Given your user name, you may want to read up on a couple of policies and essays:

• WP:NPOV
• WP:RS
• WP:SPA
• WP:UN
• WP:TONE
• WP:REF
• Citation templates

Note that anonymous websites, blogs and web forums are not considered reliable sources, so can not be used in wikipages to add content. WLU 14:27, 26 August 2007 (UTC) reply

Welcome!

Hello, ResearchEditor, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

• The five pillars of Wikipedia
• Tutorial
• How to edit a page
• How to write a great article
• Manual of Style

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! WLU 02:33, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Final comment here - thanks for addressing my comments! WLU 02:34, 7 September 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the informational links. I will try to follow them the best I can.

I reverted your edit to the False Memory page. I agree with the spirit of your change and your claim that the paragraph you removed is biased. Unfortunately, that page is a controversial topic and changes to it must be made slowly and with alot of determination, and most importantly, with lots of data. I hope you will use the sandbox, which can be linked from the discussion page, to propose radical changes and try to build consensus about making that page better. West world 11:58, 16 October 2007 (UTC) reply

PLEASE stop adding lengthy quotations to references - either the reference stands on its own or it does not. Lengthy quotations do not help the page and and undue weight to the specific references which is not helpful. Also, please look into using citation templates for a standard format, which makes it easier to find and use citations. They are easy to use, and there are template generators which require only the pubmed ID number for journals or ISBN for books, and will create the template for you. WLU 20:32, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Please read the talk page guidelines - you should not break up discussion with your own points. In general, you should refer to policy more often and actually read the policies. It's frustrating to keep having to correct the same errors. Also, it would be good if you actually responded to points on talk pages. WLU 22:10, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I did not realize that you want a reponse to the first comment above. I have been reading the policies. “Interruptions: In some cases, it is OK to interrupt a long contribution, either by a short comment (as a reply to a minor point) or by a headline (if the contribution introduces a new topic). In that case, add "Headline added to (reason) by Abuse truth 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC)"). In such cases, please add —This is part of a comment by USER NAME OR IP , which was interrupted by the following: before the interruption.” Next time I break up a comment, I will use the guideline above. Thanks. Abuse truth 23:29, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Thankyou for your views on the title of this page both now and in the past. As has been noted to you above, the prime intent of WP is to present a Neutral Point of View ( WP:NPOV) and the previous title was clearly not 'neutral' in any reasonable manner. The one I have changed it to is better, but I agree still not perfect, however there is much discussion on the validity of this article in general and hopefully that will be resolved soon. For the NPOV reasons I have cancelled your move and locked it in the new title temporarily whilst the discussions on the talk page continue. -- AlisonW 23:55, 19 October 2007 (UTC) reply

See talk page of the above site for my reply. Abuse truth 23:30, 20 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Read this before making more preposterous claims to edits being in violation of policy. Thank you. Carter | Talk to me 02:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I read it. It states : This page is for requesting that a page, image or template be fully protected, semi-protected, move-protected or unprotected. Please read up on the protection policy. Full protection is to stop edit warring between multiple users or severe vandalism; semi-protection is usually only for vandalism (see the rough guide to semi-protection).

There has been no vandalism of the page. There also has been no edit warring in the recent past. Both edit locks have been against wikipedia policy. Abuse truth 02:57, 6 November 2007 (UTC) reply

AT, yes, the existence of Traumatic Memory is totally valid to the RMT page. *However* by introducing it and trying to verify it in the introductory paragraph, you make those of us who are working really, really hard to slowly improve that page look 1) reactionary and 2) unreliable. Traumatic memory is real - got it - but that has nothing to do with a, say, three sentence introduction to the term RMT. I am equally impassioned about presenting better information, ne capital T truth, about CSA on Wikipedia, but I would so, so like to win one small battle without jeopardizing that by being too aggressive. In Psychology, much as you may not like it, there simply *are* still people who do not believe in the underlying science of repressed memory. And that opinion just has to be represented here on WP. Respectfully, WW West world 01:59, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Somehow the intro to the page needs to be NPOV. Maybe you could also present the other side of the debate to the intro paragraph in another way. Abuse truth 02:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, 1) that page is an encyclopedia entry and not a debate. It refers to a debate, yes, but whatever. The page I *had* left before you edited it was about as close to NPOV as you are likely to get here, IMHO. 2) I am glad to see you understand that FM is a load of crap. however.. posting what you have on the FM page in the past few minutes, trying to win a debate that is longstanding and significant between people who do and do not believe that FM is a load of crap -- it will get you (and a whole lot of others with alot vested in getting to the Truth) nowhere. But now I give up. I will simply sit back and watch the opposing Editors flame up and undo your recent revisions. Good Luck.

West world 02:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

1) "Article structure - Separating all the controversial aspects of a topic into a single section results in a very tortured form of writing, especially a back-and-forth dialogue between "proponents" and "opponents". It also creates a hierarchy of fact — the main passage is "true" and "undisputed", whereas the rest are "controversial" and therefore more likely to be false, an implication that may often be inappropriate. Since many of the topics in an encyclopedia will inevitably encounter controversy, editors should write in a manner that folds debates into the narrative rather than "distilling" them out into separate sections that ignore each other." I realize it is an encyclopedic entry. But the intro needs to be balanced somehow. IMO, it wasn't before. Hopefully, research will prevail and the best data will stay on the page. Abuse truth 02:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

But AT, what exactly would be wrong with talking about the issue at hand -- RMT is a false construct - a category that does not exist to the APA etc,? Even if the entire majority position of trauma>psychopathology did not exist, the *most* important point, IMHO, is that the phrase RMT was invented by activists and is not a category recognized by anyone reputable. Why, oh why, would that be too little for you? West world 03:40, 24 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that the page should also cover the issue you mention. If you can find sources to back up the above, we should probably add them to the page Abuse truth 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Ok, let me rephrase that -- the introductory paragraph to the RMT page does not need to include reference to evidence that "Repressed Memory" is real. Repressed Memory as it is defined within the propaganda phrase RMT is *not* real. Nor is the similarity between things like Rebirthing and EMDR. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to include the information you have added *later* in the article?

West world 03:00, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

At this point, I prefer it where it is. The intro needs balance. If there is another way to do this, please let me know. Abuse truth 02:18, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Regards this edit, is the book specific to australia? If so, could you provide info on where, what cities, or if it was a national sample? Also, is the book reporting on a study, or is the survey published only in this book? A journal article is generally more helpful as the abstract is more accessible. Thanks, WLU 01:26, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi,

I was adding this to the evidence section. This quote does not regard Australia. The book is reporting on the study on page 62. Here is the footnote on the study in the Bibliography from page 680. Bottoms, B. Shaver, P. & Goodman, G. (1993) Profile of ritual abuse and religion related abuse allegations in the United States. Updated findings provided via personal communication from B. Bottoms. Cited in K.C. Faller (1994), Ritual Abuse; A Review of the research. The American Professional Society on the Abuse of Children Advisor , 7, 1, 19-27 Abuse truth 01:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

See my comment in SRA talk - the study should be cited, not the book it's cited in. Also, it should definitely be within the context of the US if that's where the original study took place. Placing it in Australia gives the impression that it was done in Australia; particularly since there is a 'US' section, it's better if the information is in the appropriate section. WLU 01:48, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I will fix this and cite the study. The data was placed under "evidence," not in the Australia section. If this is the Australia section, then it needs a title. Abuse truth 01:59, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

I've a comment on this on the SRA talk page, the citation should really be clarified, we need the original Bottoms, 1993 citation as well as the 'cited in' info. Right now google turns up nada, and I don't think anyone could track down the initial citation if they wanted to. Also, please do have a gander at WP:TALK. When your comments are not standard with others on talk pages, it becomes harder for people to read old discussions. At minimum, please ensure your comments are properly spaced, with one : more than the comment immediately preceding yours in time or in sequence. If it's gotten too far over, add <undent> or something similar to the start of the line. Failing to do so means people have to read in order by continuously referring to the signatures, which gets tedious. WLU 17:58, 25 October 2007 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Repressed memory‎. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. I'd fix your severe errors, but I'd be violating 3rr at this point, myself. I think we may just need to stub the article, or merge it with false memory. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I am willing to work toward consensus on the edits. Before you edit my sections, please discuss these edits on the talk page first. Abuse truth 02:35, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

First, you need to provide exact quotes from those sections of articles which are not available on the web, as you've shown you cannot paraphrase accurately. See, for example False memory#Quotes supporting the prevalence and accuracy of recovered memories. It's "quotes" because you continually misinterpreted the statements. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have paraphrased accurately. I have shown evidence on the talk pages that I have. This request is only being made because the POV expressed in the sections differs from yours. Abuse truth 02:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

There is no present evidence on the talk page. If you can tell me when you have shown evidence on the talk page, I can check the history. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:44, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The evidence is on the talk page in our discussion. For simplicity sake, I will repeat it below.

This data :

Brown, Scheflin and Hammond reviewed 43 studies relevant to the subject of traumatic memory and found that every study that examined the question of dissociative amnesia in traumatized populations demonstrated that a substantial minority partially or completely forget the traumatic event experienced, and later recover memories of the event.(not in citation given)

is in the article. See [1]

This is duplicate information and will be deleted:

Dissociative amnesia can occur after any type of traumatic event. Brown, Scheflin and Hammond in “Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law” (New York: Norton, 1998) reviewed 43 relevant studies involving traumatic memory. They found that all of the studies that looked the idea of dissociation and amnesia in trauma victims showed that a large minority completely or partially forgot the event that included trauma. These people later remembered memories of what happened. [not in citation given][4]

This information :

Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse.[original research?] The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts.[original research?][dubious – discuss] The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven.[improper synthesis?][dubious – discuss] [1]

comes from P. 370 - 381 of the book “Memory, Trauma Treatment, and the Law” (New York: Norton, 1998) Critical Evaluation of Research on Emotion and Memory - What do we know about Memory Suggestibility?

is derived from their analysis of the research. There is no synthesis going on in the paragraph above. All three facts have come from the chapter.

This section

The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community.[not specific enough to verify] This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence.[not specific enough to verify]} Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory.[not specific enough to verify] Three relevant studies state that repressed memories are “no more and no less accurate than continuous memories.” Therapists and courts should consider these repressed memories the same as they consider regular memories.[opinion needs balancing] [2]

[2] The first two sentences are statements of fact. They are specific and are backed by court decision cited in the article. The last two sentences need no balancing. They balance the statements made in the “Discussion,” “False Memory Syndrome” and “Criticisms of...” sections.

AR states:

“none of the online references even suggest the statement that recovered memories are normal, although one suggests that recovered memories are as reliable as continuous memories.”

There is no mention in the section that recovered memories are normal. Abuse truth 01:53, 26 October 2007 (UTC) reply

WRONG. We've gone through this before. Specifics:

Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse. The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts. The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven.

• The three sentences seem to come from the reference, but not adjacent. Putting them together is probably WP:SYN, and asserting them as summaries is only appropriate in a clearly pro-recovered-memory paragraph, as they are not necessarily generally accepted.

The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community.

• It's a quote, but again it's not a fact. There are a number of diagonses in DSM-IV which are still there but are not actually used.

This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence.

• That would have to be backed up by a court document, or would have to be, again tagged as an opinion.

Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory.

• Again, only a quote, and not possibly a fact.

Three relevant studies state that repressed memories are “no more and no less accurate than continuous memories.” Therapists and courts should consider these repressed memories the same as they consider regular memories.

• Wasn't in that reference, or, in fact, in any of the references you quoted.

The first few were marginally acceptable paraphrases, but were taken out of context. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:01, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

You state : "Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse. The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts. The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven.

• The three sentences seem to come from the reference, but not adjacent. Putting them together is probably WP:SYN, and asserting them as summaries is only appropriate in a clearly pro-recovered-memory paragraph, as they are not necessarily generally accepted."

My comment : Yes, these three sentences do come from the reference. They are generally accepted in the field.

You state: The fact that the concept of repressed memory appears in the DSM-IV shows that this concept is relevant in the specific scientific community.

• It's a quote, but again it's not a fact. There are a number of diagonses in DSM-IV which are still there but are not actually used.

My comment: All of the diagnoses in the DSM-IV are used. The concept being listed in the DSM-IV definitely shows its relevance.

You state : This satisfies the court rules regarding the admissibility of scientific testimony as court evidence.

• That would have to be backed up by a court document, or would have to be, again tagged as an opinion.

Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory.

• Again, only a quote, and not possibly a fact.

My comment : This opinion comes from his legal experience, which is highly credible.

You state: Three relevant studies state that repressed memories are “no more and no less accurate than continuous memories.” Therapists and courts should consider these repressed memories the same as they consider regular memories.

• Wasn't in that reference, or, in fact, in any of the references you quoted.

My comment: This comes directly from http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html There is no misquote here either.

My final comment: You have falsely alleged I have misinterpreted articles and statements, with no evidence of this. You have made ad hominem attacks against me on talk pages. You have accused me of lying on talk pages. All because of your POV against the data I present. None of the other data on these pages has been put up to the rigorous test and mistatements that my data has received. Abuse truth 03:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

1. Read WP:SYN. I do not beleive the sentences you've spliced together are on precisly the same topic.
2. DSM-IV is a tertiary reference, making quotes related to it a quadrenary (sp?) reference. Those are not acceptable in a tertiary reference such as ours. It should be excised, even if your claim that it's accurate is accepted.
3. http://www.psychiatrictimes.com/p991137.html wasn't the reference you used, and the exact quote is "Although the science is limited on this issue, the only three relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories." Earlier comments in the article indicate that "... the science is limited on this issue ..." (whether "this issue" is the same one we're dealing with is difficult to determine, but I digress) seems to mean that controlled experiments on traumatic memories would be unethical, so that they cannot be done. However, even then, reordering the clauses to put the stated conclusion before the stated evidence is inappropriate. You're attempted to paraphrase his summary of his book, rather than the book itself. This would be an acceptable secondary reference, but it's not the one you used.

— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:11, 7 November 2007 (UTC) reply

These are the three sentences :

"Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse. The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts. The idea that suggesting false memories in therapy can create false memories has not been proven. ^[1]"

WP:SYNstates "Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research."

The ideas above are three separate ideas cited by the authors of the book. It appears there is no synthesis of ideas here.

As I have cited previously on a talk page: "Occasional misleading ideas can’t explain false memories of sexual abuse. (Reply : the source for this line is Yapko, M.D. (1994a) Suggestions of Abuse. New York: Simon & Schuster - see p. 379 of the reference Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (1998). Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law (W. W. Norton) ISBN 0-393-70254- The idea that it is easy to implant false memories in therapy overstates available facts.

Quote from source : “The hypothesis that false memories can easily be implanted in psychotherapy (Lindsay & Read, 1994; Loftus 1993; Loftus & Ketcham, 1994; Ofshe and Watters, 1993, 1994; Yapko, 1994a) seriously overstates the available data. Since no studies have been conducted on suggested effects in psychotherapy per se, the idea of iatrogenic suggestion of false memories remains an untested hypothesis. (Memory, Trauma Treatment, And the Law Brown, Scheflin and Hammond (D. Corydon), 1998, W. W. Norton 0-393-70254-5)"

You state "DSM-IV is a tertiary reference, making quotes related to it a quadrenary (sp?) reference. Those are not acceptable in a tertiary reference such as ours. It should be excised, even if your claim that it's accurate is accepted." I have not seen Wikidepia policy on this. Please cite the specific section of policy that applies to this.

You state "However, even then, reordering the clauses to put the stated conclusion before the stated evidence is inappropriate. You're attempted to paraphrase his summary of his book, rather than the book itself. This would be an acceptable secondary reference, but it's not the one you used."

These are the original clauses I used are "Science is limited on the issue of repressed memory. Three relevant studies state that repressed memories are “no more and no less accurate than continuous memories.” Therapists and courts should consider these repressed memories the same as they consider regular memories."

The original quote is ""Although the science is limited on this issue, the only three relevant studies conclude that repressed memories are no more and no less accurate than continuous memories (Dalenberg, 1996; Widom and Morris, 1997; Williams, 1995). Thus, courts and therapists should consider repressed memories no differently than they consider ordinary memories."

It is obvious that from the above that there was no re-ordering of clauses.

And as I have stated before, I bvelieve that this debate is occuring due to your disagreement with the POV presented. There appears to be two standards for research data by some editors. All research data should be held to the same standard. Abuse truth 02:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that all research data should be held to the same standard; but there are three problems here. You are misinterpreting what the articles actually say, in all cases where the articles are available online. I haven't found a example where you've correctly interpreted an article before it was tagged, yet. The question of whether the articles are credible is a different one, which I may have had unjustified bias on. The question of whether the article or section has relevance to the specific Wikipedia article is yet another question, on which we have differences. I cannot tell why the prevalence of sexual abuse of children is related to false claims of sexual abuse; even if a child is abused, he is likely, according to almost all sources, not to accuse the actual perpetrator, but to accuse others if pressed. (That doesn't necessarily relate to false memories except possibly for later cognitive dissonance.) I cannot tell why anti-false-memory books are relevant to Elisabeth Loftus. I'm sure there are other examples where I question the relevance, but those are the only ones I remember at the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:37, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

I have not misinterpreted the articles. As you can see from your summation of the quotation section - that these quotes are similar to the information I put in the article originally. And due to your POV, I am not sure you can be an impartial judge of the interpretation of my edits. I have never seen any evidence that a child can be pressed to accuse the wrong person. Please feel free to cite journal articles about this. The books are relevant to Loftus because she talks about memory and its accuracy. Abuse truth 20:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Were the people accused of witchcraft at Salem really witches? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 23:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC) reply

The Salem trials have no relevance to the present cases at hand. It is like saying that apples and oranges are the same because they are both round. In other words, one must look at the evidence presented at each individual trial to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Abuse truth 19:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC) reply

Apples and oranges aren't the same, they are similar. They are both edible fruits grown on trees. When discussing edible fruits, the two almost always appear together. Your argument is hollow. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) 21:57, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Disagree. Each trial must be looked at on its own merits. It is improper to shade a modern case with an unrelated one 300 years before. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:37, 6 December 2007 (UTC

• We are talking about article naming conventions in an encyclopedia, naming conventions should be consistent for all articles per the Manual of Style, not on an ad hoc basis. -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 19:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I agree that naming conventions should be consistent for all articles. Wikipedia NPOV page states "Readers should be allowed to form their own opinions." IMO, this means that a title should not be a biased one, but should allow readers the opportunity to decide the issue on the different facts in the article. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

December 2007

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Day care sex abuse hysteria. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Nathan 19:23, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for the warning. I will try to work this out on the talk page. Abuse truth 22:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I have removed this barnstar. WLU ( talk) 15:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the barnstar. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC) reply

In the past 24 hours, you have reverted Satanic ritual abuse three times. See [3], [4], and [5]. If you revert the article a fourth time within 24 hours, you may be blocked under the three-revert rule. *** Crotalus *** 18:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I noticed this at the Satanic ritual abuse history page.

(cur) (last) 15:50, 7 December 2007 Crotalus horridus (Talk | contribs) (64,788 bytes) (?History - Noblitt/Perskin is not a reliable source (see talk) and the rest of the Freud stuff is original research by synthesis without that cite) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:49, 7 December 2007 Crotalus horridus (Talk | contribs) m (65,897 bytes) (?Skepticism) (undo)

(cur) (last) 15:48, 7 December 2007 Crotalus horridus (Talk | contribs) (65,914 bytes) (Removed unreliable source (website run by some random group with no apparent credentials)) (undo)

(cur) (last) 07:51, 7 December 2007 Crotalus horridus (Talk | contribs) (66,274 bytes) (Revert; the other version was POV and does not accurately reflect what the cited articles say) (undo) Abuse truth ( talk) 19:35, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Recovered memory therapy. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Repeated readding material generally accepted as irrelevant is not protected from 3RR.

But you are doing the same thing. You are reverting the edits I make. Abuse truth ( talk) 19:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Agreed. We're both at 3 reverts within the last 24 hours, at the moment, meaning that if DG decides to gut the article, neither of us can do anything about it. I think he wants to remove sources that both us consider reliable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:26, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I assume that we have different POVs on most issues around this topic. But, the editing that is going on presently appears to be taking time away from real article development. Is there a way we can come to a middle ground on some of these edits? Perhaps if less large paragraph deletion occurred and there was more discussion on the talk pages first, compromises could be achieved quicker. Abuse truth ( talk) 19:35, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I'm afreaid that you, and two editors who haven't actually edited the page, are the only ones who feel that your text is appropriate. There are more who feel that they are accurate, but I don't even see a strong consensus for that, in some of your "quotes" (not necessarily in this article.) I think that summarizing the relevant sections of repressed memory and false memory which are relevant to recovered memory therapy with an explanation of why they are appropriate might be OK, but I'm not sure that either of us could actually do that. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 9 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I respectfully disagree. I believe that the topics are directly related and that one can definitely shed light on another. I am open to compromising on editing the data, but not large deletions of it. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:03, 11 December 2007 (UTC) reply

A Request for Mediation to which you were are a party was not accepted and has been delisted. You can find more information on the case subpage, Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Recovered Memory Therapy. For the Mediation Committee, Daniel 09:45, 8 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hi Abuse truth, I've been working on RMT to remove unsourced material. At present I'm slowing reading the sources quoted in the article and checking that they are accurately reflected in the statements in the article. Once that process is completed i plan to start applying WP:WEIGHT. I see you are very active in contributing to RMT and would appreciate your input when we start applying weight to the article. When this occurs we will be giving more space to material from the more reliable sources. We will not be comparing space given to supporters with space given to critics for example.

As I see it some of your disdagreement with the present article revovles around how much space to be given to the background of RMT in the area of material showing that memories of trauma can return to conscious awareness. At present I have no idea how much space this material deserves as I have not read all the existing sources yet. However I am sure that you can edit from a stronger position if you have a good understanding of WP:WEIGHT and WP:RS. I'm happy to discuss these with you - though I dont have enough info as yet to discuss how they apply specifically to RMT. SmithBlue ( talk) 23:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your note. IMO, WP:WEIGHT appears to be a fairly subjective concept when applied to some pages by some users. I would be very interested in hearing your take on this once you have read all of the existing sources. I would be more than happy to give input on this topic. Abuse truth ( talk) 19:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Hello Abuse truth. I think the work you are trying to do is good and would like to discuss ways that we can be more effective at cleaning up the misinformation that appears to be rampant on Wikipedia in the area of child abuse and it's effects. If you wouldn't mind, send me an email at daniel dot santos at pobox dot com (of course, put it together). Daniel Santos ( talk) 05:36, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

It should be pointed out that negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV) into an article is considered inapproriate. Now, working out wording of paragraphs with references can quite legitimately be done offline. Please make it clear what you're working on, or the two of you may be considered meatpuppets for the purpose of WP:3RR and other related questions where it makes a difference who is making the edits. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:35, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

Arthur Rubin states above: "negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV) into an article is considered inapproriate." Yet you appear to be doing this currently on your own talk page at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Arthur_Rubin#Recovered_Memory_Therapy

And I quote:

"Interesting. I don't remember who claimed there was a DSM-IV classification for repressed memory, if it's not User:Abuse truth, but you might note that on the appropriate talk page. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 9 December 2007 (UTC) Hi Arthur, I've been watching the ongoing to and fro in the "Trauma Model" section, but not sure what to do about it. I might have a crack at summarising what AT is trying to insert, as a compromise. A while ago, I did put a sentence at the end "A related but distinct topic to that of memories being recovered in therapy, is the theory of repressed memory..." I hoped that would serve to re-direct people to the precise topic of RM, making AT's lengthy additions unnecessary, but to no avail. Also I have a feeling the whole term "Trauma Model of Psychopathology" itself might need a source, as I'm not entirely sure there are a separate group of therapists who formally work under that model. Could be wrong on that though. Cheers Matt. MatthewTStone (talk) 03:28, 13 December 2007 (UTC)"

More interesting is the pattern of edits at the RMT page :

(cur) (last) 01:17, 14 December 2007 MatthewTStone (Talk | contribs) (31,719 bytes) (Undid revision 177787278 by Abuse truth (talk)Consensus needed to insert this text) (undo)

(removal of the four paragraphs AR previously deleted several times)

Revision as of 02:18, 15 December 2007 (edit) (undo)

Arthur Rubin (Talk | contribs)

(Delete as STILL irrelevant. Work it out on a talk subpage, if you like. Undid revision 177939428 by Abuse truth (talk))

Newer edit ?

(again also deleted the four paragraphs)

"Would these actions by AR and MS be "considered meatpuppetry for the purpose of WP:3RR?" Abuse truth ( talk) 19:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I was going to say "offline" negotations, and was then going to change it to "off-Wiki", and then decided to leave it out, entirely. If tactics were discussed on-Wiki, and were followed, that might be an indication of meatpuppetry, but reviewing Admins could check whether it was inappropriate discussion. Offline, the Admins cannot check, so.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC) reply

AR, you are way out of line. First, you are incredibly presumptuous:

It should be pointed out that negotiating strategy and tactics for getting your POV (even if NPOV) into an article is considered inapproriate.

Show me the money bud. I mean, show me where in policy it says that you cannot discuss strategies, on- or off- line, for improving articles. This type of intimidation is absolutely unbecomming of an admin and I have to wonder if you have crossed some policy line here. Secondly, you presume the intent is to alter the article to present a personal POV. What I choose to discuss with another individual, on or off line is none of your business and you can very kindly stay out of it. Daniel Santos ( talk) 06:45, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

You are clearly intended to discuss strategy for getting your POV into the article, not necessarily for improving it. (And I am assuming good faith misinterpretation of the guidelines, rather than intentional violation.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 10:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

My intent is to improve the pages. I have only added information to balance the pages. And I have never deleted well-sourced data that follows wikipedia policy that disagrees with my POV. Abuse truth ( talk) 23:07, 16 December 2007 (UTC) reply

So AR, are you on some psychic hotline? Can you predict my future? What level of grandiosity do you suffer from that causes you to believe that you know what is inside of my mind or that you unfailingly comprehend my intentions? I have filed an informal complaint about your behavior on this posting. Daniel Santos ( talk) 07:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC) reply

I just felt like wishing you a happy new year - despite any "(insert word here)" wars you might get associated with by people (of whom I am sceptic) in the future. -- Gwyndon ( talk) 00:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your good wishes. Hope you have a happy new year also. Abuse truth ( talk) 19:29, 5 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi Abuse truth, I have not yet read my way through the sources on RMT unfortunately. What I am writing you about is the apparent edit-warring on RMT. I've been reading some arbitration committee decisions and edit warring occurrs frequently without 3RRR being broken. And all editors involved who are not trying actively to build consensus bear responsibility. Rather than all us involved getting censured I suggest we discuss on the talk page what is best for the article in terms of inclusion. From what I see there are multiple sourced POVs on RMT. What we need consencus on is what level of detail/explanation is best. Hope this works for all concerned. SmithBlue ( talk) 02:57, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi SmithBlue. I agree that the talk page is the best place to work things out. Please feel free to comment here as to how to proceed. Abuse truth ( talk) 03:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi AT,

Regards this edit, please note the essay WP:QUOTE - though not a policy or even guideline, it's still useful and informative on the best use of quotations in an article. The inclusion of quotations when summary style is applicable is not best practices, and it means that I, or another editor need to convert into prose. The biggest objection I've seen is the use of quotations places undue weight on the quoted section because, as quotes are so rare, it makes them stand out a lot more. Also, from my reading, the statements are not controversial enough, or perplexing enough, to require a direct quotation. I'll be converting them to prose as soon as I can, but as a favour to me and your fellow editors, could you use prose summaries in the future?

Thanks,

WLU ( talk) 00:08, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi,

Thanks for the wiki url. Will read and use. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:04, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Lovely. Could you also nip one further habit? You've a tendency to leave a space between a reference and a period or other punctuation. "Blah blah blah. <ref>Like this</ref>" Again, it's a matter of looking unusual and out of sync with the rest of the article and the rest of wikipedia. I'm not averse to driving my edit count up through correction of minor spelling, style and grammatical errors, but there's always other things I'd rather be doing. Generally it's punctuation, no space, reference, to look like:

this.^[1]

rather than this. ^[1]

or this^[1].

or (God forbid) this^[1] .

If you've a specific reason rather than habit, then please let us discuss. Otherwise, it's a nice favour for the other editors. WLU ( talk) 17:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi AT, regards [6] this comment by Arthur Rubin, I agree with him that though this set of publications are all by the same author, given that they are published in three different peer-reviewed journals, over three years, implies a level of acceptance such that its not a single person's opinion in the wilderness, but a series of review articles which are among the more reliable of sources (I'd say WP:PSTS applies, but I also like this section for the area). Also, adding a name always give the 'so what and who's that' effect - why does it matter that a specific person is mentioned? I'd say the circumstances where it is appropriate are when the person is notable (i.e. Stephen Jay Gould regards paleontology or Richard Dawkins regards paleo or atheism), or if they're the minority. From my knowledge, McNally would represent the majority mainstream scientific position and publication of a similar topic in three different journals means he's got credibility, weight and the support of editors who review submissions. WLU ( talk) 19:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Hi, I agree with the reasoning that if he is published in three journals, then this does imply some level of acceptance for his work. Abuse truth ( talk) 03:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Note my comment here on external links and further reading. WLU ( talk) 15:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC) reply

See my reply on here. Abuse truth ( talk) 03:16, 7 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Note that my original reply here was more extensive, but I am posting it on your talk page instead as it is a comment on you, not the page.

You were accused of gaming the system because to a dedicated editor your action looks like a sneaky way to cram information back into the page by changing the form, not the substance. To a dedicated editor who has a broad interest and not your narrow focus, your actions say 'it is more important to me that I have these books in the page, than it is to consider how my actions improve wikipedia.' And it is a very narrow focus, very POV and even your user name screams it - anyone with the word 'truth' in their user name says to any experienced wikipedian, "I have a point of view, and I am going to use it." Look at your contributions on wannabe kate - do you see a pattern? I have never seen you write for the enemy. Have you ever been pointed to the Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ? Consider yourself pointed. WLU ( talk) 15:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You make some good points above. However, my intent was to improve wikipedia as an information source, in the particular example above, I was just trying to figure out how to do it. I have actually tried to "walk a mile in their shoes" and not judge the "enemy." And I do acknowledge that another point of view is possible. I have never deleted reliable sources that have disagreed with my own position. To the best of my ability, I have followed the position below and added reliable sources to balance text. Other editors (not you though) unfortunately feel the need to delete reliable sources that do not adhere to a skeptical POV.

"Lack of neutrality as an excuse to delete - The neutrality policy is used sometimes as an excuse to remove text that is perceived as biased. Isn't this a problem?

In many cases, yes. Many editors believe that bias is not in itself reason to remove text, because in some articles all additions are likely to express bias. Instead, material that balances the bias should be added, and sources should be found per WP:V. Material that violates WP:NOR should be removed."

This has been good. It has given me ideas to think about. Abuse truth ( talk) 02:37, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Don't judge the enemy, write for them. Totally different. Failing to delete something you disagree with isn't the same thing as taking a source that you disagree with and attempting to fairly represent it. You add one side of reliable sources. Want a useful experience leading ot a valuable skill? Add or expand on the texts by McNally or Piper to the RMT or repressed memory pages. Edit more pages, that are beyond your extant very limited set. Your current pattern forces you to interact with only a small number of editors on a very POV set of page in a way that very obviously reflects your point of view. You are getting a biased impression of wikipedia and its processes. Thinking isn't as good as experiencing. WLU ( talk) 18:17, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

This sounds interesting. Thanks for your ideas on this. I will consider this. Abuse truth ( talk) 22:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC) reply

You e-mail users through their user page. On User:WLU you click on the link 'e-mail this user' below the search box on the left column. Also, you could probably do so by clicking this link. I will not post my e-mail address on any page for spam and privacy concerns, and I don't know if this will include your return address or let you even mail me as you haven't specified an address. I'd recommend specifying one as it's pretty handy to have, but if you'd rather not then try to e-mail me and contact me on my talk page if it doesn't work. WLU ( talk) 15:51, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Try to email people or use the talk pages. You have attracted a lot of attention with your edit wars, and you may be subject to blocking. Bearian ( talk) 17:15, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply

regarding email as relates to the block

AT, you've seen from your talk page discussions and the AN/I post, it might take a while for the situation of your block to resolve. I don't know you as a person, but I've seen that you are trying in good faith to address the concerns of the editors who complained about your methods. It hasn't been sufficient yet, but I believe you're on the right track and eventually you'll find a way to return to editing.

Meanwhile, it would be helpful for you to enable email on your account so you can communicate with people directly, and there are additional avenues open to you with email, some that are described on this page: Wikipedia:Appealing a block. If privacy is your concern, set up a gmail or yahoo account without your real name, for email that you use only with Wikipedia.

By enabling your email, you would show you are willing to be more involved in the community, and that could help your relationships to become less adversarial. For example, you've had some content disputres with User:WLU, but even so, s/he invited you to communicate by email. That shows that WLU was willing to communicate with you more, to work things out rather than escalating the disputes. But you've declined and kept yourself more isolated by avoiding email.

I can't say for sure how much difference it would make, but it might help to have more ways of communicating during a time when you can only post on your talk page. This is an indef block, not a ban, so it's not hopeless at this point, though it's difficult. Good luck. -- Jack-A-Roe ( talk) 00:00, 25 February 2008 (UTC) reply

Please see [7]. I've kind of got fed up with what's going on at the SRA article, as you've probably guessed. Moreschi ^{If you've written a quality article...} 17:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC) reply