causes comments to be deleted. I'll have to look at the edit history a bit and see what happened. Who made the edits that cut the page up and why? -- DanielCD 20:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Some comments were deleted and then edited over by 82.195.137.125 and 62.162.217.175. They have been retraced on [[here]]
And put something of the like on the archive page. Now, did I make any wrong assumptions. Comments please. -- DanielCD 20:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
82.195.137.125 ...It's best to put each new response at the bottom and use the colons to space each comment to tell them apart (look at the edit page to see examples). I'm missing some of your comments because they are all being spaced around on the page. It might be ppl are missing some of what you are saying. -- DanielCD 21:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Vaknin already has an account. He is Samvak ( talk · contribs). And this is starting to become rather tedious. Civility alert. JFW | T@lk 21:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
OK...plot thickens. I have two questions here.
-- DanielCD 21:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
The discussion has now moved from discussing the article to individual actions by individual users. That's tedious enough. Perhaps you can take over the interesting job of mediating here, because I've got better things to do than being lectured. JFW | T@lk 11:32, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
"Individual actions by individual users" are gravely important if users are actively trying to sabotage this talk page (by constantly deleting anything that would be unfavourable to them) or are trying to use the article as a means of self promotion, using forgery, multiple posting handles and intimidation as a means to do so. A few weeks back some users took active interest in restoring what was a parody of an article littered with multiple links (direct or implied) to a single user here (Sam Vankin) and faced a barage of re-edits trying to impose the afforementioned links to the rest of the wikipedia community. Not only that, but in an reversion to an edit, Vankin made reference to one users greek ip service provider mentioning something seemingly inane ("in greek vandalism even disguised a moral crusade...blah blah..you can find it in the edits history of the talk page) while referencing the users ip adress as being greek, as an obvious means of intimidation. If even the talk page, can't be let alone, but is contantly being "expurgated" to suit the means of a single user, i don't know HOW we can proceed at editing the main article at all. Very importantly also, if most of us here are dealing with a bonna fide npd sufferer verging on the sociopathic bearing (according to his self admission and his actions) so many pathological characteristics of the disorder (has a sense of entitlement,is interpersonally exploitative, lacks empathy, is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her etc. etc. according to mentalheatlth.com ) I don't see how we can procceed to discuss the issues here in a civil manner. We cannot. And hence the awful condition of this talk page. In addition, as others have pointed out before, this page sets a very unsettling precedence of having a sufferer of a psychiatric condition dominate both the article and the talk page of this condition, especially in a condition where sufferer's show little or no real insight into their condition (and npd is typical of that, although narcissists can feign insight to the untrained eye) and where the condition is characterized by markedly antisocial behaviours.
In view of all that, the bottomline is that this page requires careful and diligent consideration by wikipedia editors because individual users lack the time, and frankly, the stamina to put up with the goings on here. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.38.143.120 ( talk • contribs) .
--
82.195.137.125 14:37, 17 December 2005 (UTC) quotation of DSM-IV-TR criteria removed ]
It is the responsiblity of the contributing editor to obtain permission for any works he or she wants to include. Such permissions, if obtained by email, should then be forwarded to permissions@wikimedia.org. However, under the present circumstances there is a decent case for fair use in that the such criteria (even if quoted for a number of articles) comprise only a small portion of the DSM-IV and are unlikely to affect its market value. Ordinarily in fair use cases, one would prefer to paraphrase their work, but in this case doing so is unlikely to accurately perserve the meaning, so there is a reasonable argument for simply quoting the relevant section. Providing such quotations, properly identified, in the context of an encyclopedic discussion of the disease is also a natural context for invoking fair use. However, since the APA appears to be fairly liberal in allowing reproductions of their criteria, it may be sensible for one of you to ask them for permission so as to avoid any potential ambiguity. Though, it is important to note that Wikipedia cannot accept permissions that are granted purely for reproduction in Wikipedia itself. A grant of permission must be sufficiently broad to be compatible with redistribution under the GFDL. This means that by giving us a blanket permission to reproduce and quote their diagnostic criteria, they would neccesarily be allowing anyone else (including commercial entities) to copy and collect all such information that appeared in Wikipedia. Many publishers are understandably reluctant to grant such a permission. I suspect that the best resolution of this issue that we are likely to achieve is either to accept fair use as justification in quoting their material or to do as 82.195.137.125 suggests and simply link to the criteria as they appear on some other site. Dragons flight 21:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)
Please take note that Slimvirgin's edit would represent my personal ideal of how the DSM criteria should appear on this article. For the record (see below) I believe we should not only be allowed but ENCOURAGED to use the DSM IV TR criteria on all relevant article, even if (as is understandable, to avoid distortion of meaning, which may be their major concern) they insist such text be rendered impossible to edit. However, see below :o( The APA specifically refused permission for this page, and the decision was made to comply and use a link, pending further information. There has been no further information, particularly on the subject of using a transcription.
If you disagree with this please mail "Chad Thompson" <CThompson@psych.org> and try to find a way to change his mind, or get permission for the specific transcription Slimvirgin used (which is excellent). Don't revert, because to revert this, specifically refused, page is to risk the APA going on the warpath with whole site.
I have also raised the discussion again here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents
Thank you -- Zeraeph 13:44, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I have just removed and attempted to replace an whole paragraph that baldly misrepresented the DSM criteria for two disorders. If the would give permission to post the criteria this could have been caught and removed months ago - I just needed to say that -- Zeraeph 15:33, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
They can't copyright the information. Just rewrite the list in your own words, and there's no claim for them to make about it. The lists in the DSM look like crap anyway, they're made for helping people diagnose things, not writing encyclopedias. -- Phroziac . o º O ( ♥♥♥♥ chocolate!) 23:06, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Actually, they can copyright that information, because of the unique circumstances of psychiatry: NPD, by definition, is whatever the American Psychiatric Association lists it as being in the DSM-IV-TR. There are no underlying, unquestionable, inherent "facts" about what makes up NPD or any other psychiatric disorder; a given set of diagnostic criteria consists entirely of the consensus opinion of the people responsible for putting together the DSM. Twenty years from now, the DSM's diagnostic criteria for NPD may be wildly different from what they are today; NPD may even be absorbed into an entirely new disorder or perhaps even thrown out entirely, based on the results of psychiatric research yet to come. As such, we have two problems on WP: Not only can the APA copyright the diagnostic criteria, we also cannot paraphrase the diagnostic criteria without inherently changing it and thus rendering it inaccurate. Every single word of every single set of diagnostic criteria is argued over by the best professional psychiatrists and researchers for years before a new edition of the DSM comes out. So if we just rewrite the NPD criteria to "get the general point across," we're going to screw up somehow and leave something out, which will make it a major leage WP:V violation and utterly useless to the reader, possibly dangerously so. I say we keep things as they are, and just link to an external copy of the diagnostic criteria, unless we can get the APA to let us post it here directly (which I doubt will happen, but you never know). -- Aaron 03:30, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
The manner in which this information is presented is wholly unacceptable. The presentation of the DSM criteria in any wauy, shape, or form is considered a violation. The re-writing of the information to present it is EXACTLY what the APA does not want done.
We have gone over this and over this. The copyright office of the APA stands in direct opposition to the presentation of the material by anyone who is sanctioned to do so, and Wikipedia, despite several attempts by several qualified individuals to aquire that sanction, is not.
You guys are playing with fire and, as we've already been threatened with a lawsuit and a forced shut down of the ENTIRE SITE because of this nonsense, should check your egos at the door and take this stuff down.
Isn't the definition of Megalomaniac is someone delusional about power. MegaloManiac 13:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Ok thanks. MegaloManiac 18:35, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it has always bothered me very much that Megalomania doesnt have its own page. Jack Cain 10:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
Mnemonics are common in the medical literature. So, I think they ought to be apart of Wikipedia. They make things more memorable.
Examples from PubMed -- that is the medical literature:
I see no reason the mnemonic should have been deleted, thus I re-inserted it. Nephron T| C 23:07, 13 July 2006 (UTC)